sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private right of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to

level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

It was clearly not the purpose of the makers of the Constitution to countenance the introduction of Mohammedanism, or Buddhism, or even infidelity, "but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government." Every American colony, with the possible exception of Rhode Island, from its foundation down to the time of the forming of the Constitution, had openly supported some form of the Christian religion. And this amendment was adopted for the purpose of leaving the subject of religion exclusively to the separate commonwealths. At the first test case before the Supreme Court "the decision was that the Constitution contained no clause guaranteeing religious liberty against the several States, which might make such regulations on the subject as they saw fit." Nor does the Constitution contain any clause prohibiting the national government from deciding what forms of religious belief it will tolerate, and what forms it will not. "In deciding the Mormon cases," says Justice Miller, "the Supreme Court held that the pretence of a religious belief in polygamy could not deprive Congress of the power to prohibit it, as well as all other offences against the enlightened sentiment of mankind,"

Many of the separate States have adopted constitutions limiting the action of their respective governments even more stringently than Congress is limited by the clause already quoted. Art. I., Sec. 3, of the Constitution of New York begins as follows: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed in this State to all mankind, and no person shall be incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on matters of religious belief." The Constitution of Wisconsin is probably more stringent on this point than that of any other State in the Union. Besides the clause against "sectarian instruction" in the public school, the Constitution provides: "(1) The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall not be abridged. (2) Nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. (3) Nor shall any control or interference with the right of conscience be permitted, or any preference given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship. (4) Nor shall any money be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of religious societies, or religious or theological seminaries."

These provisions are undoubtedly in the main wise and beneficial in a country made up of so many different races and sects as ours. But, notwithstanding the fact that the word "forever" occurs so frequently in them, they are all subject to amendment or repeal whenever the people, in their organic capacity as a state, desire to make it. None of them, whether state or national, imply an absolute separation of the state from religion, or prohibit the giving of religious

instruction in our public schools, or elsewhere, if the good of the people requires it. Nor do they in any degree militate against the fact that the United States is a Christian nation; and, while tolerating all religions that do not tend to subvert the public good, especially encourages and fosters the religion of Christ.

No one, it seems to me, has ever expressed more clearly the position that should be taken by every modern state on this subject than Judge Story in the work already referred to, in which he says: "The right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well-being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion: the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues; -these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

If at any time in the history of a state voluntary associations do not furnish the people with proper re

ligious instruction and proper opportunities for worship, the state should not be left to suffer. The government, if necessary, should establish and maintain a system that does adequately provide for the public need. The state should always regard religion as a means, not as an end. It should never try to compel its subjects to adopt any system of religious belief, or conform to any mode of worship. But it should furnish to every citizen full opportunity to acquaint himself with the essentials of religion, and grant him, also, every reasonable facility for giving expression to his religious belief in the forms of worship he may most desire.

CHAPTER IX.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN THEOLOGY.'

THE correspondence between Professor St. George Mivart and Cardinal Vaughan concerning the Professor's recent articles on the relation of educated Roman Catholics to the Bible marks a most significant epoch in the history of religious thought. It brings most strikingly to view the fact that the time is past when any one can serve the cause of true religion by ignoring the methods of modern science. It also makes clear and vivid the necessity of establishing our theological beliefs on just the same scientific basis as our beliefs in any other sphere of inquiry, if they are going to influence in any effective way the thought of the future.

The aim of the present paper is to set forth with clearness the principles that underlie all our beliefs, and then to show how these principles are to be applied to the particular field of investigation we now have in view.

It is customary in discussing the method of science to go back to Aristotle and treat of the subject under the two distinct heads of induction and deduction. But we now see that the two methods are not wholly independent of each other. In reality, they are frequently blended or employed alternately in the pursuit of science. It is no exaggeration to say that all the more important and extensive investigations of science rely as much upon the one as upon the other. In both, the syllogism, 'First published in the North American Review, April, 1900.