What are the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God? Why did America's founders use these terms? How were these terms applied to common law? These questions are answered here.
Further information can be found at
Legal author. Read about Anderson here.
CHRISTIAN. One who believes or ascents to the doctrines of Christianity, as taught by Jesus Christ in the New Testament, or who, being born of Christian parents or in a Christian country, does not profess any other religion, or does not belong to any one of the other religious divisions of man.2 See NAME, 1.
Christianity. The system of doctrines and precepts taught by Christ; the religion founded by Christ.
Christianity is said to be part of the common law. "Christianity is parcel of the laws of England; and, therefore. to reproach the Christian religion is to speak in subversion of the law." 3
"The essential principles of natural religion" and "of revealed religion are a part of the common law, so that any person reviling or subverting or ridiculing them may be prosecuted at common law." 4
"The true sense of the maxim is that the law will not permit the essential principles of revealed religion to be ridiculed and reviled."5 Christianity is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania in the 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 the injury of the public.6 Not Christianity founded upon any particular religious tenets; but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.7
The maxim does not mean that Christianity is an established religion; nor that its precepts, by force of their own authority, form part of our system of municipal law; nor that the courts may base their judgments upon the Bible; nor that religious duties may be penalty enforced; nor that legal discrimination in favor of Christianity is allowed.8
2 [Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 50 (1868), Sargent, J. On the "Arrest and Trial of Jesus," see 36 Alb. Law J. 384-388 (1887); Greenleaf, Test. Evangelists, &c.
3 Taylor's Case, Ventris. 293 (1676), Hale. C. J. See Rex v. Woolston, 2 Strange, 834 (1729); 4 Bl. Com. 59; 2 Steph, Hist. Cr. L. Eng. 438.
4 Case of Evans, 2 Burn. Ec. L. 185 (1780), Mansfield. C. J.
5 Lives of Chief Justices, vol. 3, p. 417, Ld. Campbell.
6 Vidal v. Girard's Executor; 2 How. 198 (1844), Story, J.
7 Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 399 (1824).
8 See 18 Alb. Law J. 366 (1876); 21 Am. Law Reg. 201, 329, 537 (1873); People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 294 (1811). Kent, C. J.: Chapman v. Gillett, 2 Conn. 43 (1816); Updegraph v. Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 399-401 (1824); State v. Chandler, 2 Harr., Del., 562 (1837); Shover v. State, 10 Ark. 263 (1850); Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio, 389 (1853); Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 563-568 (1861); Sparhawk v. Union Passenger Ry. Co., 54 Pa. 432 (1867); Hale v. Everett, 53 N. H. 204 (1868); Board of Education v. Minor, 23 Ohio St. 246-54 (1872); 20 Alb. Law J. 265, 285 (1879).
The best features of the common law, especially those which regard the family and social relations, if not derived from, have at least 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, though we may admit their continual and universal obligation, we must nevertheless recognize as being incapable of enforcement by human laws. Those precepts, moreover, affect the heart, and address themselves to the conscience; while the laws of the state can regard the outward conduct only: for which reasons Christianity is not a part of the law of the land in any sense which entitles the courts to take notice of and base their judgments upon it, except so far they can find that its precepts and principles have been incorporated in and made a component part of the law of the State.1
The maxim can have no reference to the law of the National government, since the sources of that law are the Constitution, treaties, and acts of Congress.2
1 Cooley, Const. Lim. 432, cases.
2 See Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591 (1834); Pennsylvania v. Wheeling, &c. Bridge Co., 18 How. 519 (1851).
3 Robertson v. Bullions, 9 Barb. 95 (1850).
4 Silsby v. Barlow, 16 Gray, 330 (1560); Anderson v. Brock, 3 Me. 247 (1825).
5 Society v. Hatch, 48 N. H. 396 (1869).
6 State v. Midgett. 86 N. C. 538 (1881). See also 9 Cranch, 326; 16 Conn. 291; 3 Harr., Del., 257; 88 Ind. 131; 16 Mass. 498; 3 Paige, Ch. 301; 3 Tex. 288.
A student of James Kent, a famous jurist whose commentaries greatly influenced the shaping of common law in the new United States. Read about Burrill here and in the Dictionary of American Biography.
American statesman who served as the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President James Madison. Read about Dallas here and here.
Legal writer and compiler. Read about Jacob here and here.
Scientist and inventor, writer of natural philosophy. Read about here and in the Dictionary of National Biography.
Author from Birmingham, Alabama.
American Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South. Read about Galloway here and here.
Daniel Webster, the great "expounder of the constitution," in the celebrated Girard will case before the Supreme Court of the United States, in February, 1844, most ably advocated the doctrine that Christianity is the common law of this nation. He sought to set aside the munificent devise of Stephen Girard for the establishment of a college in Philadelphia, on the ground that the testator had discriminated against the Christian religion, even going so far as to provide that no minister of the gospel should ever be admitted within the walls of the institution. With imperial eloquence he discussed the vital connection between religion and education, and triumphantly showed that he who would profanely divorce the two made a ruthless assault upon the common law of the land. Though somewhat lengthy, I must quote the following splendid passage:
"It is the same in Pennsylvania as elsewhere: the general principles and public policy are sometimes established by constitutional provisions, sometimes by legislative enactments, sometimes by judicial decisions, sometimes by general consent. But however they may be established, there is nothing that we look for with more certainty than the general principle that Christianity is a part of the law of the land. This was the case among the Puritans of New England, the Episcopalians of the Southern States, the Pennsylvania Quakers, the Baptists, the mass of the followers of Whitefield and Wesley, and the Presbyterians; all brought and all adopted this great truth, and all have sustained it. And where there is any religious sentiment amongst men at all, this sentiment incorporates itself with the law. Everything declares it. The massive cathedral of the Catholic; the Episcopalian church, with its lofty spire pointing heavenward; the plain temple of the Quaker; the log church of the hardy pioneer of the wilderness; the mementoes and memorials around and about us; the consecrated graveyards, their tombstones and epitaphs, their silent vaults, their moldering contents-all attest it. The dead prove it as well as the living. The generations that are gone before speak it, and pronounce it from the tomb. We feel it. All, all proclaim that Christianity, general, tolerant Christianity, Christianity independent of sects and parties, that Christianity to which the sword and fagot are unknown, general, tolerant Christianity, is the law of the land."
In a celebrated case in the state of New York, in which a man was charged with blasphemy, the Supreme Bench held the validity and constitutionality of the law. Chief Justice Kent, the distinguished author of the " Commentaries on American Law," delivered the opinion of the court. He said: . . . "We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity. . . . This declaration (of the New York constitution in favor of religious liberty) never meant to withdraw religion in general, and with it the best sanctions of moral and social obligation, from all consideration and motion of law. To construe it as breaking down the common law barriers against licentious, wanton, and impious attacks upon Christianity itself would be an enormous perversion of its meaning."
Judge Theodore W. Dwight, a distinguished jurist, and for many years the learned dean of the Columbia Law School, New York, gave this able opinion on the subject: "It is well settled by decisions in the courts of the leading states of the Union-e.g., New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts-that Christianity is a part of the common law of the state. Its recognition is shown in the administration of oaths in the courts of justice, in the rules which punish those who wilfully blaspheme, in the observance of Sunday, in the prohibition of profanity, in the legal establishment of permanent charitable trusts, and in the legal principles which control a parent in the education and training of his children. One of the American courts (that of Pennsylvania) states the law in this manner: 'Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law of this state-Christianity without the spiritual artillery of European countries -not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets, not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.' The American states adopted these principles from the common law of England, rejecting such portions of the English law on this subject as were not suited to their customs and institutions. Our national development has in it the best and purest elements of historic Christianity, as related to the government of states. Should we tear Christianity out of our law, we would rob our law of its fairest jewels, we would deprive it of its richest treasures, we would arrest its growth, and bereave it of its capacity to adapt itself to the progress in culture, refinement, and morality of those for whose benefit it properly exists."
The influence of Christianity is of final authority in the proceedings and decisions of our courts of justice. The testimony of witnesses is rejected if the solemnity of an oath is not sustained by belief in the God of heaven. The judge is compelled to inquire: "Do you believe in a God? Do you believe in a future state of rewards and punishments?" If the witness answers in the negative, his testimony is incompetent in the determination of any judicial question, however trivial or important. Thus the administration of law depends upon our holy religion-confidence in human veracity-a confidence necessary to the business of the state and the judicial determination of questions in controversy-grounds upon religious character. The state has to resort to the individual conscience. A judicial oath supposes a conscience sensitive to the issues of an eternal judgment, to give it solemnity and moral weight.
And this doctrine has been fundamental in the jurisprudence and governmental administration of all nations. It is a fact that when infidelity had destroyed the national faith of Greece, and "there was no god to swear by," her officials became corrupt, and the proud republic tottered to its ruin. Rome prospered as the religious convictions of the people were most acute and the authority of conscience was most respected. If a Roman soldier violated his oath, even death in battle did not arrest judgment against him. His crime was thought to pursue him into the spirit world and there " confront him at the tribunal of his infernal judges, Minos, Rhadamanthus, and ^Eacus, whose sentence it would receive to eternal perdition." No wonder, under the discipline of such faith in the rewards of the future, Rome attained to imperial grandeur.
And the official acts of the Presidents of the United States, in their proclamations appointing days of thanksgiving or fasting, and in their addresses to the people, have paid reverent tribute to our national faith.
The inaugural address of George Washington, as the first President of this young republic, breathes the humblest and holiest spirit of dependence upon God, and expresses the nation's faith in his all-wise guidance and care. He recognizes the hand of God in the formation of the government, and prays for his continued direction and perpetual benediction. He says: "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aid can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow citizens at large less than neither. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency."
And in the closing sentences of this able and patriotic address the "father of his country" thus refers again to the subject which seemed to be the burden of his great soul-the nation's dependence upon Almighty God for past achievements and all future glory: "Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the human race, in humble supplication that, since he has pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquillity, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this government must depend."
And in his matchless farewell address, a masterful state paper that will be read with increasing reverence and appreciation to the last generation of American patriots, an address which had all the sanctity and solemnity of a last will and testament, he speaks again with the favor of an apostle of his country's indebtedness to our holy religion. He says: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
Pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia and a former chairman of the Shorter University board of trustees. Read about Price at his website.
Help in understanding the meaning of some terms in the Declaration can be gained from a source in use then and now by our Supreme Court regarding issues of the time of our founding: "Blackstone's Commentaries."
Many of the founders were educated by clergy and schooled in Scripture. This, coupled with Blackstone, helps interpret the source and meaning of many phrases in the Declaration.
In recent years one phrase frequently attacked by secularists in times of selecting Supreme Court jurists is "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Blackstone had defined it as "...the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the Creator himself in all his dispositions, conforms." Blackstone further clarified this by noting "the law of nature" as being the expression of God?s will for all of creation.
This statement in the Declaration, "That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" is rooted in Scripture passages in Isaiah 40: 28; I Peter 4:19; Genesis 1: 1, 27. ...
Attorney. Partner in Dorsey and Whitney's Trial Department since 2008 (Associate 2000-2007). Assistant to the Dean at Oak Brook College of Law. He served as Director of the Legal Department for the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Read about Schmidt here.
A. The Source of Law
While Blackstone was certainly not the first to set forth a concept termed "natural law," his philosophy was distinguishable from others by his identification of the source of natural law. Cicero and Grotius, for instance, believed that the law of nature, which is binding upon all humans just as surely as gravity affects all of nature, is nothing more than the voice of reason.5 In sharp contrast to this humanistic view of natural law, Blackstone believed that the law of nature is not only binding on all men, but that it is dictated by God Himself.6
These precepts [in the Bible] when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature. . . . But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in its present corrupted state since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of the ages.7
Thomas Jefferson reflected Blackstone's view when he used the phrase "law of nature and of nature's God" in the Declaration. This phrase indicates that Jefferson understood the difference between Blackstone's theory and that of Grotius and Cicero. The law of nature refers to the will of God observable in creation while the law of nature's God refers to the divine law which is revealed through the Scriptures. While Jefferson affirmed Blackstone's view of natural law, he abhorred the influence of Blackstone in the adoption of the English common law in the Colonies. Because of Jefferson's significant role in the founding of America, it is necessary to discern precisely where he agreed with Blackstone as well as where he disagreed.
5. Tom N. McInnis, Natural Law in the American Revolutionary Struggle, 16 Legal Studies Forum 41, 44 (1992). 6. 1 William Blackstone, Commentaries 41. 7. Id. ? "When the Framers engrafted the right to property into the Constitution-with all of its complexities and exceptions-the theories of Blackstone were, without a doubt, of paramount influence."
Read about the Declaration of Independence from The Library of Congress and National Archives.
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. ...
Second President of the United States. Read more about John Adams here. Note: Adams shifted from Congregationalist to Unitarian.
It seems to be necessary for me, (notwithstanding the declaration in my last) once more to digress from the road of agriculture and mechanic arts, and to enter the list of disputation with a brace of writers in the Evening Post, one of whom has subscribed himself X, and the other W. I shall agree with the first of these gentlemen, that ?to preach up non-resistance with the zeal of a fanatic,? would be as extraordinary as to employ a bastile in support of the freedom of speech or the press, or an inquisition in favor of liberty of conscience; but if he will leave his own imagination, and recur to what I have written, he will not find a syllable against resistance. Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which, perhaps, I could not surrender if I would. Nor is there any thing in the common law of England, (for which Mr. X supposes I have so great a fondness,) inconsistent with that right. On the contrary, the dogmas of Plato, the maxims of the law, and the precepts of Christianity, are precisely coincident in relation to this subject.
Plato taught that revenge was unlawful, although he allowed of self-defence. The divine Author of our religion has taught us that trivial provocations are to be overlooked; and that if a man should offer you an insult, by boxing one ear, rather than indulge a furious passion and return blow for blow, you ought even to turn the other also. This expression, however, though it inculcates strongly the duty of moderation and self-government [439] upon sudden provocations, imports nothing against the right of resistance or of self-defence. The sense of it seems to be no more than this: that little injuries and insults ought to be borne patiently for the present, rather than run the risk of violent consequences by retaliation.
Now, the common law seems to me to be founded on the same great principle of philosophy and religion. It will allow of nothing as a justification of blows, but blows; nor will it justify a furious beating, bruising, and wounding, upon the provocation of a fillip of the finger, or a kick upon the shins; but if I am assaulted, I can justify nothing but laying my hands lightly upon the aggressor for my own defence; nothing but what was absolutely necessary for my preservation. I may parry or ward off any blow; but a blow received is no sufficient provocation for fifty times so severe a blow in return. When life, which is one of the three favorites of the law, comes into consideration, we find a wise and humane provision is made for its preservation.
"The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity, let the blackguard Paine say what he will; it is resignation to God, it is goodness itself to man."
... "One great advantage of the Christian religion is, that it brings the great principle of the law of nature and nations, -- Love your neighbor as yourself, and do to others as you would that others should do to you, -- to the knowledge, belief, and veneration of the whole people. Children, servants, women, and men, are all professors in the science of public and private morality. No other institution of education, no kind of political discipline, could diffuse this kind of necessary information, so universally among all ranks and descriptions of citizens. The duties and rights of the man and the citizen are thus taught from early infancy to every creature. The sanctions of a future life are thus added to the observance of civil and political, as well as domestic and private duties. Prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, are thus taught to be the means and conditions of future as well as present happiness."
English Jurist. Knighted in 1770. Read more about Blackstone here and here and here.
... Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being, independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less, absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will.
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws.
Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as be is also a being of infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due; to which three general precepts Justinian 1 has reduced the whole doctrine of law.
1 a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3.
But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions, mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content in mental indolence, and ignorance it's inseparable companion. As therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness." This is the foundation of what we call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.
But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions, unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and error.
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it's laws by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can never be put in any competition together.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to abstain from it's perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful which before was not so.
If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the law of nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law possibly exist; for a law always supposes some superior who is to make it; and in a state of nature we are all equal, without any other superior but him who is the author of our being. But man was formed for society; and, as is demonstrated by the writers on this subject, 2 is neither capable of living alone, nor indeed has the courage to do it. However, as it is impossible for the whole race of mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily divide into many; and form separate states, commonwealths and nations, entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law, to regulate this mutual intercourse, called "the law of nations:" which, as none of these states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated by any; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only one to which all the communities are equally subject: and therefore the civil law 3 very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.
2 b Puffendorf, l 7. c. 1. compared with Barbeyrac's Commentary.
3 c Ff. 1. 1. 9.
Thus much I thought it necessary to premise concerning the law of nature, the revealed law, and the law of nations, before I proceeded to treat more fully of the principal subject of this section, municipal or civil law; that is, the rule by which particular districts, communities, or nations are governed; being thus defined by Justinian, 4 "jus civile est quod quisque sibi populus constituit." I call it municipal law, in compliance with common speech for, though strictly that expression denotes the particular customs of one single municipium or free town, yet it may with sufficient propriety be applied to any one state or nation, which is governed by the same laws and customs. ...
4 d Inst 1. 2. 1.
Michigan Supreme Court Justice. Read about Justice Cooley here, here, and here.
"Nor, while recognizing a superintending Providence, are we always precluded from recognizing, also, in the rules prescribed for the conduct of the citizen, the notorious 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 Mohammedan or Pagan country 'might be passed by without notice, or even be regarded as meritorious ; just as some things would be considered indecent and worthy of reprobation and punishment as such in one state of society, which in another would be in accord with the prevailing customs, and therefore defended and protected by the laws. The criminal laws of every country are shaped in greater or less degree by the prevailing public sentiment as to what is right, proper, and decorous, or the reverse; and they punish those acts as crimes which disturb the peace and order, or tend to shock the moral sense or sense of propriety and decency of the community. The moral sense is largely 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 crimes against society, 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 to 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 regard the family and social relations; which compel the parent to support the child, the husband to support the wife ; which make the marriage-tie permanent and forbid polygamy,-if not derived from, have at least 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, though we may admit their continual and universal obligation, we must nevertheless recognize as being incapable of enforcement by human laws. That standard of morality which requires one to love his neighbor as himself, we must admit is too elevated to be accepted by human tribunals as the proper test by which to judge the conduct of the citizen; and one could hardly be held responsible to the criminal laws if in goodness of heart and spontaneous charity he fell something short of the Good Samaritan. The precepts of Christianity, moreover, affect the heart, and address themselves to the conscience, while the laws of the state can regard the outward conduct only; and for these several reasons Christianity is not a part of the law of the land in any sense which entitles the courts to take notice of and base their judgments upon it, except so far as they can find that its precepts and principles have been incorporated in and made a component part of the positive law of the state.
"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 or truth of the Christian religion, or incapable of being otherwise justified."
Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court. Read about Hornblower here.
LET this precious volume have its proper influence on the hearts of men, and our liberties are safe, our country blessed, and the world happy. There is not a tie that unites us to our families, not a virtue that endears us to our country, nor a hope that thrills our bosoms in the prospect of future happiness, that has not its foundation in this Bible. It is the charter of charters, the palladium of liberty, the standard of righteousness.
American jurist and politician who served in the United States Congress, as U.S. Postmaster General, and as a justice on the Ohio and U.S. Supreme Courts. Read about McLean here and here.
No one can estimate or describe the salutary influences of the Bible. What would the world be without it? Compare the dark places of the earth, where the light of the Gospel has not penetrated, with those where it has been proclaimed, and embraced in all its purity.
Life and immortality are brought to light by the Scriptures, Aside from Revelation, darkness rests upon this world, and upon the future. There is no ray of light to shine upon our pathway; there is no star of hope. We begin our speculations as to our destiny in conjecture, and they end in uncertainty. We know not that there is a God, a heaven, or a hell, or any day of general account, when the wicked and the righteous shall be judged.
The Bible has shed a glorious light upon our world. It shows us that in a coming day we must answer for the deeds done in the body. It has opened up to us a new and living way, so plainly marked that no one can mistake it. The price paid for our redemption shows the value of our immortal souls.
The Bible has given us a sublime and pure morality, of which the world was a stranger. Before this, there was no fixed standard of morals. Certain rules were observed among some nations, which, to some extent, restrained the selfishness of human nature; but they rested upon imaginary foundations, and they tolerated acts inconsistent with a pure morality. Self-destruction was not only an admitted principle in that code, but it received public commendation. And there were other acts allowed, if not equally false and destructive, were repugnant to the advancement of the social condition.
No system out of the Bible recognizes an omniscient power which scrutinizes the actions of men, and, looking behind the act, takes cognizance of the motive. This was a new principle to the world; and it is the one by which we shall be judged.
The laws which belong to the social relation are found in the Bible. The duties of husband and wife, parent and child, and all other connexions which necessarily belong to a refined civilization, are prescribed in the Scriptures. We are commanded to love our neighbour, and in all things "to do unto others as we should wish them to do unto us." If these rules were faithfully observed by individuals and communities, the highest degree of earthly happiness would be attained.
For our unparalleled advance in civilization and physical prosperity, our country is mainly indebted to the Bible. Our free institutions are the fruits of religious persecution. With the Bible in their hands, and the love of God in their hearts, the Pilgrims sought a resting-place on this continent. And in the process of time, under the same principles and motives, they resolved to be free and independent. Having that wisdom which comes of experience, they formed a government to secure and perpetuate the great principles of civil and religious liberty.
How is this government to be transmitted in its purity and vigour to those who shall come after us? This can only be done by the use of the same means through which it was established We must not be forgetful of the God of our fathers. We must respect and obey his laws. The morality of the Bible must continue to be the basis of our government. There is no other foundation for free institutions. I say this emphatically, and from the deepest conviction of its truth. This morality is an element of which the free governments of the Old World had no knowledge. It is the ground, and the only ground, on which my hope of this government rests. And I tremble when I see a departure from this highway of liberty. Recently as our government has been established, there have already been many departures from this vital principle.
Let any one who doubts this compare the action of the government of this day with that of its earlier date. Are our politicians now as pure, and elevated, and patriotic as politicians then were? Are they as well qualified to discharge high and important public duties as our leading men were of the past generation? Has not a low and selfish policy been substituted for the interests of the country? Is not the power of the state wielded by a few, by party machinery? What can be more corrupting than such a state of things? It has been fatal to all free governments which have heretofore existed, and, unless checked, will be fatal to ours.
The great moral principle of action applies equally to private and public life, to individuals, communities, and nations. And this rule cannot be violated without incurring guilt. We should not forget that there is a Judge of nations as well as of individuals, and, although He may bear long, his judgment will come.
How beautiful is our government in theory, and how potent for good would it be if administered in all things according to its spirit. It would soon embody a moral power which would shake the thrones of tyranny throughout the civilized world. Here lies our strength-our power to break the bonds of despotism. But, alas! alas! a strange voice is heard in the land. It is a voioe miscalled progress. A voice in defiance of the admonitions of Washington, and of all the fathers of the republic. A voice of war and bloodshed. War uncalled for by any redress of injuries, or by the national honour, but to subvert and overturn the governments of neighbouring countries in defiance of our settled and avowed policy, and in contempt of our own laws. Are not the words of our Saviour true, "For all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword?" These words have never yet been falsified, and never will be. When this policy shall be adopted, it will be the beginning of the end of our glorious government.
Supreme Court justice. Read more about Story here and here.
§ 1867. Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty.1 Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great, basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by 1 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 34, p. 35 to 37; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 121, 122.
CH. XLIV.] FREEDOM OF RELIGION. 725
its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.1 He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic. "When," says he, "the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south still adhered to the Catholic. The reason is plain. The people of the north have, and will ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not. And, therefore, a religion, which has no visible head, is more agreeable to the independency of climate, than that, which has one."2 Without stopping to inquire, whether this remark be well founded, it is certainly true, that the parent country has acted upon it with a severe and vigilant zeal; and in most of the colonies the same rigid jealousy has been maintained almost down to our own times. Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her BILL OF RIGHTS the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. "As," says the
________________________
1 Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 3.
2 Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 5.
726 CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES. [BOOK III.
third article, "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion.
One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is, that Christianity is a part of the common law, from which it seeks the sanction of its rights, and by which it endeavours to regulate its doctrines. And, notwithstanding the specious objection of one of our distinguished statesmen, the boast is as true as it is beautiful. There never has been a period, in which the common law did not recognise Christianity as lying at its foundations.*
* See the remarks of Mr. Justice Park, in Smith v. Sparrow, 4 Bing. R. 84, 88.
For many ages it was almost exclusively administered by those, who held its ecclesiastical dignities. It now repudiates every act done in violation of its duties of perfect obligation. It pronounces illegal every contract offensive to its morals. It recognises with profound humility its holidays and festivals, and obeys them, as dies non juridici.
... [T]he Law of Nature ... lies at the foundation of all other laws, and constitutes the first step in the science of jurisprudence. The law of nature is nothing more than those rules, which human reason deduces from the various relations of man; to form his character, and regulate his conduct, and thereby ensure his permanent happiness. It embraces a survey of his duties to God, his duties to himself, and his duties to his fellow men; deducing from those duties a corresponding obligation. It considers man, not merely in his private relations as a social being, but as a subject and magistrate, called upon to frame, administer, or obey laws, and owing allegiance to his country and government, and bound, from the protection he derives from the institutions of society, to uphold and protect them in return. It is, therefore, in the largest sense, the philosophy of morals; what Justinian has defined justice to be, --constans et perpetua voluntas jus suuum cuique tribuendi;-- or what may be denominated national jurisprudence, as expounded in the same authority; --divinarum atque humanarum rerum notitia, justi atque injusti scientia.-- With us, indeed, who form a part of the Christian community of nations, the law of nature has a higher sanction, as it stands supported and illustrated by revelation. Christianity, while with many minds it acquires authority from its coincidences with the law of nature, as deduced from reason, has added strength and dignity to the latter by its positive declarations. It goes farther. It unfolds our duties with far more clearness and perfection than had been known before its promulgation; and has given a commanding force to those of imperfect obligation. It relieves the mind from many harassing doubts and disquietudes, and imparts a blessed influence to the peaceful and benevolent virtues, to mercy, charity, humility, and gratitude. It seems to concentrate all morality in the simple precept of love to God and love to man. It points out the original equality of all mankind in the eyes of the Supreme Being, and brings down the monarch to the level of his subjects. It thus endeavours to check the arrogance of power, and the oppression of prerogative; and becomes the teacher, as well as the advocate of rational liberty. Above all, by unfolding in a more authoritative manner the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, it connects all the motives and actions of man in his present state with his future interminable destiny. It thus exhorts him to the practice of virtue, by all, that can awaken hope, or secure happiness. It deters him from crimes by all, that can operate upon his fears, his sensibility, or his conscience. It teaches him, that the present life is but the dawn of being; and that in the endless progress of things the slightest movement here may communicate an impulse, which may be felt though eternity. Thus Christianity becomes, not merely an auxiliary, but a guide to the law of nature, establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and elevating its precepts.
Statesman. One of the six signers of both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. 2nd most active speaker at the Constitutional Convention speaking 168 times, Original Justice of the United States Supreme Court appointed by George Washington. Read more about Wilson here and here.
I. That law, the book of which we are neither able nor worthy to open. Of this law, the author and observer is God. He is a law to himself, as well as to all created things. This law we may name the "law eternal."
II. That law, which is made for angels and the spirits of the just made perfect. This may be called the "law celestial." This law, and the glorious state for which it is adapted, we see, at present, but darkly and as through a glass: but hereafter we shall see even as we are seen; and shall know even as we are known. From the wisdom and the goodness of the adorable Author and Preserver of the universe, we are justified in concluding, that the celestial and perfect state is governed, as all other things are, by his established laws. What those laws are, it is not yet given us to know; but on one truth we may rely with sure and certain confidence-those laws are wise and good. For another truth we have infallible authority-those laws are strictly obeyed: "In heaven his will is done."
III. That law, by which the irrational and inanimate parts of the creation are governed. The great Creator of all things has established general and fixed rules, according to which all the phenomena of the material universe are produced and regulated. These rules are usually denominated laws of nature. The science, which has those laws for its object, is distinguished by the name of natural philosophy. It is sometimes called, the philosophy of body. Of this science, there are numerous branches.
[498]
IV. That law, which God has made for man in his present state; that law, which is communicated to us by reason and conscience, the divine monitors within us, and by the sacred oracles, the divine monitors without us. This law has undergone several subdivisions, and has been known by distinct appellations, according to the different ways in which it has been promulgated, and the different objects which it respects.
As promulgated by reason and the moral sense, it has been called natural; as promulgated by the holy scriptures, it has been called revealed law.
As addressed to men, it has been denominated the law of nature; as addressed to political societies, it has been denominated the law of nations.
But it should always be remembered, that this law, natural or revealed, made for men or for nations, flows from the same divine source: it is the law of God. Nature, or, to speak more properly, the Author of nature, has done much for us; but it is his gracious appointment and will, that we should also do much for ourselves. What we do, indeed, must be founded on what he has done; and the deficiencies of our laws must be supplied by the perfections of his. Human law must rest its authority, ultimately, upon the authority of that law, which is divine.
Of that law, the following are maxims-that no injury should be done-that a lawful engagement, voluntarily made, should be faithfully fulfilled. We now see the deep and the solid foundations of human law.
It is of two species. 1. That which a political society makes for itself. This is municipal law. 2. That which two or more political societies make for themselves. This is the voluntary law of nations.
In all these species of law-the law eternal-the law celestial-the law natural-the divine law, as it respects men and nations-the human law, as it also respects men and nations-man is deeply and intimately concerned. Of all these species of law, therefore, the knowledge must be most important to man.
Those parts of natural philosophy, which more immediately relate to the human body, are appropriated to the profession of physick.
The law eternal, the law celestial, and the law divine, as they are disclosed by that revelation, which has brought life and immortality to light, are the more peculiar objects of the profession of divinity.
[499] The law of nature, the law of nations, and the municipal law form the objects of the profession of law.
From this short, but plain and, I hope, just statement of things, we perceive a principle of connexion between all the learned professions; but especially between the two last mentioned. Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other. The divine law, as discovered by reason and the moral sense, forms an essential part of both.
From this statement of things, we also perceive how important and dignified the profession of the law is, when traced to its sources, and viewed in its just extent.
The immediate objects of our attention are, the law of nature, the law of nations, and the municipal law of the United States, and of the several states which compose the Union. It will not be forgotten, that the constitutions of the United States, and of the individual states, form a capital part of their municipal law. On the two first of these three great heads, I shall be very general. On the last, especially on those parts of it, which comprehend the constitutions and publick law, I shall be more particular and minute.
CHAPTER III.: Of the Law of Nature.
In every period of our existence, in every situation, in which we can be placed, much is to be known, much is to be done, much is to be enjoyed. But all that is to be known, all that is to be done, all that is to be enjoyed, depends upon the proper exertion and direction of our numerous powers. In this immense ocean of intelligence and action, are we left without a compass and without a chart? Is there no pole star, by which we may regulate our course? Has the all-gracious and all-wise Author of our existence formed us for such great and such good ends; and has he left us without a conductor to lead us in the way, by which those ends may be attained? Has he made us capable of observing a rule, and has he furnished us with no rule, which we ought to observe? Let us examine these questions-for they are important ones-with patience and with attention. Our labours will, in all probability, be amply repaid. We shall probably find that, to direct the more important parts of our conduct, the bountiful Governour of the universe has been graciously pleased to provide us with a law; and that, to direct the less important parts of it, he has made us capable of providing a law for ourselves.
"That our Creator has a supreme right to prescribe a law for our conduct, and that we are under the most perfect obligation to obey that law, are truths established on the clearest and most solid principles."
In the course of our remarks on that part of Sir William Blackstone's definition of law, which includes the idea of a superiour as essential to it, we remarked, with particular care, that it was only with regard to human laws that we controverted the justness or propriety of that idea. It was incumbent on us to mark this distinction particularly; for with regard to laws which are divine, they truly come from a superiour-from Him who is supreme.
[501]
Between beings, who, in their nature, powers, and situation, are so perfectly equal, that nothing can be ascribed to one, which is not applicable to the other, there can be neither superiority nor dependence. With regard to such beings, no reason can be assigned, why any one should assume authority over others, which may not, with equal propriety, be assigned, why each of those others should assume authority over that one. To constitute superiority and dependence, there must be an essential difference of qualities, on which those relations may be founded.a Some allege, that the sole superiority of strength, or, as they express it, an irresistible power, is the true foundation of the right of prescribing laws. "This superiority of power gives," say they, "a right of reigning, by the impossibility, in which it places others, of resisting him, who has so great an advantage over them."b Others derive the right of prescribing laws and imposing obligations from superiour excellence of nature. "This," say they, "not only renders a being independent of those, who are of a nature inferiour to it; but leads us to believe, that the latter were made for the sake of the former." For a proof of this, they appeal to the constitution of man. "Here," they tell us, "the soul governs, as being the noblest part." "On the same foundation," they add, "the empire of man over the brute creation is built."c Others, again, say, that "properly speaking, there is only one general source of superiority and obligation. God is our creator: in him we live, and move, and have our being: from him we have received our intellectual and our moral powers: he, as master of his own work, can prescribe to it whatever rules to him shall seem meet. Hence our dependence on our Creator: hence his absolute power over us. This is the true source of all authority."d With regard to the first hypothesis, it is totally insufficient; nay, it is absolutely false. Because I cannot resist, am I obliged to obey? Because another is possessed of superiour force, am I bound to acknowledge his will as the rule of my conduct? Every obligation supposes motives that influence the conscience and determine the will, so that we should think it [502] wrong not to obey, even if resistance was in our power. But a person, who alleges only the law of the strongest, proposes no motive to influence the conscience, or to determine the will. Superiour force may reside with predominant malevolence. Has force, exerted for the purposes of malevolence, a right to command? Can it impose an obligation to obey? No. Resistance to such force is a right; and, if resistance can prove effectual, it is a duty also. On some occasions, all our efforts may, indeed, be useless; and an attempt to resist would frustrate its own aim: but, on such occasions, the exercise of resistance only is suspended; the right of resistance is not extinguished: we may continue, for a time, under a constraint; but we come not under an obligation: we may suffer all the external effects of superiour force; but we feel not the internal influence of superiour authority?e The second hypothesis has in it something plausible; but, on examination, it will not be found to be accurate. Wherever a being of superiour excellence is found, his excellence, as well as every other truth, ought, on proper occasions, to be acknowledged; we will go farther; it ought, as every thing excellent ought, to be esteemed. But must we go farther still? Is obedience the necessary consequence of honest acknowledgment and just esteem? Here we must make a pause: we must make some inquiries before we go forward. In what manner is this being of superiour excellence connected with us? What are his dispositions with regard to us? By what effects, if by any, will his superiour excellence be displayed? Will it be exerted for our happiness; or, as to us, will it not be exerted at all? We acknowledge-we esteem excellence; but till these questions are answered, we feel not ourselves under an obligation to obey it.f If the opinion of Epicurus1 concerning his divinities-that they were absolutely indifferent to the happiness and interests of men-was admitted for a moment;g the [503] inference would unquestionably be-that they were not entitled to human obedience. The third hypothesis contains a solemn truth, which ought to be examined with reverence and awe. It resolves the supreme right of prescribing laws for our conduct, and our indispensable duty of obeying those laws, into the omnipotence of the Divinity. This omnipotence let us humbly adore. Were we to suppose-but the supposition cannot be made-that infinite goodness could be disjoined from almighty power-but we cannot-must not proceed to the inference. No, it never can be drawn; for from almighty power infinite goodness can never be disjoined. Let us join, in our weak conceptions, what are inseparable in their incomprehensible Archetype-infinite power-infinite wisdom-infinite goodness; and then we shall see, in its resplendent glory, the supreme right to rule: we shall feel the conscious sense of the perfect obligation to obey. His infinite power enforces his laws, and carries them into full and effectual execution. His infinite wisdom knows and chooses the fittest means for accomplishing the ends which he proposes. His infinite goodness proposes such ends only as promote our felicity. By his power, he is able to remove whatever may possibly injure us, and to provide whatever is conducive to our happiness. By his wisdom, he knows our nature, our faculties, and our interests: he cannot be mistaken in the designs, which he proposes, nor in the means, which he employs to accomplish them. By his goodness, he proposes our happiness: and to that end directs the operations of his power and wisdom. Indeed, to his goodness alone we may trace the principle of his laws. Being infinitely and eternally happy in himself, his goodness alone could move him to create us, and give us the means of happiness. The same principle, that moved his creating, moves his governing power. The rule of his government we shall find to be reduced to this one paternal command-Let man pursue his own perfection and happiness.
"III. Reason and conscience can do much; but still they stand in need of support and assistance. They are useful and excellent monitors; but, at some times, their admonitions are not sufficiently clear; at other times, they are not sufficiently powerful; at all times, their influence is not sufficiently extensive. Great and sublime truths, indeed, would appear to a few; but the world, at large, would be dark and ignorant. The mass of mankind would resemble a chaos, in which a few sparks, that would diffuse a glimmering light, would serve only to show, in a more striking manner, the thick darkness with which they are surrounded. Their weakness is strengthened, their darkness is illuminated, their influence is enlarged by that heaven-descended science, which has brought life and immortality to light. In compassion to the imperfection of our internal powers, our all-gracious Creator, Preserver, and Ruler has been pleased to discover and enforce his laws, by a revelation given to us immediately and directly from himself. This revelation is contained in the holy scriptures. The moral precepts delivered in the sacred oracles form a part of the law of nature, are of the same origin, and of the same obligation, operating universally and perpetually.
"On some important subjects, those in particular, which relate to the Deity, to Providence, and to a future state, our natural knowledge is greatly improved, refined, and exalted by that which is revealed. On these subjects, one who has had the advantage of a common education in a christian country, knows more, and with more certainty, than was known by the wisest of the ancient philosophers.
"One superiour advantage the precepts delivered in the sacred oracles clearly possess. They are, of all, the most explicit and the most certain. A publick minister, judging from what he knows of the interests, views, and designs of the state, which he represents, may take his resolutions and measures, in many cases, with confidence and safety; and may presume, with great probability, how the state itself would act. But if, besides this general knowledge, and these presumptions highly probable, he was furnished also with particular instructions for the regulation of his conduct; would he not naturally observe and govern himself by both rules? In cases, where his instructions are clear and positive, there would be an end of all farther deliberation. In other cases, where his instructions are silent, he would supply them by his general knowledge, and by the information, which he could collect from other quarters, concerning the counsels and systems of the commonwealth. Thus it is with regard to reason, conscience, and the holy scriptures. Where the latter give instructions, those instructions are supereminently authentick. But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find. They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several rights and duties they do not explain; nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men, and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil.
"These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense. The information with regard to our duties and obligations, drawn from these different sources, ought not to run in unconnected and diminished channels: it should flow in one united stream, which, by its combined force and just direction, will impel us uniformly and effectually towards our greatest good."
And Mr. Ringgold, in his work, supra, says:
The foregoing being our views, it follows that the views expressed in the original opinion were in error and therefore the original opinion in this case is withdrawn, the rehearing is granted, and the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
________________________________________ BROWN, P.J. (concurring).
The statute under which the indictment in this case was preferred provides:
The sentiment embodied in the statute is of divine origin, and finds expression in one of the commandments:
Sections of our Florida Declaration of Rights is a positive guarantee, in general terms, of certain basic individual rights. It reads as follows:
"Section 1. All men are equal before the law, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing happiness and obtaining safety."
And the fourth Section of our Declaration of Rights reads:
"Section 4. All courts in this State shall be open so that every person for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall give remedy, by due course of law, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial or delay."
These sections follow quite closely the thought contained in that greatest of all political documents, the American Declaration of Independence, wherein it says:
The words "for any injury . . . he shall have remedy by due course of law" do not mean that strictly legislative power is delegated to the courts. The words "by due course of law" would prevent such a construction. Furthermore, such a construction would be contrary to the strong prohibitions *214214 of Art. II of our Constitution dealing with the separation of governmental powers. But these words do assume that for every injury done to an individual "in his lands, goods, person or reputation" there is a remedy provided by law - either by the statutes or by the common law, - an assumption which is practically correct if we look deep enough into the fundamental principles of the great body of the common law and exercise the recognized judicial power of applying established principles of law to new conditions and new facts as they arise. The word "injury," however, does imply the doing of some act which constitutes an invasion of a legal right. The law cannot possibly remedy all the evils which affect mankind. But this much can be said, in construing this Section of our Bill of Rights, that for any act of another which constitutes an injurious invasion of any right of the individual which is recognized by or founded upon any applicable principle of law, statutory or common, the courts shall be open to him and "he shall have remedy by due course of law." As above intimated, the word "law" includes not only our organic statutory law but also embraces that great body of legal principles we call the common law, as construed and applied by the courts of England and America throughout the years to new factual conditions as they have arisen, and which in such practical applications to concrete cases have broadened out from precedent to precedent" to protect the essential rights of the individual. The performance by the courts of the plain duty which has always been imposed upon them, to interpret the meaning and intent of the law and to give it due and proper application to the facts of the individual cases which come before them for decision, has resulted in a great and invaluable body of judicial precedents, sometimes referred to as "judge-made law." Thus the courts in carrying out their strictly judicial duties have always had an important part in what might be called the law-making process. "In this way," said the late Justice HOLMES, "the law is gradually enriching itself from daily life, as it should." He gives an illustration of this at page 121 of his book "The Common Law." It was also his view, as expressed in that book, that the courts should not hesitate to overrule judicial *215215 precedents "when they have become inconsistent with present conditions." So the common law has been and still is a living and growing thing. As was said by Mr. Justice TERRELL in Quinn v. Phipps, 93 Fla. 805, 113 So. 419: "It is a doctrine of reason applied to experience;" its "vital pulsating principles were passed on to the English colonies of this country, where they have, by reason and interpretation, attained their complete logical development. We are therefore more essentially a common law country than England herself." The English colonies enjoyed their rights under the English common law for many years, and it was the denial and invasion of many of those rights under the reign of George III which was one of the chief causes of the American Revolution.
Mr. Justice Jackson, speaking for the Supreme Court of Georgia in 1875, in the case of Salter et al. v. Smith, made the following approved observation:
"We think that this statute should be rigidly enforced. Independently of the moral obligation resting upon all men to obey the law of the Lord, and to observe by abstaining from all secular business, the day set apart for His worship throughout Christendom, the rest of one day in seven from all physical and mental labor, is a great conservative, refreshing, invigorating means designed by Almighty wisdom for the preservation of health and the recreation of our mental and bodily faculties. But neither the law of God nor the law of man forbids us to do good on the Sabbath day. The Savior rebuked the Pharisees who questioned His divinity, because he healed the impotent man on the Sabbath, and bade him take up his bed and walk; and He who spake as never man spake said that the Sabbath was made for men, not men for the Sabbath, and that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day; and His own pure and perfect life illustrated His teaching by deeds of constant kindness and beneficence on the Sabbath day. When the statute of Georgia, therefore, excepts works of benevolence and charity from the operation of this penal statute, it but re-enacts the law of the Almighty as announced by the Savior and beautified by His example."
In 1834 Mr. Justice Chambers, speaking for the Court of Appeals of Maryland, in the case of Kilgour v. Miles, 6 G. J., 268, declared:
Under the statutes of Connecticut prohibiting any secular business or labor on Sunday, except works of necessity or mercy, conviction for operation of a picture show on Sunday was sustained. State v. Ryan, 69 Atlantic 536. To the same effect was Graham v. State, 134 Tenn. 285; City of Topeka v. Crawford, 96 Pacific 862.
It is also well settled that the fact that it is convenient and profitable to perform certain labor or transact certain business on Sunday does not render it a necessity nor exclusive from the operation of law. Burns v. Moore, 76 Ala. 359, 52 Am.Rep. 332; Barfield v. State, 85 Ark. 134, 107 S.W. 393; Arnheiter v. State, 115 Ga. 572, 41 S.E. 989; State v. Stuckey,98 Mo. Appeals, 664, 73 S.W. 735; Commonwealth v. White,190 Mass. 578, 77 N.E. 636; Handy v. St. Paul Globe Publishing Co.,41 Minn. 188, 42 N.W. 872.
... Our government is unlike the British government, as that government combines the ecclesiastical and secular powers. Its constitution is based upon the union of church and State, and it claims and exercises the power to enforce the faith and doctrines of the established church, by statutes imposing penalties for failing to perform religious duties and requirements, and compelling all to contribute support to the State church; on the contrary, however, a total severance of church and State is one of the great controlling foundation principles of our system of government. The spiritual welfare of our people is left entirely to the hierarchy of the various churches. The government protects all alike in their religious beliefs and unbeliefs. It is no part of the function of our government to prescribe and enforce religious tenets.
The great purpose of the formation of our system of government is to protect the people in the enjoyment of their temporal and spiritual rights, and to prohibit crime, vice and wrong to any portion of the community, and to pass and enforce laws for the promotion of the temporal interests of the people, and, as far as possible, secure their temporal welfare and happiness. Although it is no part of the functions of our system of government to propagate religion, and to enforce its tenets, when the great body of the people are Christians, in fact or sentiment, our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. And in this sense, and to this extent, our civilization and institutions are emphatically Christian, but not for the purpose of compelling men to embrace particular doctrines or creeds of any church, or to support one or another denomination by public burdens, but simply to afford protection to all in the enjoyment of their belief or unbelief.
But the State has the unquestioned power to suppress crime, vice and immorality, even if such acts are claimed to be the exercise of religious belief. The legislature is absolutely powerless to enforce religious doctrines or beliefs, merely as such. It may be that in suppressing crime, vice, or immorality, it may incidentally enforce religious doctrines. The Christian religion forbids all crime, vice and immorality, and good government equally requires their suppression. They are suppressed by the government because required for the general welfare, and not because they are religious doctrines.
The third section of article 2 of our constitution in terms guarantees the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship to all, and prohibits any preference from being given by law to any denomination or mode of worship, or being compelled to support any such worship. In all countries and ages, among civilized or partially civilized peoples, governments have set apart days of rest, recurring at short periods. This has been, and still is, regarded as necessary to the temporal welfare of the people, as a certain amount of rest is regarded as absolutely necessary to man and animals subjected to labor.
Considerations of public policy demanding such periods of rest, and the great body of Christians holding the observance of Sunday to be a religious duty, it is natural that the lawmaking power, as a matter of public policy, should specify Sunday as the day of rest, thereby conforming public policy to religious sentiment. But that Sunday is kept as a holy day by most Christian denominations neither adds to nor detracts from the validity of the enactment. Had any other day of the week been selected, the enactment would have had the same binding force. But even if such a contract was void at the common law, it would not necessarily follow that it would be under our laws. We have seen that church and State were united under the British constitution, while they are totally severed by our constitution. The government of Great Britain has the power to pass laws to promote and enforce religious tenets. This is a part of the common law of England which was excluded from the constitutional power of the legislature, and is not adapted to our form of government, and the legislative power of the State is therefore left to adopt all laws tending to promote the general temporal welfare of the governed. Nor has the judicial department any power to enforce religious doctrines, as such, but must be governed entirely by the law as it exists.
Courts can only enforce the law as it exists, and the legislature having failed to declare contracts of the character of that under consideration void, we must enforce it as if it had been entered into on a secular day. In support of these views we refer to the cases of Specht v. Commonwealth, 8 Barr, 312, City Council v. Benjamin, 2 Strob. L. R. 508, and Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387. In those cases it was held that it was merely exercising the power of the State in adopting such laws, which is wholly disconnected from any kind of religion; that the legislature had the power to select a day of rest, and could have as well selected any other day of the week; that it was essentially a civil regulation, made for the government of man, as a member of society, and it was held that the law interfered with no man's conscience because he was compelled to refrain from secular employment on that day; that the selection of a day of rest is a mere question of expediency. ...
In this state the constitutional limitations of religious freedom are nondisturbance of the public peace and nonobstruction of others in their religious worship, while the constitutional limitation of free speech is only responsibility for the liberty. These are broad, far-reaching limitations, and they travel pari passu with Liberty in whatever paths she may desire to travel.
It is farthest from our thought to claim superiority for any religious sect, society, or denomination, or even to admit that there exists any distinct, avowed connection between church and state in these United States or in any individual state, but, as distinguished from the religions of Confucius, Gautama, Mohammed, or even Abram. it may be truly said that, by reason of the number, influence, and station of its devotees within our territorial boundaries, the religion of Christ is the prevailing religion of this country and of this state. With equal truth may it be said that, from the dawn of civilization, the religion of a country is a most important factor in determining its form of government, and that stability of government in no small measure depends upon the reverence and respect which a nation maintains toward its prevalent religion. Within the limits of an opinion it would not be expected that all the tenents of the Christian religion could be expounded, or even enumerated, but for our purpose it will be enough to say that this religion teaches acknowledgment of the existence, presence, knowledge, and power of God, as related to human beings in all their walks of life; this religion teaches dependence upon God; this religion teaches reverence toward God and respect for Holy Scripture. Even as we are writing these words the man who is about to assume the duties of the high and responsible station of President of these United States, following the unbroken custom of more than a century, and to the end that his official vow may be more impressive and binding, reverently says, 'So help me God', and then pausing, with equal reverence, salutes the Holy Scripture by a kiss. Congress and state Legislatures open their sessions with prayer addressed to the God of the Christian religion. Judicial tribunals, anxious to discover and apply the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, require these who are to give testimony in courts of justice to be sworn by an oath which recognizes deity. Thus it will be seen that there is acknowledgment of God in each co-ordinate branch of government. Lest any argument in support of the recognition of God in the fundamental law of our state should be overlooked, we point to the very preamble of our Constitution:
[3] The constitutional guaranties found in article 1 of the Amendments to the federal Constitution have no application to the constitutionality of our statute here being considered: for it is there provided only that Congress shall make no law restraining religious freedom or freedom of speech. Congress did not enact this statute. The federal Declaration of Rights not only restrains Congress from enacting any statute restraining religious freedom or freedom of speech. but, by necessary implication. leaves those matters to be dealt with by the sovereign power of the several states. These exceptions are unavailing to the respondent. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 551, 23 L. Ed. 589.
But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his sail westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, king and queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by God's assistance some of the continents and islands in the [496] ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that made to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of God, of England, Fraunce, and Ireland, queene, defender of the faith," etc.; and the grant authorizing him to enact statutes of the government of the proposed colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith nowe professed in the Church of England." The first charter of Virginia, granted by King James I. in 1606, after reciting the application of certain parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, greatly commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents, graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intentioned Desires."
Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent charters of that colony from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is true of the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language more or less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion declared to be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made by the pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid."
The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional government was instituted in 1638-39, commence with this declaration: "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise disposition of his diuyne pruidence [143 U.S. 457, 467] so to order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and Residents of Windsor, Hartford, and Wethersfield are now cohabiting and dwelling in and vppon the River of Conectecotte and the Lands thereunto adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered togather the word of {515} God requires that to mayntayne the peace and union of such a people there should be an orderly and decent Gouerment established according to God, to order and dispose of the affayres of the people at all seasons as occation shall require; doe therefore assotiate and conioyne our selues to be as one Publike State or Commonwelth; and doe, for our selues and our Successors and such as shall be adioyned to vs att any tyme hereafter, enter into Combination and Confederation togather, to mayntayne and presearue the liberty and purity of the gospell of our Lord Jesus which we now professe, as also the disciplyne of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said gospell is now practised amongst us."
In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the province of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be truly happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if abridged of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious Profession and Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, Father of Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine Knowledge, Faith, and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, and persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby grant and declare," etc.
Coming nearer to the present time, the declaration of independence recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; -- And for the [143 U.S. 457, 468] support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."
If we examine the constitutions of the various states, we find in them a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every constitution of every one of the 44 states contains language which, either directly or by clear implication, recognizes a profound reverence for religion, and an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential to the well-being of the community. This recognition may be in the preamble, such as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people of the state of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political, and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.
It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers shall take an oath closing with the declaration, "so help me God." It may be in clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, art. 11, §4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation shall be such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, and shall be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such as are found in articles 36 and 37 of the declaration of the rights of the constitution of Maryland, (1867): "That, as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty: wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his person or estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace, or safety of the state, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil, or religious rights; nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship or any ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness or juror on account of his religious belief: provided, he [143 U.S. 457, 469] believes in the existence of God, and that, under his dispensation, such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office or profit or trust in this state, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like that in articles 2 and 3 of part 1 of the constitution of Massachusetts, (1780:) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the universe. * * * As the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community but by the institution of the public worship of God and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic or religious societies to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provisions shall not be made voluntarily." Or, as in sections 5 and 14 of article 7 of the constitution of Mississippi, (1832:) "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. * * * Religion {516} morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government, the preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this state." Or by article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, (1776,) which required all officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess [143 U.S. 457, 470] faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."
Even the constitution of the United States, which is supposed to have little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in the first amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all the states, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," etc., - and also provides in article 1, § 7, (a provision common to many constitutions,) that the executive shall have 10 days (Sundays excepted) within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a bill.
There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people. While because of a general recognition of this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, yet we find that in Updegraph v. Comm., 11 Serg. & R. 394, 400, it was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; * * * not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor KENT, the great commentator on American law, speaking as chief justice of the supreme court of New York, said: "The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of those doctrines in not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. * * * The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious [143 U.S. 457, 471] subject, is granted and secured; but to revile, with malicious and blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole community is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound by any expressions in the constitution, as some have strangely supposed, either not to punish at all, or to punish indiscriminately the like attacks upon the religion of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason that the case assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply ingrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or worship of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provisions for the creation of a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, observed: "it is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law of Pennsylvania."
If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters note the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing everywhere under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.
... Amendment I. of the Constitution, viz.: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The word "religion" was not mentioned in the original constitution and as Congress had no power to legislate other than those expressly given to it by the constitution, such legislation only could be declared valid as came clearly with the implied intendment. After the constitution had been ratified and accepted by the several States, upon reflection it was observed that there might be room for misconstruction of its provisions, and for the purpose of giving even greater liberty to the people, at the very next meeting of Congress thereafter, several amendments were proposed, and subsequently ratified and adopted and annexed thereto, and the very first of these is the one under discussion guaranteeing universal freedom in the worship of God, and for extending His kingdom upon earth.
The Christian religion forms a part of the very life of our nation, and is the bulwark upon which society and morality rest. To attempt to Federal legislation to cut short its spread, to minimize its influence, to deprive the people of all help that they can receive from whatever source that will aid them in their worship, that will stir them to greater zeal, that will cause them to live holier and purer lives, is in contravention of one of the very things that this amendment was designed to vouchsafe forever to the whole nation.
The present practice of our Government is a most telling and pleasing witness to the truth, that as a nation "In God we trust." Before an officer can become one of her recognized servants, his fealty is declared upon the Holy Bible. Our Courts recognize as the test of the competency of witnesses, that their sense of right and wrong, truth and falsehood, shall be gauged by the same standard. Our national coin of exchange proclaims our nation's faith in the Almighty. "Thanksgiving Day" is an annual reminder of Him in whom the nation trusts, and repeated proclamations from the President, in the times of war, have counseled prayer and supplication, that the God of our whole country would re-unite her people.
Further citation of custom, or argument upon this point is superfluous, for it must be conceded, that the premise is already established, that as a nation, apart from all legislation, we believe in God.
That being a fact, whatever will tend to strengthen a people in the Christian faith, and help His people to live near to Him, is in entire accord with our national predisposition.
... This Court has expressed itself upon this point, in what is known as the "Mormon Cases," and in them all this rule is adopted. Religious liberty is by the Constitution guaranteed to all, but wickedness and vice and immorality are not religion simply because an individual or even sets of individuals may say and claim they are, and when judicial protection is invoked under the guise of religion; when they are in direct conflict with 'the enlightened sentiment of mankind, and inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society,' such aid will be denied. 'Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion.'
Mormon Church vs. U.S., 136 U.S., 49.
Davis vs. Beason, 133 U.S., 342, 345.
"We are a Christian people (Holy Trinity Church v. United States. 143 U.S. 457, 470, 471 S., 12 S. Ct. 511), according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God. But, also, we are a nation with the duty to survive; a nation whose Constitution contemplates war as well as peace; whose government must go forward upon the assumption, and safely can proceed upon no other, that unqualified allegiance to the nation and submission and obedience to the laws of the land, as well those made for war as those made for peace, are not inconsistent with the will of God."
We will first dispose of what is considered the grand objection -- the constitutionality of Christianity... Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law... not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church... but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men.
Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws for a Christian country and a Christian people.... [T]hus it is irrefragably proved that the laws and institutions of this State are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity.... In this the Constitution of the United States has made no alteration nor in the great body of the laws which was an incorporation of the common-law doctrine of Christianity."