AND STATE IN THE UNITED STATES. That an indispensable function of any government is the conservation of public morals, and that an indispensable method of achieving it is to enforce the public exercise of some religious forms, seemed axiomatic to most people in the 17th century. The tenet that religion is best promoted' by leaving it to individual discretion was first evolved, naturally, by groups whose best hope was itnmunity, not establishment. These differ ing circumstances in the English colonies, with change of views from experience and change of policy from gain or loss of power, resulted in four chief attitudes of the colonial govern ments toward religion: (1) The establishment of a specific Church, and the taxation of the entire community to support it; (2) restriction of suffrage to church members, without speci fying the church —*theocracy"; (3) require ment of some church form and steady parish service in communities, without establishment of a specific Church or disfranchising individ uals; (4) entire religious liberty.
The first type is found in the chief Southern colonies and New England. Virginia came first, then Carolina before its division, the "Funda mental Constitutions' (see CAROLINA, ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION or) merely shaping in this re spect the provisions of Charles II's charter; lastly Maryland in 1691, after overthrowing the tolerant proprietary government. Each, from the nature of the case, established the Church of England. In New England the form of establishment was peculiar and quasi-casual; it was not statutory nor specific, but rested on local taxation to support a Church which, owing to circumstances, was at first always the Cal vinistic Congregational Church. When other chUrch bodies began to grow, this taxation was remitted to all who supported a church of their own; those who were not thus bona-fide con tributing members to another Church paid their cess to the Congregational as before. The sec ond type is represented exclusively by the early Massachusetts Bav and New Haven colonies. The former, 18 May 1631, when as yet there was no popular representation in the colony, enacted "that no man should be admitted to this body politic but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the same.' This restricted suffrage to one-fourth the adult males and was repealed 3 Aug. 1664. The latter, 4 June 1639, agreed "that church members only shall be free burgesses, and they only shall choose among themselves magistrates and offi cers' for public business. This, of course, per
ished with the absorption of the New Haven into the Connecticut colony, in 1662. The third type has but one tepresentative, New York, including the Jerseys. This was "the Duke's* (afterward James II) constitution, and is not the only ground for a less harsh judgment on him than prevails. The fourth type includes Rhode Island, the product of a quarrel with Massachusetts theology and politics, in which the founder's views developed by force of cir cumstances as he went on; Mar/land, founded by a Roman Catholic who would not have been allowed to establish his own religion; Pennsyl vania, equally limited to seeking immunity from persecution; and Georgia, founded late by an enlightened philanthropist.
The Revolution swept away all vestiges of establishment. The Constitution of 1787 pro vided against a danger not likely to recur. Arti cle VI enacts: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or pub lic trust under the United States.' This, how ever, did not touch the real likelihood if bigoted sectarians should control the government; the State contentions held to ratify the Constitu tion, urged a clause to guarantee full religious liberty; therefore the First Amendment begins: "Congress shall make no law respecting an es tablishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Even this does not in the least debar individual States from doing it; but most of their constitutions decisively prevent that, not only by direct prohibition, but by enact ing that no appropriation of public money shall be made to sectarian institutions. The stability of this provision, the impossibility of evading it, and its incalculable public value, have been proved many times over in the past half cen tury. In the early years of the Union, efforts were occasionally made to have the legis latures enact some test to confine the govern ment to Christians, for fear of atheistic or of Jewish control; or to Protestants, in fear of Catholic supremacy; but the improbability of its need has prevented any approach to success. The only serious problem that has arisen on this point is due to Mormonism, where the claim to free exercise of their religion and its dictates is complicated by one of its ostensible revelations enjoining polygamy. In 1882 Con gress prohibited polygamy under severe penal ties; and the Supreme Court held this not in conflict with the constitutional provision above cited.