The Church, as established by Christ, is a true and perfect society; it has its own in alienable nghts, which the State should pro tect. Such protection is quite feasible, when society is entirely Catholic; but in a State such as ours, would be fraught with many and varied difficulties. Hence Catholics of the United States have always stood for justice to the consciences of each and all. Their prin ciple of action in matters religious has been; Live and let live. Whereas at times Protest ants seem to have called upon civil authority to impose on others their own religious tenets. In colonial days, the only real freedom of worship to be found was that of Maryland during the brief control of the colony by Catho lics, 16..14-89. As Bancroft says, in his 'History of the United States,' the Maryland Act of Toleration, 1649, we.. 'the first in the annals of mankind to make religious freedom the basis of the State • 3. Free Worship.-- In civil society consti tuted as is ours, the only feasible attitude of the State toward external worship is that of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Thereby is safeguarded by the United States the inalienable right, which her every citizen has to liberty of conscience. That right should be respected by civil authority. For authority, the unitive principle of the State, is from God. Therefore it may not validly impose an obligation to violate God's law. But to go against one's conscience is to violate God's law. For it is the function of conscience so dictate to us what is God's law in each partic ular case. Were the State so to as to atrophy this function of conscience, it would seriously interfere with the observance of God's law. For it is the certain dictate of conscience that testifies just what particular form of worship is willed by God.
From this inalienable right, which each one has to worship God according to the certain dictate of conscience, we may conclude that. in a State such as ours, it would be ethically wrong to force one to practice even the true revealed religion. And this conclusion we draw, despite the fact that Christianity was estab lished as a world-religion, which Jesus wished all to embrace. Just before the Ascension, He appeared to the eleven apostles in Galilee and said to them: 'All power bath been given me in heaven and upon earth. Therefore go ye; make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, lo, I am with you all days, even to the end of the (Matthew 18-20). And on the very point of ascending ism heaven from Mount Olivet, Jesus once again gave this solemn message to the same body of teachers: "Go ye to all the world; preach the Gospel to all creation. He that beheveth and is baptized, shall be saved. He that believeth not, shall be damned.* (Mark xvi, 15-16). The will of Jesus Christ, the divine Ambassa dor, is clear. He wishes all to belong to His Church. Andyet no one is subject to the au thority of the Church, unless he has entered it. And he enters the Church by faith; since faith is the root and foundation of justifica tion. But true faith may not be forced. It must flow from the reason at the mandate of the unhampered, unshackled, free wilt Likewise, as our Constitution decrees, the State may not 'prohibit the free exercise" of religion according to one's conscience; nor im pose any obligation which runs counter to one's religious duty. It goes without sa that the rights of others must be And the State may prevent such religious prac tices as interfere with these rights, and hinder the well-being of the community. This juridi cal status of the modern, constitutional State, as the protector of the religious rights the logical consequence of two ffacts in the science of sociology.
First, the State is not a divindy constituted depository of God's revelation to man. Hence it has neither the duty nor the right to dictate what its members shall believe, nor bow they shall externally manifest their belief. arise established a spiritual, and not a material so nets.. He gave Ifis doctrines to the Church, and not to the State, to hand down to men.
Pilate asked Him, 'Art thou a king?' Jesus made reply: 'My kingdom is not of this world.' (John xviii, 33-36).
Secondly, the social organism or State is from God. Because man is by nature a social being. It is by the law of nature that men form themselves into an organic social unit. But whatsoever is by the law of nature, is from God the Author of nature. Therefore the social organism is from God. Therefore the unifying and vitalizing principle of that social organism is from God. But authority is the principle which unifies and vitalizes society. Hence the authority of the State is from God. Therefore civil authority is bound to protect God's rights in society. And one of those divine rights is to the reasonable manifestation, by the members of society, of their relations to the Supreme Author of the social organism.
No State has the right to be so godless and atheistic as utterly to rule God out. To rule God out of society were to do away with the very Author of society; to substitute the au thority of might for the might of authority; to destroy the vitalizing principle of the State, and to devitalize, disintegrate and destroy the social organism.
4. Freedom of Worship. Guaranteed by Treaties.— Since the State, as to-day consti tuted. has the right and the duty to guarantee to its subjects that freedom of worship which is dictated by the certain conscience of each individual and does not clash with the rights of others, this same freedom may be the legiti mate content of international treaties. The exigencies of diplomatic, business or other re lations may render it necessary that the sub jects of one State reside in another. They still have the natural right to God acco:ding to the dictate of a certain conscience. And their own State may protect that right. The treaty, whereby a State protects the re ligious freedom of its subjects abroad, is an agreement between two sovereign States; and essentially differs from a concordat. A con cordat is a treaty between the Apostolic See of Rome and a State in diplomatic relations therewith; it has to do with the relations of the Catholic Church to the State. Before the Protestant reformation there was only one ecclesiastical authority in Christendom; and the religious rights of subjects were amply protected by the canonical relations between that supreme papal power and Christian states. Now such protection can no longer be guaran teed. Hence the necessity of treaties between sovereign states, which have as their object the guarantee of a freedom of divine worship. We instance some such treaties between the United States and other countries, which were generally made for the protection of Protestant missionaries. By a treaty of 1805, with the sultan of Tripoli, the American consul, his family and household, were guaranteed free dom of worship in the consulate. By the Treaty of Guadalupe. 1848, Mexico permitted Americans to practice and spread their reli gion within that republic. In 1856, Siam signed a treaty with the United States, whereby Ameri cans were allowed to build churches and prac tise their faith in that kingdom. China, by the treaties of 1858 and 1868, yielded to Americans the right to build churches, maintain cane teries and practise their religion in those parts where foreigners were permitted to reside. In 1858, Japan ceded to Americana freedom of worship and the right to build churches; and the United States in turn assured Japan against molestation of her subjects in their worship. The year following, 1859, our government secured by treaty the religious freedom of Americans, residing in Paraguay. In Turkey, American missionaries have been active since 1818. At first they shared in the religious freedom, which the Edict of Toleration has al lowed to all Christians in the Ottoman empire since the 15th century. The treaties of 1830 and 1874 guaranteed to Americans the right to build churches, conduct mission schools and spread their religion throughout the Turkish empire.
Bibliography.— Pelisson-Fontanier, 'De Is tolerance des religions; Lettres de M. Leibnitz et Reponse* de M. Pelisson' (1692); %Imes, 'El protestantisrno compared° con el catol iciamo en sus relaciones con la civilizacian europea' (Vol. 1, 1842); von Ketteler, 'Frei heft. Autoritit, mid Kirche' (1862)• Mon talembert, lLeglise libre dans rem; Liberatore, 'La chiesa e lo mato) (1871); Hergennather, 'Catholic Church and Christian State' (Eng. tr., 1876); Lelunkuhl. 'Gewissens-und Kulturfreiheit' (in Shannon ma Maria Loch, 1876); Bak 'Rendes sur les rapports de l'eglise et de l'etat, et sur lent separation) (1822)• ' Reinkens, 'Leasing fiber Tolerant' (1884); Schaff, 'Church and State in the United States, or the American Idea of Religious Liberty and its Practical (1288); Dollinger, 'Akademiscbe Vortrige' (III. 1891); Nilles, 'Tolerari potest' (in Zeitschrift fir kotkolische Theotogs*, 1893)• Rickaby, Joseph, 'Moral Philosophy, or Ethic; and Natural Law' (1893) ,• Creighton, ton, 'Per secution and Tolerance' (l895) • autos, 'Die Strassburger Reformatoren und Gewissens (1895); id., 'Protestantismus and Tolerant im 16 Jahrh. ' (1911 ); Ledcy, 'Democracy and Liberty' (Vol. I, 1896); Have, 'Llieresie et le bras seculier an moyen ige jusqu'au attic' (18%) • Ruffini. 'La liberti religiose' (1901)- ' Kohler, 'Reforma tion und Ketterprocess' 0901); Devas, 'Key of the World's Progress' (1905); Cathrein. 'Gewissen und Gewissensfreiheit' (1906); Acton. 'History of Freedom' (1907): Vacandard, `L'inquisition: etude critique sor le pouvoir coercitif de realise' (1907); von Herding, 'Recht. Staat. and Gesellschaft' (1907).
Watmat Davis. S.J., Professor of Scripture, Woodstock College, Maryland.