Of the great minds illuminating France in the era succeeding the Revolution he says: These kings and queens of society represented not material interests— not commerce, not manufacturers, not stocks, not capital, not railways, not trade, not industrial exhibitions, not armies and navies, but ideas, those invisible agencies which shake thrones and make revolutions and lift the soul above that which is transient to that which is permanentto religion, to philosophy, to art, to poetry, to the glories of home, to the certitudes of friendship, to the benedictions of heaven. These and hundreds of similar reflections profusely current in every volume of Dr. Lord's writings mark the standard of a morality such as has been rarely applied to the measurements of history—a morality which is that neither of the casuist nor the ascetic, but which is as lofty as it is clear, and which is fit for the instruction and inspiration of all ages. In an epoch like the present, sorely tempted by the glitter of material riches and power, it is the quality which preeminently commends his work to the rising generation of students, and which forms the priceless jewel in the crown of his fame. To such translators of the past the debt of intelligent gratitude is an ever-filling cup; since, neither dazzled by power nor warped in reason by the conventions of mankind, they are our beneficent instructors, keeping their vision clear and single to that eternal law of right which we name justice, that sleeps not nor changes through the changing centuries, but keeps its righteous and loyal reckoning with the institutions and the deeds of men. William Jacken Roasting 61-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XV. сн ART. VII. THE RELATION OF RELIGION TO OUR GOVERNMENT. AN erroneous doctrine has gained considerable credence in this country. In an editorial in one of the leading religious papers, issued some weeks ago, it was said: "Mormonism has the same right to exist and practice its principles in this country as Christianity or any other religion has." In a recent number of the American Law Review the Hon. Prentiss Webster, in an article on "Church and State," advances the same doctrine, namely, that the religious liberty granted in the federal Constitution is an equality of religions. He cites in this connection a passage in the great work of the late Judge Cooley on Constitutional Limitations: "It is not toleration which is established under our system, but religious equality." But this interpretation is evidently not correct, for in the same connection the judge says: "In a certain sense and for certain purposes Christianity is a part of the law of the land;" and, therefore, what he means is that the various phases of Christian belief are on an equality. Again Judge Cooley says: "Christianity is not a part of the law of the land in the sense that would entitle the courts to take notice of and base their judgments upon it, except so far as they find that its precepts have been incorporated in and thus become a component part of the law." But we fear that in this last sentence the judge does not fully express the law of our land. The true doctrine is that we have not only enacted Christianity to a large extent by statute, which he acknowledges, but also that we have by various customs made it a part of our common law. We shall show that the Supreme Court of the United States-a higher authority than Judge Cooley-has by a unanimous opinion sustained this view. But, first, let us consider an opinion that is contrary to this doctrine and one which has been extensively quoted. In Bloom vs. Richards, and in McGatrick vs. Wason-both Ohio cases-it was asserted that "neither Christianity nor any other system of religion is a * 2 Ohio State 387. part of the law of this State;" that there can be no religious legislation under our purely secular system; and that this act, requiring citizens to keep a quiet Sunday, "is a mere police regulation, whose validity is neither strengthened nor weakened by the fact that the day of rest it enjoins is the Sabbath day." And yet this learned judge, the late Allen G. Thurman, in another part of the same opinion, says: "Of course it is no objection, but on the other hand a very high recommendation to a legislative enactment, based upon justice or public policy, that it is found to coincide with the precepts of a pure religion." But we find other inconsistencies in this notable opinion. In The United States vs. Fisher,* Chief Justice Marshall advanced the doctrine that the title to an act helps to interpret its meaning, and this doctrine was reaffirmed in The United States vs. Palmer.t In The United States vs. The Union Pacific Railroad it was held that a guide to a meaning of a statute is the evil it was intended to remedy. And this doctrine was affirmed in "The Holy Trinity" case. With these two thoughts, coming in double form from the highest court of the land, let us examine this opinion of Judge Thurman. The act considered was entitled "An Act to Prevent Immoral Practices." It is classed by the legislature with crimes. The third section of the act provides for the punishment of those who disturb "religious worship." The fourth section of the act provides that "if any person of the age of fourteen and upward shall purposely curse or damn or profanely swear by the name of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, he shall be punished." Furthermore, a proviso to the section considered by the court exempts "those who do conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath." The word "Sabbath" means "holy day." Is it not, therefore, evident that the intention of the act was to protect the Christian Sabbath and Christian worship, and make criminals of those who desecrate that day or injure that worship? Why quibble and call it a police regulation? It can be nothing else than legislation in favor of the Christian religion, but allowing due courtesy to those who worship on another day than the Christian Sabbath. 2 Cranch. 358. † 3 Wheat. 610. +91 U. S. 72. § 143 U. S. The author here maintains that in various ways we legislate in favor of Christianity, and that this is not unconstitutional nor out of harmony with the principles of liberty. The federal Constitution is often pointed to by the agnostic, atheist, deist, and other unbelievers as the charter of their liberty to scoff at Christianity. But Christianity is the only relig ion known to American law. Our marriage laws are based upon its teachings. Our usury laws are peculiarly Christian. Our doctrine of charities is Christian. Our public institutions, providing for the care of deaf, dumb, blind, feeble-minded, and insane, and all our reformatory institutions are Christian. No other religion ever enacted laws for the care, education, and elevation of these classes. Our doctrines concerning the guardianship of infants are Christian.* That great principle of equity, "He who seeks equity must do equity," is another form for Christ's golden rule. Justinian, Charlemagne, and Alfred acknowledge that their codes are derived from the Bible and harmonize with its teachings. He who is familiar with the history of our law knows how much we have built upon those three great lawgivers. Every philosophic student of American law must acknowledge that it is Christianity which gives to our law that majesty which enables our government to enforce its demands, collect its revenues, and administer its affairs. The conscience of Christianity is more potent than a police agent or the standing army. In the great debates in the Constitutional Convention of New York, in 1821, such men as Chancellor Kent, Chief Justice Spencer, Rufus King, and Martin Van Buren agreed that the Christian religion was ingrafted upon the law and was entitled to protection as the basis of our morals and the strength of our government. We do not enact into our law the teachings of Epictetus, Seneca, and Confucius, but those of Christ. We have no union of a Church with our government, but we do unite religion—the Christian religion-with the State. The proper administration of justice depends very largely upon *Story on Equity, sec. 1,341: "For, although in general parents are intrusted with the custody of the persons and the education of their children, yet this is done upon the natural presumption that the children will be properly taken care of, and will be brought up with a due education in literature, morals, and religion. But when this presumption is removed the Court of Chancery will interfere and deprive the parent of the custody of his children." . the binding sense of obligation to the supreme Being in the minds of witnesses and jurors. We exempt from taxation church property used for religious purposes, and thus indirectly support the Church out of the public treasury. The Constitution does not define the word "religion," but it is evident, from our customs and laws, that the Christian religion is the religion of the land. When our chief executive is inaugurated he is not sworn on the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Vedas of the Hindus, the Kings of the Chinese, the Zendavesta of the Persians, nor even upon the Old Testament of the Jews, but on the Bible-the holy book of the Christian. Washington in one of his presidential addresses said: "Of all the dispositions that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to cherish and respect these firmest pillars of free government." And since that time the statesmen of this country have expressed themselves with no uncertain voice as to the relation of religion to the State. In his last inaugural Grover Cleveland said: "Above all, I know there is a supreme Being whose goodness and mercy have always followed the American people, and I know he will not turn from us now if we humbly and reverently seek his powerful aid." President McKinley in his inaugural said: I assume the arduous and responsible duties of President of the United States, relying on the support of my countrymen, and invoking the guidance of Almighty God. Our faith teaches that there is no safer reliance than upon the God of our fathers, who has so singularly favored the American people in every national trial, and who will not forsake us as long as we obey his commandments and walk humbly in his footsteps. Many of our presidents have issued religious proclamations, and for more than a generation the national Thanksgiving Proclamation has gone forth from the White House with as much annual regularity as the message to Congress. In 1812, when it became necessary to declare war the second time against the mother country, a joint committee of the two Houses in closing their report to Congress used these words: "Believing that the God of battles will go with us, and crown our efforts with success in this righteous cause, your committee recommends an immediate appeal to arms." In 1664, when |