the public peace, or disturb others in their religious worship." (State Const., Part 1, Art. V.)

§ 18. Again, it is premised and declared that, "as morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society by the institution of the public worship of the Deity, and of public instruction in morality and religion; therefore, to promote those important purposes, the people of the State have a right to empower, and do hereby fully empower the legislature to authorize from time to time the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate or religious societies within this State to make adequate provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality." (Ib., Art. VI.)

§ 19. It is further "provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate or religious societies shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their own public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance;" and further, that "no person of any one particular religious sect or denomination shall be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect or denomi nation;" and still further, that "every denomination of Christians demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the State, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.” (Ib.)

§ 20. In the State of Vermont it is declared "that all men have a natural and inalienable right to worship

Almighty God according to the dictates of their own con sciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no man ought to, or of right can, be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister contrary to the dictates of his conscience; nor can any man be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious worship; and that no authority can or ought to be vested in or assumed by any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control, the rights of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship." (State Constitu tion, Chap. 1, Art. 3.)

§ 21. It is nevertheless positively asserted that "every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the Sabbath, or Lord's Day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God."

This language would strictly apply only to the members of the Christian church, but it is presumed that the framers of the Constitution designed that the admonition should apply to all the people of the State. (Ib.)

§ 22. By the fundamental law of the State of Massachusetts, it is declared to be "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," and it is asserted that "no subject shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, liberty or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and seasons most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession or sentiment," with the proviso, however, that "he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others

in their religious worship." (State Constitution, Part 2, Art. II.)

§ 23. It has been held by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that the rejection of a witness as incompetent, by reason of his want of religious belief, is not a violation of the second article of the bill of rights. The court, in their opinion, remarked that all the authorities agree that an atheist, who disbelieves in the existence of a God, who is "the rewarder of truth and avenger of falsehood," can not be permitted to testify. Mr. Justice WILDE said, "in the opinion of the court this article had no reference to atheists, and to their competency as witnesses. It was intended to prevent persecution by punishing any one for his religious opinions, however erroneous they might be. But an atheist is without any religion, true or false. The disbelieving in the existence of any God is not a religious, but an anti-religious, sentiment." (Thurston v. Whitney, 2 Cush. 104.)

§ 24. But this question as to the religious belief necessary to render a witness competent, so much discussed heretofore by the Massachusetts courts, is now set at rest by the general statutes of 1860, by which "every person, not a believer in any religion, is required to testify truly, under the pains and penalties of perjury; and the evidence of such person's disbelieving in the existence of God may be received to affect his credibility." (Gen. Stat., Chap. 131, Sec. 12.)

§ 25. By the Constitution of Rhode Island it is premised that "Almighty God hath created the mind free," and that "all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacities, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness;" and further, that "a principal object of our venerated ancestors, in their migration to this

country and their settlement of this State, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments." (State Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3.)

§ 26. Upon the premises laid down, the Constitution declares "that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested or burthened in his body or goods, nor disqualified from holding any office, nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and by agreement to maintain his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect his civil capacity." (Ib.)

§ 27. In the State of Connecticut the Constitutional provision upon the subject is brief and to the point, which is that "the exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship shall forever be free to all persons." in the State, "provided that the right" by the Constitution "declared and established shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the State." (State Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 3.)

§ 28. It will be observed that there is a similarity in the language of several of the Constitutions of the New England States upon the subject of religious freedom, but in a majority of them the great fact is recognized that the public worship of God, and instruction in morality and religion, are calculated to give the best and greatest security to gov

ernment; and in one of the Constitutions a preference is given for "the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality," while in none of them is it made the duty of the commonwealth to enforce such worship or instruction.

CHAPTER III.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY-STATE CONSTITUTIONS-THE NORTHERN

MIDDLE STATES.

§ 29. In the State of New York it is declared by the fundamental law that "the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed," in the State, "to all mankind;" and that "no person shall be rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief." This declaration, however, is made with the express reservation that the liberty of conscience thereby secured "shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety" of the State." (State Constitution, Article I, Section 3.)

30. Previous to the Constitution of 1846, no person was competent to testify as a witness unless he believed in the existence of a God, who would punish him if he swore falsely; and the general tenor of judicial decision was that the witness should believe in a state of rewards and punishments in the world to come, though it was sometimes held at the circuits and in the courts of common pleas that if he believed he would be punished by his God, even in this