annoyance of believers or the injury of the public. Such was the doctrine of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Updegraff v. The Commonwealth (11 Serg. & Rawle, 394).

BLOOM V. RICHARDS, Supreme Court of Ohio, 1853 (2 Ohio St. 387).

Thurman, J.:.

But were it otherwise, were such a contract void by the common law of England, it would not necessarily follow that it is void in Ohio. The English common law, so far as it is reasonable in itself, suitable to the condition and business of our people, and consistent with the letter and spirit of our federal and state constitutions and statutes, has been and is followed by our courts, and may be said to constitute a part of the common law of Ohio. But wherever it has been found wanting in either of these requisites, our courts have not hesitated to modify it to suit our circumstances, or if necessary, to wholly depart from it. Lessee of Lindsley v. Coates, 1 Ohio, 243; O. C. 116. Christianity, then, being part of the common law of England, there was some, though an insufficient, foundation for the saying of Chief Justice Best above quoted. But the constitution of Ohio having declared, "that all men have natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of conscience; that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that no man shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry, against his consent; and that no preference shall ever be given, by law, to any religious society, or mode of worship, and no religious test shall be required, as a qualification to any office of trust or profit," it follows that neither christianity, nor any other system of religion, is a part of the law of this state. We sometimes hear it said that all religions are tolerated in Ohio; but the expression is not strictly accuratemuch less accurate is it to say, that one religion is a part of our law, and all others only tolerated: It is not by mere toleration that every individual here is protected in his belief or disbelief. He reposes not upon the leniency of government, or the liberality of any class or sect of men, but upon his natural indefeasible rights of conscience, which, in the language of the constitution, are beyond the control or interference of any human authority. We have no union of church and state, nor has our government ever been vested with authority to enforce any religious observance, simply because it is religious.

ZEISWEISS V. JAMES, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1870 (63 Pa. St. 465).

The will in question contained the following provision: "Immediately after the death of both my said grand-nieces, then it is my will that my real estate aforesaid shall go to and be held in fee simple by the Infidel Society in Philadelphia, hereafter to be incorporated, and to be held and disposed of by them for the purpose of building a hall for the free discussion of religion, politics, etc." Sharswood, J. (after holding this invalid on other grounds) said: In placing the decision on this ground, however, it must not be understood that I mean to concede that a devise for such a purpose as was evidently contemplated by this testator, even if a competent trustee had been named, would be sustained as a valid charitable use in this state. These endowments originated in England, at a period when the religious sentiment was strong, and their tendency was to run into superstition. In modern times the danger is of the opposite extreme of licentiousness. It is necessary that they should be carefully guarded from either, and preserved in that happy mean between both, which will most conduce to the true interests of society. Established principles will enable the courts to accomplish this. Charity is love to God and love to our neighbor; the fulfilment of the two great commandments upon which hang all the law and the prophets. The most invaluable possessions of man are faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law. It is the fountain and source whence flow all good works beneficial to the souls or bodies of men. It is not easy to see how these are to be promoted by the dissemination of infidelity, which robs men of faith and hope, if not of charity also. It is unnecessary here to discuss the question under what limitations the principle is to be admitted that Christianity is part of the common law of Pennsylvania. By the third section of the ninth article of the Constitution it is indeed declared "that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience; and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship." It is in entire consistency with

this sacred guarantee of the rights of conscience and religious liberty to hold that, even if Christianity is no part of the law of the land, it is the popular religion of the country, an insult to which would be indictable as directly tending to disturb the public peace. The laws and institutions of this state are built on the foundation of reverence for Christianity. To this extent, at least, it must certainly be considered as well settled that the religion revealed in the Bible is not to be openly reviled, ridiculed or blasphemed to the annoyance of sincere believers who compose the great mass of the good people. of the Commonwealth: Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, II S. & R. 394; Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 Howard (U. S.) 198. I can conceive of nothing so likely-so sure, indeed, to produce these consequences, as a hall desecrated in perpetuity for the free discussion of religion, politics, et cetera, under the direction and administration of a society of infidels. Indeed, I would go further, and adopt the sentiment and language of Mr. Justice Duncan in the case just referred to: "It would prove a nursery of vice, a school of preparation to qualify young men for the gallows and young women for the brothel, and there is not a sceptic of decent manners and good morals who would not consider such a debating club as a common nuisance and disgrace to the city." Judgment affirmed. BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES, I, 82.

The canon law is a body of Roman ecclesiastical law, relative to such matters as that church either has, or pretends to have, the proper jurisdiction over. This is compiled from the opinions of the ancient Latin fathers, the decrees of general councils, and the decretal epistles and bulls of the holy see; all which lay in the same disorder and confusion as the Roman civil law, till, about the year 1151, one Gratian, an Italian monk, animated by the discovery of Justinian's pandects, reduced the ecclesiastical constitutions also into some method, in three books, which he entitled Concordia Discordantium Canonum, but which are generally known by the name of Decretum Gratiani. These reached as low as the time of pope Alexander III. The subsequent papal decrees, to the pontificate of Gregory IX., were published in much the same method, under the auspices of that pope, about the year 1230, in five books, entitled Decretalia Gregora Noni. A sixth book was added by Boniface VIII. about the year 1298, which is called Sextus Decretalium. The Clementine constitutions, or decrees of Clement V., were in like manner authenticated in 1317, by his successor John XXII.,

who also published twenty constitutions of his own, called the Extravagantes Joannis, all which in some measure answer to the novels of the civil law. To these have been since added some decrees of later popes, in five books, called Extravagantes Communes: and all these together, Gratian's decree, Gregory's decretals, the sixth decretal, the Clemetine constitutions, and the extravagants of John and his successors, form the corpus juris canonici, or body of the Roman canon law.

Besides these pontifical collections, which, during the times of popery, were received as authentic in this island, as well as in other parts of Christendom, there is also a kind of national canon law, composed of legatine and provincial constitutions, and adapted only to the exigencies of this church and kingdom. The legatine constitutions were ecclesiastical laws, enacted in national synods held under the cardinals Otho and Othobon, legates from pope. Gregory IX. and pope Clement IV. in the reign of king Henry III., about the years 1220 and 1268. The provincial constitutions are principally the decrees of provincial synods, held under divers archbishops of Canterbury, from Stephen Langton, in the reign of Henry III., to Henry Chichele, in the reign of Henry V.; and adopted also by the province of York in the reign of Henry VI. At the dawn of the Reformation, in the reign of king Henry VIII., it was enacted in parliament that a review should be had of the canon law; and, till such review should be made, all canons, constitutions, ordinances, and synodals provincial, being then already made, and not repugnant to the law of the land or the king's prerogative, should still be used and executed. And, as no such review has yet been perfected, upon this statute now depends the authority of the canon law in England.

As for the canons enacted by the clergy under James I. in the year 1603, and never confirmed in parliament, it has been solemnly adjudged upon the principles of law and the constitution, that where they are not merely declaratory of the ancient canon law, but are introductory of new regulations, they no not bind the laity, whatever regard the clergy may think proper to pay them.

There are four species of courts in which the civil and canon laws are permitted, under different restrictions, to be used: courts of the archbishops and bishops, and their derivative officers, usually called in our law courts Christian, curiae Christianitatis, or the ecclesiastical courts. 2. The military courts. 3. The courts of

admiralty. 4. The courts of the two universities. In all, their reception in general, and the different degrees of that reception, are grounded entirely upon customs corroborated in the latter instance by act of parliament, ratifying those charters which confirm the customary law of the universities. The more minute consideration of these will fall properly under that part of these commentaries which treats of the jurisdiction of courts. It will suffice at present to remark a few particulars relative to them all, which may serve to inculcate more strongly the doctrine laid down concerning them. 1. And, first, the courts of common law have the superintendency over these courts; to keep them within their jurisdictions, to determine wherein they exceed them, to restrain and prohibit such excess, and, in case of contumacy, to punish the officer who executes, and in some cases the judge who enforces, the sentence so declared to be illegal.

2. The common law has reserved to itself the exposition of all such acts of parliament as concern either the extent of these courts, or the matters depending before them. And therefore, if these courts either refuse to allow these acts of parliament, or will expound them in any other sense than what the common law puts upon them, the king's courts at Westminster will grant prohibitions to restrain and control them.

3. An appeal lies from all these courts to the king, in the last resort; which proves that the jurisdiction exercised in them is derived from the crown of England, and not from any foreign potentate, or intrinsic authority of their own. And, from these three strong marks and ensigns of superiority, it appears beyond a doubt that the civil and canon laws, though admitted in some cases by custom in some courts, are only subordinate, and leges sub graviori lege; and that, thus admitted, restrained, altered, new-modelled, and amended, they are by no means with us a distinct independent species of laws, but are inferior branches of the customary or unwritten laws of England, properly called the king's ecclesiastical, the king's military, the king's maritime, or the king's academical laws.

CRUMP V. MORGAN, Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1843 (3 Ired. Eq. 91).

Ruffin, J.: .

Again it was said, that these are the adjudications of the ecclesiastical courts, and are founded, not on the common law, but on the canon and civil laws, and therefore not entitled to respect here. But it is an entire mistake to say, that the