March 19, 1823. Religion in the schools. RELIGION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. WRITTEN BY JAMES MADISON TO EDWARD EVERETT.1 DEAR SIR: . A university with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian mo nopoly; with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of theological gladiators. Without any such professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, False impu the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others. On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public university without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a university. tations against A futile project. Christians slow to see the lar schools I recollect to have seen, many years ago, a project of a prayer, by Governor Livingston, father of the present Judge, intended to comprehend and conciliate college students of every Christian denomination, by a form composed wholly of texts and phrases of Scripture. If a trial of the expedient was ever made, it must have failed, notwithstanding its winning aspect, from the single cause that many sects reject all set forms of worship. The difficulty of reconciling the Christian mind. benefit of secu- to the absence of a religious tuition from a university established by law, and at the common expense, is probably less with us than with you. The settled opinion here is that religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, Religion wholly exempt from cognizance of government. All sects have equal rights. 1. Writings of James Madison," volume iii, page 305 et see Mutual cen sorship bene Toleration a source of Theory of entire separa and law exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over- ficial heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for animosity. public quiet and harmony, but rather a source itself of discord and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shown that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to its consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, etc., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion. tion of religion sound. Human laws not nec essary to sup port of re Clergy arraigned schools. Probable reason. With such a public opinion, it may be expected ligion. that a university, with the feature peculiar to ours, will succeed here if anywhere. Some of the clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not the secular improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an Episcopal school within the College of William and Mary, though in a very guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which, if they have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such an experiment in the university of the State, endowed and supported, as this will be, altogether by the public authority and at the common expense. Jan. 23, 1825. We boast of entire liberty How far we are from it. CIVIL LAWS AGAINST BLASPHEMY. WRITTEN BY JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.1 QUINCY, January 23, 1825. MY DEAR SIR: We think ourselves possessed, or at least we boast that we are so, of liberty of conof conscience. science on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact. There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny, or to doubt, the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Punishment Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself, it is punished by boring through Punishment the tongue with a red hot poker. In America it is not much better; even in our Massachusetts, which, in Europe. in America. Adams's statement verified. An act of Congress. Law against blasphemy. toring h the 2 1 "Works of Thomas Jefferson," volume vii, pages 396, 397. 2 The truth of Adams's statement is proved by the following law, which, legally, is in force in the very capital of our nation to-day,— although, of course, it is a dead letter. It was a Maryland law enacted in 1723, and, with the rest of the laws of Maryland, was in 1801 adopted as a law in the District of Columbia by the following act of Congress : "SECTION 92. The laws of the State of Maryland not inconsistent with this title, as the same existed on the twenty-seventh day of February, 1801, except as since modified or repealed by Congress or by au thority thereof, or until so modified or repealed, continue in force within the District.' "Revised Statutes, District of Columbia," page 9. The first section of the act, entitled, "An act to punish blasphemers, swearers, drunkards, and Sabbath-breakers,” etc., reads as follows: "... That if any person shall hereafter, within this province, wittingly, maliciously, and advisedly, by writing or speaking, blaspheme, or curse God, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead, or shall utter any profane words concerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the persons thereof, and shall be thereof convict by verdict, or confession, shall, for the first offense, be bored through the tongue and The laws in Massachusetts. Free inquiry proscribed. Subject dear to Adams. I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemies upon any book of the Old Testament or the New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any arguments for investigation into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Volney's Recherches Nouvelles? Who would run the risk of translating Dapin's? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws into execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them; but as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress into its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever; but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which, I think, will not amination forbear examination, and they ought to be separated. fined twenty pounds sterling; . . . and that for the second offense, the offender being therefore convict as aforesaid, shall be stigmatized by burning in the forehead with the letter B and fined forty pounds sterling; . . . and that for the third offense, the offender being convict as aforesaid, shall suffer death without the benefit of the clergy." "Laws of the District of Columbia," page 136 et seq. As incompatible as they are with religious equality, several of the States have similar laws, with the penalty somewhat modified, and now and then attempts are made to enforce them. They retard progress of Their repeal humanity. desired. Christianity will bear ex ever. Burning on forehead. Death for third offense A. D 1458. Statement of the circum- ing the litiga- Most remarkable instance of judicial legislation in history. Thorough ness of Jefferson's study. CHRISTIANITY AND THE COMMON LAW. WHETHER CHRISTIANITY IS A PART OF THE COM- In quare impedit, in Common Bench, [Year Book] 34th year Henry VI, folio 38, the defendant, bishop of Lincoln, pleads that the church of the plaintiff became void by the death of the incumbent; that the plaintiff and I. S., each pretending a right, presented two several clerks; that the church being thus rendered litigious, he was not obliged, by the ecclesiastical law, to admit either, until an inquisition de 1 Appendix to " Reports of Cases Determined in the General Court of Virginia, from 1730 to 1740 and from 1768 to 1772, by Thomas Jefferson" (Charlottesville, F. Carr & Co., 1829), page 137 et seq. In the preface to his reports (page vi), Jefferson says: "I have added, also, a disquisition of my own on the most remarkable instance of judicial legislation that has ever occurred in English jurisprudence, or, perhaps, in any other. It is that of the adoption in mass of the whole code of another nation, and its incorporation into the legitimate system, by usurpation of the judges alone, without a particle of legislative will having ever been called on, or exercised towards its introduction or confirmation.” And in a letter to Edward Everett, dated at Monticello, October 15, 1824, he wrote as follows: "I do not remember the occasion which led me to take up this subject, while a practitioner of the law. But I know I went into it with all the research which a very copious law library enabled me to indulge; and I fear not for the accuracy of any of my quotations. The doc:rine might be disproved by many other and different topics of reasoning ; but having satisfied myself of the origin of the forgery, and found how, like a rolling snow-ball, it had gathered volume, I leave its further pursuit to those who need further proof, and perhaps I have already gone further than the feeble doubt you expressed might require." "Works of Thomas Jefferson," volume vii, page 383. Jefferson was an eminent common-law scholar and was conversant with the Mirrour of Justices, Henri de Bracton, Fleta and Britton, Glanvil, Saint Germain, Fortescue Aland, and all the older writings on the common law, and therefore was naturally a competent critic upon the subject in hand. Without reading these older writers one can hardly |