have considered it in a restricted shape,. let us now look at it upon more elevated ground; upon the ground of the constitution, of the social compact, and of civil and religious liberty.

Religion is an affair between God and man, and not between man and man. The laws which regulate it must emanate from the Supreme Being, not from human institutions. Established religons, deriving their autho rity from man, oppressing other denominations, prescribing creeds of orthodoxy, and punishing non-conformity, are repugnant to the first principles of civil and political liberty, and in direct collision with the divine spirit of christianity. Although no human legislator has a right to meddle with religion, yet the history of the world, is a history of oppression and tyranny over the consciences of men. And the sages who formed X our constitution, with this instructive lesson before their eyes, perceived the indispensable necessity of applying a preventitive, that would forever exclude the introduction of calamities, that have deluged the world with tears and with blood, and the following section was accordingly engrafted in our state constitution :

"And whereas we are required by the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance, wherewith the bigotry and ambi. tion of weak and wicked princes have scourged mankind, This convention doth further in the name, and by the authority of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and declare, that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimi nation or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed

within this state, to all mankind. Provided, that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of this

state."

Considering that we had just emerged from a colonial state, and were infected with the narrow views and bigotted feelings, which prevailed at that time so strongly against the Roman Catholics, that a priest was liable to the punishment of death if he came into the colony, this declaration of religious freedom, is a wonderful monument of the wisdom, liberality, and philanthropy of its authors. Next to William Penn, the framers of our constitution were the first legislators who had just views of the nature of religious liberty, and who established it upon the broad and imperishable basis of justice, truth, and charity: While we are compelled to remark that this excellent provision was adopted by a majority of one, it is but proper to say, that the colonial X statute against Roman Catholic Priests, originated more from political than religious considerations. The influence which the French had over the six nations, the Iroquois, and which was exercised to the great detriment of the British colonies, was ascribed to the arts and management of the Jesuits, and it was therefore, in violation of all respect for the rights of conscience, deemed of essential importance to interpose the penalty of death against their migration into the colony.

ཚ

A provision conceived in a spirit of the most profound wisdom, and the most exalted charity, ought to receive the most liberal construction. Although by the constitution of the United States, the powers of congress do

not extend beyond certain enumerated objects; yet tò prevent the danger of constructive assumptions, the following amendment was adopted: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In this country there is no alliance between church and state; no established religion; no tolerated religion-for toleration results from establishment-but religious freedom guaranteed by the constitution, and consecrated by the social compact.

It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered-that its ceremo nies as well as its essentials should be protected. The sacraments of a religion are its most important elements. We have but two in the Protestant Church-Baptism and the Lord's Supper-and they are considered the seals of the covenant of grace. Suppose that a decision of this court, or a law of the state should prevent the administration of one or both of these sacraments, would not the constitution be violated, and the freedom of religion be infringed? Every man who hears me will answer in the affirmative. Will not the same result follow, if we deprive the Roman catholic of one of his ordinances? Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance; and this important branch of the Roman catholic religion would be thus annihilated.

It has been contended that the provision of the constitation which speaks of practices inconsistent with the

peace or safety of the state, excludes this case from the protection of the constitution, and authorizes the interference of this tribunal to coerce the witness. In order to sustain this position, it must be clearly made out that the concealment observed in the sacrament of penance, is a practice inconsistent with the peace or safety of the

state.

The Roman catholic religion has existed from an early period of christianity-at one time it embraced almost all Christendom, and it now covers the greater part. The objections which have been made to penance, have been theological, not political. The apprehensions which have been entertained of this religion, have reference to the supremacy, and dispensing power, attributed to the bishop of Rome, as head of the catholic church-but we are yet to learn, that the confession of sins has ever been considered as of pernicious tendency, in any other respect than its being a theological error-or its having been sometimes in the hands of bad men, perverted to the purposes of peculation, an abuse inseperable from all human agencies.

The doctirine contended for, by putting hypothetical cases, in which the concealment of a crime communicated in penance, might have a pernicious effect, is founded on false reasoning, if not on false assumptions: To attempt to establish a general rule, or to lay down a general proposition from accidential circumstances, which occur but rarely, or from extreme cases, which may sometimes happen in the infinite variety of human actions, is totally repugnant to the rules of logic and the maxims of law. The question is not, whether penance may sometimes communicate the existence of an offence

to a priest, which he is bound by his religion to conceal, and the concealment of which, may be a public ij ry, but whether the natural tendency of it is to produce practices inconsistent with the public safety or tranquillity. There is in fact, no secret known to the priest, which would be communicated otherwise, than by confessionand no evil results from this communication-on the contrary, it may be made the instrument of great good. The sinner may be admonished and converted from the evil of his ways: Whereas if his offence was locked up in his own bosom, there would be no friendly voice to recal him from his sins, and no paternal hand, to point out to him the road to virtue.

The language of the constitution is emphatic and striking, it speaks of acts of licentiousness, of practices inconsistent with the tranquillity and safety of the state; it has reference to something actually, not negatively injurious. To acts ied, not to acts omitted-offences of a deep dye, and of an extensively injurious nature : It would be stretching it on the rack so say, that it can possibly contemplate the forbearance of a Roman catholic priest, to testify what he has received in confession, or that it could ever consider the safety of the community involved in this question. To assert this as the genuine meaning of the constitution, would be to mock the understanding, and to render the liberty of conscience a mere illusion. It would be to destroy the enacting clause of the proviso-and to render the exception broader than the rule, to subvert all the prin ciples of sound reasoning, and overthrow all the convictions of common sense.

If a religious sect should rise up and violate the decencies of life, by practicing their religious rites, in a

P