to enter into the profession will be lessened, and there will be no permanency in contracts with ministers. The dissolution of so many religious corporations will be an act of great violence. We have heard much of the corporate rights of towns—we must not touch them, even if necessary to correct the greatest evil under the constitution, the numerous house of representatives—no, corporate rights and privileges are sacred things. And are not the rights of parishes quite as ancient and sacred and much more important? If any evils, correct them—but why destroy several hundred corporations? Allusions have been made to the errors of our ancestors. Time, which tends to the abuse of all human institutions, has improved ours. The bigotry and persecution are gone—nothing remains but the good influence. Never was there a denomination of Christians less sectarian, and proselyting, and persecuting, than the prevailing denomination in Massachusetts have been under this constitution. I say it with confidence. Some have strange fears of an establishment! But what is to be established? How is it to be brought about? Will the government undertake the work? Have the church accumulated treasures for this purpose? Have we a body of aspiring ecclesiastics aiming at this object? But how can an establishment be made under a constitution which declares that “no subordination of one sect to another shall ever be established by law,” except the broad establishment of Christianity. And this without interfering with the rights of conscience of any man. The question may now be, whether a great moral revolution shall take place in the Commonwealth. If this article is struck out, what a shock will it give to the moral sentiments and feelings of thousands,—the pious, the moral part of the community, who feel that we have no right to deprive them of what was designed for the good of posterity as well as our own. I stand as in the presence of our ancestors; they conjure us not to destroy what they planted with so much care, and under the influence of which we have so long flourished; but to transmit to posterity what is only a trust-estate in us. I stand as in the presence of posterity, calling upon us not rashly to abolish what was intended for their good—their entailed estate, their precious inheritance. Let us not in one hour destroy the venerable work of two centuries! Above all, on this day, the anniversary of the landing of the Pilgrims—when two centuries have rolled away, and we by means of their principles and their institutions have grown up and become a great nation—let us not reject the great principles of our prosperity—let us not overthrow all that was dear to them. This will be a poor tribute to their memory, a poor expression of our gratitude. No—let us bring a better offering—let us cherish those principles and institutions, and transmit them to our children and to children’s children to the latest posterity. This will be the most durable monument to the memory—the best memorial of the character of our forefathers… .
After the Childs substitute failed a second time, in convention, and the select committee’s revision of the third article passed to a second reading on January 7, 1821, delegates sought alternate and more modest means of liberalization. Samuel P. P. Fay of Cambridge proposed to extend to Congregationalists and Unitarians the privileges of choosing the ministers to whom their tax money should be paid. As matters then stood a “poll parish,” that is, a parish of the Congregational denomination but organized apart from the town or “territorial parish,” required a special act of legislation. Fay’s resolution, by placing Congregationalists and Unitarians on the same footing as other denominations, struck at the parish system and the historic inviolability of ministerial contracts. It was vigorously opposed. The speeches of Samuel Hoar and Levi Lincoln in committee of the whole exhibit the two sides of this question.
MR. HOAR was sorry that any gentleman had thought it necessary to bring this proposition before the Convention at this late period. It had been twice substantially before the House, and had been negatived when there were more than a hundred more members present than were now here. But as it had been thought fit to bring up the question, it was necessary to consider what would be its operation. It was a short and plain proposition, and at first view seemed very fair, but it would be found on examination that its effect would be to annul every parish in the Commonwealth. It puts an end to all acts of the Legislature, dividing the Commonwealth into convenient districts for the support of public worship. For what reason was this to be done? It was desirable to some persons to have the power of leaving their parish minister and going to another. This, no doubt, was sometimes a very convenient and pleasant thing, but there were two sides to the question. A parish forms a contract with a minister—an individual votes in making the contract, but the next year changes his mind, and wishes to be liberated. He is only to say he has changed his mind and he is liberated. Would this be borne in any other case? Suppose there was a banking institution in which the individual proprietors were responsible for its engagements, and an individual should withdraw from it and avoid his responsibility? It would be considered a breach of good faith. This provision authorizes every member of a parish, which has a contract with a minister, to go where he pleases, and no tax can afterwards be assessed upon him for fulfilling the contract—this gives a new inducement to another to go—and the corporation may be left without corporators. The minister may sue and get execution against the corporation, but he can get no fruit of his execution—and there is no way in which his contract can be enforced. If all do not leave the parish—suppose only one half leave, those who remain will be compelled to pay a double tax, or to violate their contract. It was said that this might be the effect of the present law. This did not diminish the force of the objection. The law may be modified so as to prevent these consequences, but if the principle is incorporated into the constitution, it cannot be. It was said that these evil consequences had not resulted from the law. One reason why the consequences of the law had not been felt was, that it was not generally understood. It was generally supposed that to entitle one to leave a parish and withdraw his taxes, he must become a member of a society of a different denomination. But the law had recently received a different construction, which was no doubt correct. It was true that under the law a person who becomes of a different denomination, has a right to withdraw, but this was understood, and the contracts have been made subject to this condition. This provision might be liable to abuses and frauds, but it did not follow that there might not be benefit in the restriction. There were instances in which pretended changes of opinion to avoid taxation, had not availed. He stated an instance of a man who left a Congregational parish, joined a Baptist society and was immersed—and who, on being asked if he had washed away his sins, replied that he had washed away his taxes, which was his principal concern. This declaration being proved, he was still holden to the payment of his taxes in the Congregational parish in which he resided. The resolution, if adopted, would change the condition of all ministerial contracts. Whether it would annul contracts made by bond, he did [not] know, but there might be doubts. It disables a parish from forming a contract which shall be binding upon both parties. Suppose a minister is settled in the usual solemn form to-day, this amendment points out the mode in which any member of the parish may avoid the obligation entered into. It may be all fair in relation to future contracts, but it is not in relation to those now existing. He asked if gentlemen were prepared to adopt such a principle in the constitution. It was of infinite importance, and threatened the most pernicious consequences. There was no adequate reason for the change in the trifling inconvenience that had been felt… .
… MR. LINCOLN said that originally every parish was of one sect and entertained a uniformity of sentiment. But now there was a great difference of sentiment in almost every town. In some towns there are persons who are obliged to play the hypocrite and associate with a society they do not agree with, or contribute to the support of doctrines they do not believe. What was the condition of almost every parish in the western part of the Commonwealth? Every person was born with the obligation of supporting religious instruction of a certain kind, for the dissemination of doctrines which many did not believe. He had the happiness to belong to an Unitarian society, where he could worship in a manner consistent with his views of the doctrines of Christianity. But what would be the condition of a man belonging to such a society, who, by what he conceives to be the operation of irresistible grace, is brought to believe in the trinity, and all the doctrines connected with it, and that his former opinions were erroneous? Shall he be bound to adhere to his society, or to contribute to the support of a teacher who according to his new views preaches what
