"In such cases where the right of property in the civil court is dependent on the question of doctrine, discipline, ecclesiastical law, rule, or custom, or church government, and that has been decided by the highest tribunal within the organization to which it has been carried, the civil court will accept that decision as conclusive, and be governed by it in its application to the case before it."1

Christianity is a part of the common law of England, according to the judicial declaration of Sir Matthew Hale and other English judges.' The same may be said of the United States to a limited extent, namely as far as the principles and precepts of Christianity have been incorporated in our laws, and as far as is consistent with religious and denominational equality. For our laws give no preference to any creed, but protect all alike. They protect Jews as well as Christians, infidels as well as believers, in the enjoyment of their rights, provided they do not disturb the public peace.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of Updegraph against the Commonwealth, February sessions, 1822, argued in the Mayor's Court of the city of Pittsburg, decided that "Christianity is and always has been a part of the common law of Pennsylvania"; and that “maliciously to vilify the Christian religion is an indictable offence." This Christianity was, however, defined by Judge Duncan, who delivered the opinion of the court, as “general 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.”

Daniel Webster, in the celebrated Girard will case, argued 1" United States Supreme Court Reports," 13. Wallace, p. 630. (In “Cases Argued and Adjudged, December Term, 1871.”)

* Blackstone, "Commentaries," Book IV. 59, says: "Christianity is part of the laws of England."

* Abner Updegraph, of Pittsburg, was charged with vilifying the Christian religion and declaring that the Holy Scriptures were a mere fable, and contained, with a number of good things, a great many lies. See "Reports of Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," by Thomas Sergeant and William Rawle, Jr. Phila., vol. xi. 394, sqq. The opinion is given in fail in Document IX.

+Ibid. p. 400.

before the United States Supreme Court in Washington, February, 1844, took the same view and gave it a wider application. The most eloquent and impressive part of his argument against the will is that in which he shows the close connection of education with religion. We quote the following 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 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. Every thing 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 mementos and memorials around and about us; the consecrated graveyards, their tombstones and epitaphs, their silent vaults, their mouldering 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.”

The Supreme Court sustained the will and the previous decision of the Circuit Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (1841), but on the ground that, while it excluded ecclesiastics from holding office in Girard College, it was not expressly hostile to the Christian religion, and did not forbid the reading of the Bible and the teaching of unsectarian Christianity by laymen. Justice Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, admitted that "the Christian religion is truly a part of the common law of Pennsylvania," but that this proposition is to be received with its appropriate qualifications, and in connection with the bill of rights of that State and the full liberty of religion guaranteed by the constitution of 1790 and 1838. He concludes:

1 Webster's "Works," vol. vi. 176.

The italics are Webster's.

"So that we are compelled to admit that, although Christianity be a part of the common law of this State, yet it is 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 the injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 Serg. and Rawle, 394.”1

In the State of New York Christianity is likewise recognized by the law, and blasphemy is punishable. In the case of The people against Ruggles, who was indicted, December, 1810, for blasphemous utterances concerning Christ, the Supreme Court at Albany, August, 1811, confirmed the judgmenh of imprisonment and a fine of $500. Chief-Justice James. Kent, one of the fathers of American jurisprudence, and author of the "Commentaries on American Law," in delivering the opinion of the court, declared that "we are a Christian people," and said:

“The free, equal, and undisturbed enjoyment of religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent discussions on any religious subject, are 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. . . . 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 motive of the 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."

In the important case of The people vs. Lindenmüller (who had openly violated the Sunday laws and caused successive suits), the Supreme Courtof the State of New York, May 29, 1861, strongly maintained the same ground. Justice Allen in delivering the opinion, his associates concurring, said:

"Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Supreme Court of the United States, January Term, 1844." By B, C. Howard. Vol. ii., Phila., 1845, p. 183 sqq., especially pp. 198 and 199. The Girard College is a noble institution for the education of orphans, and has, so far, had earnest Christian laymen as presidents, who conduct it in the spirit of unsectarian Christianity.

"Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature in the State of New York." By William Johnson, vol. viii. p. 290 sqq. See the whole decision in Document X.

Christianity is not the legal religion of the State, as established by law. If it were, it would be a civil or political institution, which it is not ; but this is not inconsistent with the idea that it is in fact, and ever has been, the religion of the people. This fact is everywhere prominent in all our civil and political history, and has been, from the first, recognized and acted upon by the people, as well as by constitutional conventions, by legislatures, and by courts of justice." 1

A similar position of the connection between Christianity and the state is taken by the courts of Massachusetts, Delaware, and New Jersey."

Judge Theodore W. Dwight, president of the Columbia Law School, New York, and one of the most learned jurists in the United States, whom I consulted on the subject, gives his opinion in a letter as follows:

"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.” There are indeed able jurists who hold a different view, and maintain that our laws deal only with public morality.

1 See Document XI.

In New Jersey a man was recently punished for blasphemy, in spite of the eloquent defence of Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll, the apostle of American infidelity, who denounced the law as an infringement of the right of free speech. An editorial in the Albany Law Journal, June 4, 1887, on this case, defends the constitutionality, but doubts the policy of such prosecutions.

Nobody can be punished in this country for rejecting Christianity as a system of belief or even of conduct. But all must admit that the American system of law, whether inherited from England or enacted by statute, has grown up, together with our whole civilization, under the influence of the Christian religion, and is, directly or indirectly, indebted to it for its best elements. It breathes the spirit of justice and humanity, and protects the equal rights of all. Such a system could not have originated on heathen or Mohammedan soil. And we may say that our laws are all the more Christian because they protect the Jew and the infidel, as well as the Christian of whatever creed, in the enjoyment of the common rights of men and of citizens.

The Oath.

3. The oath, or solemn appeal to the Deity for the truth of an assertion is administered by the national government and the State governments with the use of the Bible, either in whole or in part, in conformity with old Christian custom and the national reverence for the Book of books. Simple affirmation, however, is justly allowed as a substitute,' in justice to the consciences of Quakers and atheists, who, from opposite motives cannot honestly take an oath. But if the affirmation proves false, it is punished as perjury. The Revised Statutes of New York provide also, that persons believing in any other than the Christian religion shall be sworn according to the peculiar ceremonies of their religion, instead of the usual mode of laying the hand upon and kissing the Gospels. Thus, a Jew may be sworn on the Old Testament, with his head covered, a Mohammedan, on the Koran, a Chinaman by breaking a china saucer. All this is simply just; and Christian, because just.

Official Acts of the Presidents.

4. Our Presidents, in their inaugural addresses, annual messages and other official documents, as well as in occasional

'It seems to have been inserted in the Federal Constitution without any debate. Madison, in the "* Debates of the Federal Convention" (Elliot, v. 498) simply reports, "The words or affirmation,' were added after oath.'"