civil officer who, from pusillanimity, refuses to exercise the power placed in his hands to restrain abuse, deserves, at least, an equal share of our execration.

THIRDLY. lated by society.

The right of religious liberty may be vio

We have before said, that every individual has the right to pursue his own happiness, by worshipping his Creator in any way that he pleases, provided he do not interfere with the rights of his neighbor.

This includes the following things: He is at liberty to worship God in any form that he deems most acceptable to Him, to worship individually or socially, and to promote that form of worship which he considers acceptable to God, by the promulgation of such sentiments as he believes to be true, provided he leave the rights of his neighbors unmolested; and of this liberty he is not to be restricted, unless such molestation be made manifest to a jury of his peers.

As a man is at liberty to worship God individually or in societies collected for that purpose, if his object can be secured, in his own opinion, by the enjoyment of any of the facilities for association granted to other men for innocent purposes, he is entitled to them just as other men are. The general principle applicable to the case, I suppose to be this: A man, in consequence of being religious, that is, of worshipping God, acquires no human right whatever; for it is, so far as his fellow-men's rights are concerned, the same thing, whether he worship God or not. And, on the other hand, in consequence of being religious, he loses no right, and for the same reason. And, therefore, as men are entitled to all innocent facilities which they need for prosecuting an innocent object, a religious man has the same right to these facilities for promoting his object; and i is the business of no one to inquire whether this be religious, scientific, mechanical, or any other, so long as it is merely innocent.

Now this right is violated by society,

1. By forbidding the exercise of all religion; as in the case of the French Revolution.

2. By forbidding or enforcing the exercise of any form

of religion. I so far as an act is religious, society has uc right of control over it. If it interfere with the rights of others, this puts it within the control of society, and this alone, and solely for this reason. The power of society is, therefore, in this case, exercised simply on the ground of injury perpetrated and proved, and not on account of the truth or falseness, the goodness or badness, of the religion in the sight of the Creator.

of

3. By inflicting disabilities upon men, or depriving them any of their rights as men, because they are or are not religious. This violation occurs in all cases in which society interferes to deny to religious men the same privileges for promoting their happiness by way of religion, as they enjoy for promoting their happiness in any other innocent way. Such is the case when religious societies are denied the right of incorporation, with all its attendant privileges, for the purposes of religious worship, and the promotion of their religious opinions. Unless it can be shown that the enjoyment of such privileges interferes with the rights of others, the denial of them is a violation of religious liberty. Depriving clergymen of the elective franchise, is a violation of a similar character.

4. By placing the professors of any peculiar form of religion under any disabilities; as, for instance, rendering them ineligible to office, or in any manner making a dis tinction between them and any other professors of religion, or any other men. As society has no right to inflict disabilities upon men, on the ground of their worshipping God, in general, by consequence, it has no right to inflict disabilities on the ground of worshipping God in any manner in particular. If the whole subject is without the control of society, a part of it is also without its control. Different modes of worship may be more or less acceptable to God; but this gives to no man a right to interfere with those means of happiness, which God has conferred upon any other man.

The question may arise here, whether society has a right to provide by law for the support of religious instruction I answer, If the existence of religious instruction be necessary to the existence of society, and if there be no other

mode of providing for its support, but by legislative enactment, then, I do not see any more violation of principle in such enactment, than in that for the support of common schools; provided that no one were obliged to attend unless he chose, and that every one were allowed to pay for that form of worship which he preferred. There are other objections, however, to such a course, aside from that arising from the supposed violation of civil liberty.

1. It cannot be shown that religious teachers cannot be supported without legislative aid. The facts teach a different result.

2. The religion of Christ has always exerted its greatest power when, entirely unsupported, it has been left to exert its own peculiar effect upon the consciences of men.

3. The support of religion by law is at variance with the genius of the gospel. The gospel supposes every man to be purely voluntary in his service of God, in his choice of the mode of worship of his religious teachers, and of the compensation which he will make to them for their services. Now, all this is reversed in the supposition of a ministry supported by civil power. We therefore conclude that, although such support might be provided without interference with civil liberty, it could not be done without violation of the spirit of the gospel. That is, though the state might be desirous of affording aid to the church, the church is bound, on principle, resolutely and steadfastly to protest against in any manner receiving it.

4. And I think that the facts will show that this view of the subject is correct. The clergy, as a profession, are better remunerated by voluntary support than by legal enactment. When the people arrange the matter of compensation with their clergymen themselves, there are no rich and overgrown benefices, but there are also but few miserably poor curacies. The minister, if he deserve it, generally lives as well as his people. If it be said that high talent should be rewarded by elevated rank in this profession, as in any other, I answer, that such seems to me not to be the genius of the gospel. The gospel presents no inducements of worldly rank or of official dignity, and it scorns to hold out such motives to the religious teacher. I answer

again, official rank and luxurious splendor, instead of adding to, take from, the real influence of a teacher of religion. They tend to destroy that moral hardihood which is necessary to the success of him, whose object it is to render men better; and, while they surround him with all the insignia of power, enervate that very spirit on which moral power essentially depends. And, besides, a religion supported by the government, must soon become the tool of the government; or, at least, must be involved and implicated in every change which the government may undergo. How utterly at variance this must be with the principles of Him who declared, "My kingdom is not of this world," surely need not be illustrated.

CHAPTER SECOND.

JUSTICE IN RESPECT TO PROPERTY.

SECTION 1.

THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY.

I. DEFINITION of the right of property.

The abstract right of property is the right to use something in such manner as I choose.

But, inasmuch as this right of use is common to all men, and as one may choose to use his property in such a way as to deprive his neighbor of this or of some other right, the right to use as I choose is limited by the restriction, that I do not interfere with the rights of my neighbor. The right of property, therefore, when thus restricted, is the right to use son.ething as I choose, provided I do not so use it as to interfere with the rights of my neighbor.

Thus, we see that, from the very nature of the case, the right of property is exclusive; that is to say, if I have a right to any thing, this right excludes every one else from any right over that thing; and it imposes upon every one else the obligation to leave me unmolested in the use of it, within those limits to which my right extends.

II. On what the right of property is founded.

The right of property is founded on the will of God, as made known to us by natural conscience, by general consequences, and by revelation.

Every thing which we behold is essentially the property of the Creator; and he has a right to confer the use of it upon whomsoever, and under what restrictions soever, he pleases. We may know in what relations he wills us to stand towards the things around us by the principles which