Democracy, Liberty, and Property. Группа авторов
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 on the character of the clergy will be pernicious; the inducements 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