“First, _permission_ (for _approbation_ he owes not to what is evil) and thus according to Matthew 13: 30, for public peace and quiet sake. “Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship) that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any. Rom. 13.”[373] It follows, from this last position, that no man can be lawfully compelled to support a system of worship which he disapproves; for this is, in effect, to tax and punish him for his religious opinions. The duty of the magistrate is thus very clear. With the religious opinions or practices of the citizens, he has no concern. They are not civil matters, which, alone, come within his cognizance. If a man’s religious views lead him to actions which injure society, those actions become civil offences, and are within the jurisdiction of the magistrate, who is appointed to guard the interests of the civil community. If a company of Hindoos should remove to Boston, and should erect a temple to Juggernaut, they ought to be protected in their worship, if they confined themselves to such acts, as made no disturbance, and violated no civil law. If, however, they should attempt to drag the idol through the streets, the magistrates ought to interfere. If they should sacrifice one of their children, the perpetrators ought to be tried and punished for murder. If a man violates the third commandment, in such a way as to disturb the community, he may be punished, though experience has proved, that it is not wise to enforce laws against blasphemy. If a man breaks the fourth commandment, by actions which interrupt or disturb the devotions of others, the law may restrain and punish him, not for the breach of the commandment, but for interfering with the religious privileges of other citizens. If a man chose to labor on the Sabbath, on his farm or in his shop, the law could not rightfully interfere; but if by his labor he disturbed the devotions of his neighbors, he might be restrained; though, here, too, experience proves, that the interference of the law is odious, and seldom beneficial.