In completeness and phraseology the provisions in the State constitutions on the subject of religious liberty differ very greatly, some of them being confined to declarations and prohibitions designed to secure the most perfect equality before the law of all shades of religious belief, while some exhibit a jealousy of eccleşiastical authority by making persons who exercise the functions of a clergyman, priest, or teacher of any religious persuasion, society, or sect, ineligible to civil office,1 and still others show some traces of the old notion, that truth and a sense of duty are inconsistent with scepticism in religion.2 These are exceptional

to authority in the State. Roger Williams explained and defended his own views and illustrated the subject thus: "There goes many a ship to sea, with many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is a true picture of a commonwealth, or human combination or society. It hath fallen out sometimes that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks, may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal, I affirm that all the liberty of conscience I ever pleaded for turns upon these two hinges, that none of the Papists, Protestants, Jews, or Turks be forced to come to the ship's prayers, or worship, nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they practise any. I further add, that I never denied that, notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of this ship ought to command the ship's course, yea, and also command that justice, peace, and sobriety be kept and practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their service, or passengers to pay their freight; if any refuse to help, in person or purse, towards the common charges or defence; if any refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning their common peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders and officers; if any should preach or write that there ought to be no commanders or officers, because all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, no laws nor orders, no corrections nor punishments; I say I never denied but in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders may judge, resist, compel, and punish such transgressors according to their deserts and merits." Arnold's History of Rhode Island, vol. 1, 254; citing Knowles, 279, 280.

1 There are provisions to this effect, more or less broad, in the constitutions of Tennessee, Louisiana, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina, Texas, Delaware, and Kentucky.

2 The constitution of Pennsylvania provides "that no person who acknowledges the being of God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall on account of his religious sentiments be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth." Art. 9, § 4. The constitution of North Tennessee: "No person who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." Art. 9, § 2. The constitution of Arkansas: "No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil department of this State, nor be allowed his oath in any court." Art. 8, § 3. The constitution of Mississippi: "No per

clauses, however, and not great in number, and it is believed they are not often made use of to deprive any person of the civil or political rights or privileges which are placed within the reach of his fellows.

Those things which are not lawful under any of the American constitutions be stated thus: may

1. Any law respecting an establishment of religion. The legis latures have not been left at liberty to effect a union of Church and State, or to establish preferences by law in favor of any one religious denomination or mode of worship. There is not religious liberty where any one sect is favored by the State and given an advantage by law over other sects. Whatever establishes a distinction against one class or sect is, to the extent to which the distinction operates unfavorably, a persecution; and, if based on religious grounds, is religious persecution. It is not toleration which is established in our system, but religious equality.

2. Compulsory support, by taxation or otherwise, of religious instruction. Not only is no one denomination to be favored at the expense of the rest, but all support of religious instruction must be entirely voluntary.

3. Compulsory attendance upon religious worship. Whoever is not led by choice or a sense of duty to attend upon the ordinances of religion is not to be compelled to do so by the State. The State will seek, so far as practicable, to enforce the obligations and duties which the citizen may owe to his fellow-citizen, but those which he owes to his Maker are to be enforced by the admonitions of the conscience, and not by the penalties of human laws.

4. Restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of the conscience. No external authority is to place itself son who denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State." On the other hand, the constitutions of Alabama, Kansas, Virginia, West Virginia, Maine, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Oregon, Ohio, New Jersey, Nebraska, Texas, and Wisconsin, expressly forbid religious tests as a qualification for office or public trust. The constitution of Tennessee also, by its bill of rights, forbids any such test, but afterwards establishes one. The constitution of Maryland provides "that no other test or qualification ought to be required on admission to any office of trust or profit than such oath of allegiance and fidelity to this State and the United States as may be prescribed by this constitution, and such oath of office and qualification as may be prescribed by this constitution, or by the laws of the State, and a declaration of belief in the Christian religion, or in the existence of God, and in a future state of rewards and punishments." Declaration of Rights, art. 37.

between the finite being and the Infinite, when the former is seeking to render that homage which is due, and in a mode which commends itself to his belief as suitable for him to render and acceptable to its object.

5. Restraints upon the expression of religious belief. An earnest believer usually regards it his duty to propagate his opinions. To deprive him of this right is to take from him the power to perform what he considers a most sacred obligation.

These are the prohibitions which in some form of words are to be found in the American constitutions, and which secure freedom. of conscience and of religious worship. No man in religious matters is to be subjected to the censorship of the State or of any public authority; and the State is not to inquire into or take notice of religious belief, when the citizen performs his duty to the State and to his fellows.1

But while thus careful to establish religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades

1 Congress is forbidden, by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Mr. Story says of this provision: "It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different States equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity, of such an exclusion. In some of the States Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; and in others again there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the State constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith or mode of worship." Story on the Constitution, § 1879.

of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the great Governor of the universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, at the same time that we bow in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by exempting houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of the State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of any one denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things will not be unconstitutional, simply because of being susceptible of abuse. This .public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself, as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will also incline it to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals, and valuable, if not indispensable assistants to the preservation of the public order.

Nor, while recognizing a superintending Providence, are we always precluded from recognizing also, in the rules prescribed for the conduct of citizens, the patent fact that the prevailing religion in the States is Christian. Some acts would be offensive to public sentiment in a Christian community, and would tend to public disorder, which, in a Mahometan or Pagan country, might be passed without notice, or even be regarded as meritorious. The criminal laws of every country have reference in great degree to the prevailing public sentiment, and punish those acts as crimes which disturb the peace and order, or tend to shock the moral sense, of the community. The moral sense is measurably regulated and controlled by the religious belief; and therefore it is that those things which, estimated by a Christian standard, are profane and blasphemous are properly punished as offences, since they are offensive in the highest degree to the general public sense, and have a direct tendency to undermine the moral support of the laws and corrupt the community.

It is frequently said that Christianity is a part of the law of the land. In a certain sense, and for certain purposes, this is true. The best features of the common law, and especially those which relate to the family and social relations; which compel the parent to support the child, and the husband the wife; which make the marriage tie permanent, and forbid polygamy, have either been derived from, or have been improved and strengthened by, the prevailing religion and the teachings of its sacred book. But the law does not attempt to enforce the precepts of Christianity, on the ground of their sacred character or divine origin. Some of those precepts are universally recognized as being incapable of enforcement by human laws, notwithstanding they are of continual and universal obligation. Christianity, therefore, is not a part of the law of the land, in the sense that would entitle the courts to take notice of and base their judgments upon it, except so far as they should find that its precepts had been incorporated in, and thus become a component part of, the law.1

Mr. Justice Story has said, in the Girard will case, that although Christianity is a part of the common law of the state, it is only so in this qualified sense, that its divine origin and truth are admitted, and therefore it is not to be maliciously and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of believers or to the injury of the public. It may be doubted, however, if the punishment of blasphemy is based necessarily upon an admission of the divine origin and truth of the Christian religion.

Blasphemy has been defined as consisting in speaking evil of the Deity with an impious purpose to derogate from the divine. majesty, and to alienate the minds of others from the love and reverence of God. It is purposely using words concerning God calculated and designed to impair and destroy the reverence, respect, and confidence due to him, as the intelligent Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world. It embraces the idea of detraction when used toward the Supreme Being, as calumny usually carries the same idea when applied to an individual. It is a wilful and malicious attempt to lessen men's reverence of God, by denying his existence, or his attributes as an intelligent Creator, Governor, and Judge of men, and to prevent their having confidence in him

1 Andrew v. Bible Society, 4 Sandf. 182; Ayres v. Methodist Church, 3 Sandf.

377.

2 Vidal v. Girard Ex'rs, 2 How. 198.