character she would form. Moreover, it reveals to us the perfections of Jehovah, the great object of worship and source of all good, and commands us to be “perfect as he is perfect.” Who then can doubt that the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government do essentially depend upon such a system of “piety, religion and morality.” These are principles in which all agree—the essential principles of piety, religion and morality. The constitution then asserts that these cannot be generally diffused, but by the institution of public worship and instruction. Mr. S. enforced this. It then follows as a necessary inference, that to promote these great objects, the people have a right to invest the Legislature with the power, &c. (as in the constitution). And why not this as a civil institution, as well as any other means for the same end? It provides a most beautiful and liberal system; making it the duty of towns and parishes to make this provision, but consistently with perfect religious freedom. No denomination is established. The election is given expressly to each society, and of course to the majority of each. There is no more hardship than in being obliged to contribute towards the support of a minister than any other teacher. You may have no children to send to school, or may dislike his opinions, or his mode of instruction, or may be willing to contribute to the same object in some other way—but the tax you must pay. The right of society in both cases rests on the same foundation—the right to tax for the common good; and the reason is the same, the common benefit received, as members of society. Objections have been made to the abstract right of government, and to the particular provisions of the constitution. It is strange how much sensitiveness there is on this subject. No one hesitates to confer on government the power of inflicting any punishment, even death itself, for any crime; but the moment you would attempt by the influence of religion to destroy sin in embryo, an alarm is excited! Mr. S. then answered the objections made against granting the Legislature any power on the subject of religion,—as, that “religion is under the protection of the Almighty, who will take care of his church”; that “his kingdom is not of this world.” His kingdom is not of this world in the highest sense, because our final reward will be in another; but in a most important sense it is, because it would make us good members of society—would prepare us for a better state by making us good in all the relations of life. We are told that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord. May not governments coöperate in this glorious design? (Mr. S. noticed other objections, which we have not room to insert.) We are told that the constitution grants exclusive favors to one denomination. Will gentlemen read the constitution? No language can be plainer. It is most explicitly declared that “every denomination shall be equally under the protection of the law.” It is elevated far above all partial considerations—it regards all in the equal favor as all agreeing in the same essential principles, and leading to the same great object, the Father of all. If one parish alone, in some places where there are several societies, have the right of taxing non-resident lands, &c. it is because they have been left in the possession of this right. When a part of a parish (referred to Lynn) became Methodists, they separated, and petitioned for an incorporation with certain powers, which were granted, have they any right to complain? And so of the other societies, and the little remnant is left with the obligation to support public worship, and would you deprive them of their ancient rights? Would you punish them for adhering to the religion of their fathers? There is nothing exclusive in this—it would be the same, should the majority of a parish be of any denomination. This principle is not confined to parishes; it is the same as to towns. When a part is separated, the remainder has all the rights of the town not expressly granted to the new corporation.
It is said also to be inoperative. It is indeed too inoperative, and ought to be made more effectual; but this objection does not well come from those who complain of it as exclusive and oppressive. Some little cases of individual hardship have been stated, and some law suits have grown out of it, in which however those who complain, claim always to have obtained a remedy. What general law is there, or what part of the constitution against which such objections may not be made? They prove nothing against a great principle. But it is said some do not go to meeting, and shall they pay for what they receive no benefit? They do receive a benefit in the greater security of everything dear to them. One objection was not to be expected—“that ministers were now too independent!” The great objection that meets us at every turn is that “religion will take care of itself.” Where has this experiment been tried? Not in Europe. I know not where except in Asia Minor; and where are now the “seven churches”? Those golden candlesticks have long since been removed. We are referred to the support of dissenters in England, and of the various denominations here, but does it appear that this support would have been given, except religion had been established in England, and provided for in our constitution? In this country the fearful experiment is still in process, whether religion will take care of itself, and as far as tried, it has not been successful. Mr. S. then referred to several states, where, except in large cities, very few settled clergymen of education are to be found. As to the unequal operation of this article in Boston, &c., by its own terms it does not operate on any place where voluntary provision is made. Its indirect influence does much everywhere. Mr. S. made objections to the report of the select committee, and showed in what manner he thought the resolution under consideration would produce the same effect as expunging the third article. Is it then expedient to abolish this provision? It is for the advocates of the change to prove this beyond all question. Show the evil it has produced. Point to the oppression it has caused. Whose rights of conscience have been violated? Go not back a century for cause of persecution—point them out under the constitution. If a few cases of individual hardship have happened in the course of forty years, cannot the same thing be said of every part of the constitution? And is it wonderful, under a system extending through the Commonwealth and operating on so many thousands? Mr. S. then argued that there had been no oppression, no general complaint—referred to the small vote for a Convention as proof that no great evil was pressing on the community. But from the clamor that has since been raised, one would suppose we had been groaning under an inquisition! It is strange how men are carried away by sounds. What excesses have been committed under the name of “liberty,” what excitement may be produced in a perfectly free country by the cry of “Priestcraft”—“Law-religion,” and “Toleration!” This subject is closely interwoven with our history. We ought not to make a constitution on abstract principles merely. What arrangement it is expedient to make here, is a very different question from what it might be in some other states, where a similar provision has never existed. The support of religion has always been a great care of our government. Massachusetts is a religious Commonwealth. But for the devotion of our fathers to religion, the spot where we are assembled, might still have been a wilderness. It was this that inspired them with courage to brave the dangers of the ocean, and land on these shores. Their first care was the support of public worship. How soon did they lay the foundation of our venerable University,2 and “Christo et Ecclesiae” was it dedicated! As the settlements extended, the little colonies of families always took with them a minister, as the pastor of the flock, and one of the first houses erected was always a place of worship. To provide religious instruction was always an important part of the municipal concerns of each town, and the same laws were made on the subject of schools and public worship. Through the whole period of our history, religion and education had gone hand in hand, and united in forming the character of the people. The temples of worship and instruction have been side by side. Our religious establishments are part of our system of education, schools of a higher order, to furnish instruction in “piety, religion and morality.” How great and good must have been the influence of such institutions. To gather together in the house of God, and there be reminded of their common relation to our Father and to each other; to listen to the sublime doctrines and moral precepts of Christianity—what a great though silent influence must it have had—“it falls like the gentle rain from heaven”—“it distills like the early dew.” Mr. S. then described the manner in which the State had been divided into parishes, each with its pastor, &c.; the salutatary effect produced on the character of the people, and the cause of learning and civil liberty. Mr. S. thought the adoption of the resolution would end in the destruction of very many religious societies, not immediately; the good influence of our institutions may prevent that. Our temples of worship will decay and fall around us. Those beautiful spires that now ornament our towns and villages will fall to the ground. The effect
