attention was paid to the support of religion as in Boston. This amounted to a demonstration that the effect was to be attributed to the general diffusion of education by common schools, and not to any provision for the support of religion. The example of New York, he said, had been appealed to, but there was there the same want of schools as in Rhode Island. It was proposed to substitute the word Christian for Protestant. He called on gentlemen to define Christian. Clergymen differed on the subject. What would be called Christianity by one, would be called infidelity by another. Who knows what will be the state of things some years hence. The time was rapidly approaching when men professing to be Christians will be so opposed that if this part of the constitution is retained, the Commonwealth will be in a state of greater dissension from theological differences than they have ever been from political controversies. The resolution proposed by the select committee, declares the principle thus—the Legislature shall have power to compel the people to support religious teachers; but if gentlemen would examine it in its details, they would find that it would accord in practice with the principle in the resolution proposed by him as a substitute. In this construction his opinion was supported by the argument of the gentleman from Concord yesterday. That gentleman was consistent in his views, and for adopting a consistent course. Mr. C. said he would rather adopt the consistent principle of that gentleman, than the contradictory one of the committee. The proposition supported by him was explicit, and it would be known what was to be depended on. The principle maintained by the committee with the qualifications with which we had accompanied it, would keep the State in constant quarrels and collisions. He repeated that rather than take the report of the committee, he would take the proposition advocated by the gentleman from Concord. Our forefathers had been repeatedly brought forward as affording an illustrious example. He presumed, however, that their example was not to be adopted in everything, and contended that this was a domination of the same kind, and only differing in degree from that which every body at the present day disapproved. He would state how far, in his opinion, government has a right to interfere in matters of religion. So far as the laws can take cognizance of offences committed against good morals, government has a right to interfere; but the principle which leads us to worship God, is beyond the control of government. The gentleman from Concord had said, that if we abandon the means of supporting religious instruction, we should be obliged to resort to a standing army to enforce obedience to the laws. He, Mr. C., would reverse the proposition. Establish the principle that government has a right to compel the support of public worship, and a standing army will be necessary to carry it into effect… .
… MR. WILLIAMS of Beverly said, that some gentlemen seemed to suppose, that all who were in favor of the present proposition, were in favor of removing all religion from the State. He wished to remove this impression. He considered that religion was of great consequence to the Commonwealth, and that the government should protect all persons in the enjoyment of their religious rights and privileges. He was opposed to the present provision in the constitution. He understood that the third article allows a tax which favored one religious denomination, and he understood that the report of the select committee had the same object. He thought the terms of the constitution were not so explicit and intelligible as some gentlemen had asserted. He admitted the premises in the third article, but not the conclusion. He considered that liberty of action and of opinion was given by the constitution to only one religious denomination, that of Congregationalists. He denied that the operation of the constitution had been equal, as the gentleman from Concord had asserted; but he said some persons had been obliged to pay, where they had received no benefit. Sometimes the taxes of minor children were paid to the support of public worship where the father attended, and where they did not. He understood it had been said that persons might go from one society to another at their pleasure. He denied the fact. He mentioned that in one town there was a society, comprising almost all the inhabitants, and that afterwards a society of Congregationalists grew up there, and taxes paid to the treasurer were applied to the support of this worship in consequence of the provisions of the constitution. He thought this was unequal. He agreed that contracts between the teachers and societies ought to be enforced; although some gentlemen thought otherwise. He did not apprehend, if the present proposition were adopted, that the Sabbath would be neglected, that public schools and other benevolent institutions would go down; for we had experience to the contrary. He objected that it was impossible to enforce the present provisions. He thought it unfair to say that religion did not take care of itself originally, because it was protected by its author; for its author had no power to protect it; except so far as miracles went—our Saviour derived no aid from the civil arm. He said that under the word Protestant, which applies to a great many varieties of religion, the government had established one particular denomination. He denied the propriety of mixing civil and religious institutions. When in the dark ages, from which we ought not to take example, the amalgamation of these two distinct things was made, it was done for improper purposes, and was attended with mischief. The people had no right to establish any religion, whether Protestant or Catholic, or any other. He hoped the substance, at least, of the proposition of the gentleman from Pittsfield would be adopted… .
… MR. SALTONSTALL said he rose with unusual embarrassment, because the subject had been so ably discussed, and still more, because of its intrinsic importance; he thought it more important than any that had been considered. It is a trifling question comparatively, how the council shall be chosen, or whether there be any council; whether the senate be founded on valuation or population, or how the house of representatives is modified—we shall have a Legislature so constructed as to insure a free government—but strike out the constitutional provision for the support of public worship, and who can tell the consequences? As was said by the able gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Blake) we have heretofore been inspecting the superstructure—we are now examining the foundation, and he doubted not the result of the examination would be that the foundation would be found laid firm and deep, and capable of sustaining a superstructure that may rear its lofty head to the skies. Two questions arise—first as to the right of government, and second, whether there is anything in the subject—religion—which should prevent or restrict this right. There is no subject upon which such inadequate views are entertained as the duty, and of course the right, of government. A stranger acquainted with this subject, would be surprised at some of our debates upon the rights of the people in framing a government. They have a right to adopt such measures as will promote the happiness of the people and the good order and preservation of civil society. Whatever tends to promote these great objects, it is the duty of government to cherish and support, because these are the objects for which government is instituted. The design of government is not merely the security of life against those who would attack it, and property against those who would plunder it, but to improve the character and condition of those who are subject to it. Mr. S. enlarged upon this point. Is it true then, that the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government, do essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality? All seem to admit this, and yet their tendency to promote these great objects has not been sufficiently considered. The Christian religion is the great bond of civil society. It teaches us that we are all children of one beneficent Parent, who constantly watches over us for good, who notices all our actions, and will hereafter reward or punish us, as they have been good or evil. It teaches us that God is everywhere present, that he knows our most secret thoughts, that he sees us where no human eye can, and will call us to account when human laws cannot reach us. What an immense effect would the single doctrine of accountability have on the conduct, if properly realized. Our religion also contains the most comprehensive as well as minute directions for our conduct towards each other, declared under the most tremendous sanctions—all our hopes of happiness, all our fears of suffering; directions, which in proportion as they are obeyed, supersede the necessity of human laws. But this is not all—
“How small, of all the ills that men endure,
That part which laws or kings can make or cure.”1
It is on the observance of duties of imperfect obligation, which human laws cannot reach, but which are the great care of religion, that our happiness essentially depends. Can the regulations of society make us kind and affectionate and faithful in the relations we bear in life? Religion extends to the heart—human laws concern actions alone. Religion cleanses the fountain that
