The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
The "Sundays excepted" argument was first advanced by the Rev. Jasper Adams in his Sermon "The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government In the United States," preached in the St. Michael's Church, Charleston, South Carolina, February 13, 1833. The Sermon was then published in pamphlet form.
Researched and edited by Jim Allison |
Again, in Art. 1, Sec. 7, c. 2 of the Constitution of the United States, provision is made, that, "if any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law." In adopting this provision, it was clearly presumed by the people, that the President of the United States would not employ himself in public business on Sunday. There is no other way to explain the fact that, in the case contemplated, they have given him ten business days, during which he may consider a bill and prepare his objections to it. The people had been accustomed to pay special respect to Sunday from the first settlement of the country. They assumed, that the President also would wish to respect the day. They did not think it suitable or becoming to require him, by a constitutional provision, to respect the day--they assumed that he would adhere to the customary observance without a requirement. To have enacted a constitutional provision, would have left him no choice, and would have been placing no confidence in him. They have placed the highest possible confidence in him, by assuming without requiring it, that his conduct in this respect would be according to their wishes. Every man who is capable of being influenced by the higher and more delicate motives of duty cannot fail to perceive, that the obligation on the President to respect the observance of Sunday, is greatly superior to any which could have been created by a constitutional enactment. It is said in the text, that this obligation extends by parity of reasoning to all persons employed in stations subordinate to the Presidency in the service of the United States. This is certainly true, but it is perhaps not Putting the argument in its strongest light. The reasoning is quite as much a fortiori as a pari. The people in adopting the Constitution, must have been convinced, that the public business entrusted to the President, would be greater in importance and variety, than that which would fall to the share of any functionary employed in a subordinate station. The expectation and confidence, then, manifested by the people of the United States, that their President will respect their Sunday, by abstaining from public business on that day, must extend a fortiori to all employed in subordinate stations.(36) The recognitions of Christianity in the State Constitutions are of three kinds. 1. These instruments are usually dated in the year of our Lord, and the same observations which were made on this phrase in the case of the Constitution of the United States, are no less applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the Constitutions of the respective States. 2. Nearly all of them refer to the observance of Sunday by the Chief Executive Magistrate, in the same way in which such observance is referred to, in the Constitution of the United States; and, therefore, in regard to them, no further observations are required. 3. Definite constitutional provisions not only recognizing the Christian religion, but affording it countenance, encouragement and protection: the principal of which are quoted in the text P. 12, and in Note B.
(Source of information: "The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government In the United States" preached in the St. Michael's Church, Charleston, South Carolina, February 13, 1833, Then published in pamphlet form. Footnote 10, Endnote "C" page 31-32 of said pamphlet. Williams L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Anne Arbor, Michigan.
Rev. Jasper Adams Sermon/pamphlet was countered in the following article two years later:
"In order to complete our examination of the constitutions, we must refer to the Constitution of South Carolina and the Constitution of the United States. Before we do so more particularly, we will notice two expressions which are to be found not only in those constitutions, but in several already examined. We do this, not because the expressions themselves call for any comment--but because an ingenious though sophistical argument has been built upon them. "The expressions are: 1. "If any bill shall not be returned by the president (or governor) within ten days, (the number differs in different states,) SUNDAYS EXCEPTED" &c. 2. "Done in Convention, &c., in the YEAR OF OUR LORD" &c. "Upon the first expression, Mr. Adams has borrowed the argument of Mr. Frelinghuysen in the United States' Senate. Upon the second, so far as we are informed, he is entitled to the credit of originality. Both expressions, he contends, are recognitions of Christianity. "We have already remarked, that many of the state constitutions were framed in the midst of war and confusion--when the public mind was engrossed with political subjects. Ninety-nine hundredths of the people were, and still are thoroughly convinced of the truth of the Christian scriptures. The exception of Sundays, above cited, notwithstanding the many political reasons which may be urged in its favour, is to be attributed to this general conviction. Public opinion will have its effect; and we are only surprised that more expressions of this occasional kind are not to be found in the constitutions. But to infer from this that the people of the several states have retained the Christian religion as the foundation of their civil, legal, and political institutions, is worse than absurd. It is building up weakness. It is like an attempt to construct an inverted pyramid--to rear an immense superstructure with a point for a base. But if we are shocked at so sweeping an inference from such premises, what must we think, when we reflect that the inference is directly contradicted by the various provisions already cited from the constitutions themselves!"
Source of information:
"Immunity of religion", American Quarterly Review 17, No 34(June 1835) 319-40. Author is unknown, but it is believed to be one of the following, Thomas Cooper, Randell Hunt, Joseph Hopkins or Peter S. Du Ponceau as reprinted in Religion and Politics in the Early Republic, Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate. Editor Daniel L. Dreisbach, The University Press of Kentucky (1996) pp 140-141.