rs CONGREGATIONAL a SHES a ior eae, Jig OF MASSACHUSETTS. Pe Be ‘ ‘ r t 7 ; ae de : REVIEW OF A PAMPHLET ~ : Ae fe 4 - ae : é | ENTITLED i ie ‘ Cae Sl RIGHTS OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES OF “MASSACHUSETTS. THE RESULT OF AN ECCLESIASTICAL - COUNCIL CONVENED AT GROTON, MAss. JULY 17,1826.” SRP! RIN. a 2 : ie * A if “ ; PROM THE CHRISTIAN EXAMINER, rg tele Sana "Vou. Iv. ‘No. Wives NOR ES SS SECC OIE SMOG se nS 3 ‘I ' » = , v * BOSTON, . pis BOWLES. AND DEARRORN, 72 WASHINGTON STREET. ns ¥ . ee se * cop Printed by Dutton & Wentworth, i : “rs : a : < B a ipa REVIEW : P @F THE RESULT OF COUNCIL AT GROTON. = Permars there never was a more palpable misno- mer than is to be found in the title of this extraordinary pamphlet. Instead of the ‘ Rights,’ it should have been - entitled the ‘ Usurpations’ of the early churches of Mas- sachusetts over their christian brethren ; over those, who, —professing themselves the disciples of Jesus Christ, admitting his divine authority, receiving his doctrines and precepts as the revelation of God, and contributing to the maintenance of public christian worship,—feel, and know, that they enjoy, and are entitled to hold and possess an entire equality of privileges with those who call themselves, by way of*eminence, the members of Christ’s church. But to no privilege do they think their title clearer than to that of an equal voice in the selection of their teachers and pastors, upon whose ministry they attend, and for whose support they pay in proportion to their property. Yet this privilege, this dearest right of Congregationalists, unequivocally confirmed to them by _ our State Constitution and a succession of legal decisions, is by the pamphlet before us called in question. The exercise of it is there maintained to be unscriptural, and unreasonable; contrary to New England usages, and a sound interpretation of our laws. In fme, the professed Ae te 4 * Church and People. = e # © design of this little book is, to take a stand at the polls and revolutionize the state; to reverse the unanimous decisions of all the judges we have had in our Supreme Court for fifteen years ; remodel our admirable Bill of Rights, and restore to the injured church,* powers wrested from her by artful, proselyting makers and in- terpreters of the law. The good people of Massachu- setts, it seems, have even been cajoled into the exercise of these powers; and had they seen the drift of what was doing for them, they would long ago have revolted against the enjoyment of such unlawful.privileges. But we are utterly unable to perceive why there should be an equality in civil concerns, and a perpetual and odious aristocracy, a never dying house of lords and bishops in the church, — cannot perceive how it is possible that one fifth part of a whole society should pos- sess, de jure, not only a negative, a veto on the doings of the other four fifths, but that having exerted this power, they should have a right to vote again in the lower body, ‘the world,’ as it is contemptuously called.. When we ask by what means, by what species of merit, this power has been acquired, we are answered that the members of this privileged caste, have been admitted by vote into the aristocracy. Is this power of admission or rejection ab- solute? Yes. Is there no remedy to compel a church to receive a communicant or fellow it has unjustly rejected ? No. Can they ‘reject an applicant because his creed differs from their own, tholibh his moral character be unexceptionable? Yes. Do they require him to say any thing more than that he is a believer in the divine mission and authority of our Saviour? Yes; if the church be one which the authors of this Result would acknowledge as a true christian church, he must solemn- ly assent to all the propositions in which some frail and ignorant man has expressed his religious opinions, If he refuse to do this, he cannot come to the Lord’s sup- per; he is forbidden to do that, which his Master en- * In this article, the word church is used in almost every instance in its narrowest, technica! sense; denoting merely the body of communi+ cagts, the church members, so called, in our Congregational sacietigs, 4 * sl Church and People. | 5 joined upon him to do. He is not only deprived of his religious rights, forbidden to perform his christian duties, but, according to the doctrine of this Result, his civil rights are infringed. His inalienable civil right is, to have an equal voice with atu his fellow citizens in the ~ election of those whom he is bound to support. ‘That right was secured finally to him by our Constitution, and has been decided so to be by the highest courts of law, ‘with a unanimity on the part of the judges, almost with- out example. It is however controverted in the Result be- fore us, which was drawn up by Drs Beecher and Porter, —two Connecticut gentlemen, who, it appears, are ex- ceedingly distressed by the ignorance of our courts of law, and the submission of our people to their authority. By the third article of the Bill of Rights in the Con- stitution of Massachusetts, it is declared in the simplest and clearest words, that towns, parishes, precincts and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shal] have the right of electing their own teachers. These descriptions ‘are perfectly technical. They are as well known to our Jaws as any terms whatever. No lawyer who makes any pretension to a respectable standing in his profession, would hazard his reputation by denying, that these words gave to parishes, and all the member's of religious socie= ties, the exclusive right of voting in the settlement of a minister. The effect and operation of this clause, came under the consideration of our Supreme Judicial Court about twelve or fifteen years since, and was settled in favor of religious liberty and natural right, in conformity with the clear import of the clause in the Bill of Rights, by Judges Parsons, Sedgwick, Sewall, Thacher, and Parker in the cases of Avery vs. ‘Tyringham and Burr vs. Sandwich. The weight of any legal decision depends very much on the ability of the judges, and on ther unanimity. Tt is proper, therefore, that it should be known, that the rights of non-communicants in the election of their pas- tor, have been sustained by Chief Justice Parsons, and Judges Sedgwick, Sewail, Thacher, Parker, Jack- son, Putnam, Wilde. The decisions establishing them 1* d eee i eee sign UNS ara ; AX. Saha are ee i ON Te j ae 6 Church and People. *' » were made from twelve to fifteen years sin¢e; were printed and circulated through the State; were well known to every Orthodox divine and church in the com- munity. Yet no church in the State, to our knowledge, has objected to them. In 1816, Dr Morse from Con- necticut and Dr Lyman. were very zealous in the good work of introducing the Connecticut system of Consocia- tions. It is well known that they made a report to the Convention of Ministers, which was referred by the Con- vention to the people,* and which was so odious, that not one parish approved of and accepted it. -Yet these learned divines never intimated an opinion, that the rights of the churches had been infringed by the deci- sions of the courts of law. The General Association of Massachusetts, which was intended to supply the place of the Connecticut Consociations, has, we believe, been equally silent as to this supposed aggression on church rights. ‘ At last came the most respectable and able Conven- tion, which Massachusetts ever had; that assembled to xevise the Constitution. In this body, there were Ortho- dox clergymen, deacons of churches, Orthodox lawyers,— = men able and astute, firm and vigorous in defence of the rights of the church. The third article of the Bill of Rights was especially the object of notice. Every mem- ber of that house’ knew that the Supreme Judicial Court had decided against the high pretensions of church mem- * Since our Review was first published, an error has been detected in this part of it. The fact is, that the Report abovementioned was made in 1815 to the General Association of Massachusetts Proper, and by that body referred to the several Associations in their connexion ; but no church, it is believed, ever accepted it. The ease is, therefore, stronger than we have stated it. The cause of the pag hea 4 was, that some years before, a plan, similar in substance, had been laid be- os fore the Convention of Ministers, but was thought so inconsistent with the usages and liberties of the Congregational churches, that it was op- - peced by gentlemen of different opinions, and particularly, as we have heard, by Dr Spring, of Newburyport, Dr Emmons of Srakin, and Dr Osgood of Medford, and rejected by the Convention. St will be per- ceived, therefore, that the error is against our interest and diminishes the force of our argument. The Convention rejected the plan, instead of referring it to the people. The Report first mentioned in this note, was made by Drs Morse, Woods and Codman. Dr Lyman was only Moderator of the General Association when the Report wasmiade, ‘ Church and People. 7 bers. There was not an objection made against these - decisions ; not an attempt to restore the usurpations of the church. The debate turned wholly upon the sup- port of religious worship by law, and did not touch at all upon the right of electing pastors. Upon the ground of this statement of facts, which can- not be disproved or denied, we pronounce this Result to be a literary curiosity, unique for its fearless assertions, for its contempt of judicial authority, and of the opinions ofawhole people. If the gentlemen who prepared it had stated fairly, that Judge Parsons’s decision was made nearly fifteen years since, that the Convention had been since assembled and after full deliberation had left the law as Judge Parsons had’ pronounced it, but that still neither the Supreme Court, nor the Convention under- stood the legal question, we might have praised their frankness, though we should have smiled at their pre- sumption and vanity. We are told by these learned Connecticut theologians, that our ancestors, in 1641, confined the right of election of the pastors to the church members by statute. This fact is not denied by any one. [It is explicitly admitted by all the learned judges in their arguments. But what inference would the advocates for church rights draw from this uncontested fact? That it was right? that it Was scriptural and irrevocable? We should soon shew them, that such a presumption is utterly unfounded. The same persons decided, that no man should vote even in town affairs, no man should be a freeman, unless he were a church member ; a fortiori, not a member of the legis- lature. Will Dr Beecher maintain that this was a rea- sorfable provision? 'The same men maintained, that the Mosaic criminal law was binding on us. Do our divines approve of this wise determination? Do they believe that the judicial murders committed under the forms of law upon some unhappy ‘old women, for a supposed in- tercourse with the devil, were justifiable ? We know what the reply must be to these questions: We know also, that Cotton Mather, whose ‘ Ratio Disci- pling’ is cited ‘by the Council, went all the length of the ' i es Bea Ay! Fe Ss g Church and People. g most superstitious among the vulgar, on these topics — Are we bound to feel a profound respect for one par- ticular abuse which survived that age, the exclusive right of the church members to elect the pastor? When we come to the argument, we shall show, that this preten- sion of the church was always sharply disputed, pred ne- ver entorced after 1692. We now proceed to consider the particular case whith these gentlemen have selected as affording a fit opportu= nity to bring forward their objections to the provisions of the Constitution of this State and to the law, settled as it is by repeated judicial decisions. The history of the case itself is mstruetive, and shows to what an extent the usurpation of a church may be carried. Dr Chaplin, a venerable and excellent pastor, having, we regret to say it, become unable to perform his paro- chial duties, proposed to his people the settlement of a colleague. The Doctor and his church, or a majority of them, “believed that they had an exclusive right to invite candidates. ‘ Providentially,’ they say—and it was a very favorable providence,—there was a Mr Todd from An- dover ‘ present.’ It was evidently one of those prepared - providences, which so often occur in human affairs; or to speak frankly, for wé are indignant at sucha profana-_ tion of the name of the Almighty, the Orthodox majori-_ ty of the church had foreseen this event ; had prepared for it; had arranged the whole course of procedure at headquarters,* and Mr Todd providentially, as we are told, found himself on the spot, at the most pressing mo- ment of Dr Chaplin’s need. Mr Todd accordingly preach- ed and was some time after engaged by Dr Chaplin for eight sabbaths. The church, consisting, we believe, of between twentyfive and thirty male members in a parish in which there were about three hundred voters, finally, by a vote of seventeen to eight, gave Mr Todd a call. The parish, it would seem from the Result, thought this * Mr Todd, it is said, was sent to Groton, one of the richest towns im the county of Middlesex, at the expense of an Orthodox missio This discovery, for the fact was concealed, had no small share in pro- ducing disaffection to Mr Tadd and to the Orthodox policy. ‘6 i ' rs ae . agit | Church and People. 9 measure of the church rather too strong. After full trial, they found that they did not like Mr Todd; for on the 25th of November they voted to appoint a committee to supply the pulpit, treating as it deserved, the usurpation of the church over rights so completely secured to them by the Constitution, and the solemn decisions of the Su- preme Court thereon. mae _ Dr Chaplin, although he knew that the church had given Mr Todd a call, agreed, when the parish commit~ tee called upon him, that they might fill the pulpit for four sabbaths. The vote of the parish was, to fill it for four months. Their committee, except for the first sunday when there was no preaching, actually supplied it from the date of their appointment, and the only objection on the part of the church, which we can perceive, was, that it was filled by Unitarian clergymen ; though we admit that there hardly could be supposed a more important ob- jection in the minds of those, who deny the christian char- acter to Unitarians. Dr Chaplin’s patience becoming at length exhausted, the following note was addressed to the parish committee, and the Council seem to consider it a very proper one. ‘GenTLEMEN,—After mature reflection, I have thought it my duty to remonstrate once more, against your thrust- ing a man into my pulpit against my wishes, and, as I be- lieve, against the wishes of a majority of this people. ‘Yours, &c. Danien CuaPtin. ‘January 7th, 1827. What a strange aspect does the subject assume to us now? The concurrent right of election is admitted explicitly and repeatedly by the Council, but itis con- tended that the right to select the candidates is vest- ed exclusively in the disabled mcumbent, and his church !* In the present case, the church actually pro- ceeded to an election, without giving the majority the *Ttis not among the least remarkable circumstances in this case, that Dr Chaplin himself came into his present office in a very irregular way, and in violation of church order. His predecessor, the Rev. Mr Dana, was under the suspicion of not being friendly to the Revolution. With- out any ecclesiastical proceedings whatever, as we are informed, the town voted to dismiss him, and chose Dr Chaplin, who held his office for many years while the rightful incumbent, according to church disci- pline, was living. 10 Church and People. opportunity of hearing a preacher of their own choice even for a sipgle sabbath. ‘This, we trust, is not a spe- cimen of Orthodox justice and apprehension of right. — The parish committee were calm and resolved. They knew that the Constitution had guaranteed to them the right of election, and of necessity the depending right’ of selecting candidates. Dr Chaplin speaks of ‘ thrust. ing aman into his pulpit against his wishes.’ Is this ‘correct? In May preceding, he had expressed to his people a wish to have a colleague. ‘They had therefore a legal right to choose one. ‘The right to choose in- cludes the right to select candidates. Dr Chaplin had parted with his right to exclude those whom he did not like, by inviting the parish to provide a vege oe Surely no man will be so absurd as to contend that the parish, even if they had but a concurrent vote, had no right to select their candidate. Jesuitical mockery it would in- deed be, if the church could say to the parish, * You may choose as you please. You have entire freedom of election ; but you shall never hear a preacher on proba- tion, who has not been graduated at Andover ; who does not bear the genuine stamp, so as to render it sure that he is not counterfeit.’ But we own we are unable to comprehend what is meant by the property of a pastor in his pulpit. It is not a new thought. We heard something like this claim about fifteen years since ; but we acknowledge that it is to us a mystery. The church and the pulpit are the property of the parish. The pastor is the incumbent under contract. If he become wnable to perform his contract, his right, legally speaking, is gone ; though in our judg- ment, base indeed is the conduct of that christian soci- ety, which in all cases would avail itself of its legal rights. But most assuredly when by the act of God the incumbent is deprived of his ability to do his duty, and especially when he avows that inability, and invites his people to select a colleague, his rights over his pulpit are, pro hac vice, gone ; they are utterly extinct, so. far as it respects the new candidate. Such was the unhappy case, which Dr Beecher and Church and People. 11 others selected as a proper occasion for them to teach - the courts and people of Massachusetts, what the laws of Massachusetts are, and what are the rights and du- ties of the good, honest, but blind people of this ancient State ; to read them a lecttre on their degeneracy ; to threaten them with dreadful retribution,—from whom, or of what nature they do not undertake to state, know- ing, probably, that terror is always greater in proportion as the objects of it are dimly and obscurely perceived. The first remark we shall make, is, that the question whether the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court were in direct violation of the constitutional and legal _ rights of churches, hardly seems to have been submitted to this learned Council. The judgment pronounced by Drs Beecher and Porter, appears as perfectly gratuitous on their part, as if the Andover Theological Faculty it- self, had, ex proprio motu, assembled and undertaken to review, arraign, and condemn the decisions of the high- est court of law in the State without the invitation of any party interested. It was a voluntary, and, as we think, impertinent intrusion of opinion. The Council was not a mutual council, but an ex parte one ; a coun- cil not deciding on theological, but civil questions. The Council say, page 61, that ‘so far as we can learn, but one denomination of professed Christians in the State, have given any evidence of approbation of the law [which decides the right of electing the pastor to be in the whole people,] or sought to avail themselves of it, and that a recent, and, compared with the freemen be- longing to other denominations, a very small denomi- nation.’ What are we to understand by this? That the liberal Christians are a new denomination? They are Congre- gationalists ; what were the members of this Council ? The liberal ‘clergy are, and always have been received as members of the Convention of Congregational min- isters. One of them is Treasurer of that body. Is it tompetent to this Council to expel from the bosom of the church a large portion of the Congregational clergy and parishioners in the State? Are these the first fruits of 12 Church and People. this importation of followers of the Saybrook Platform 7. Why this contemptuous suggestion of the ‘ recent’ ori- gin, and of the ‘ small’ number of the liberal Chris- tians? .The laws m question do not apply to the Catho- lics, the Episcopalians, the Baptists, the .Universalists, and the Methodists. They were designed for the Con- gregationalists—and will this Council, as christian min- isters, dare to say, that i im the Congregational church the liberal Christians are ‘a very small’ party? They know it to be otherwise ; and as to their opinions being ‘recent,’ we may refer these gentlemen to Sir Isaac Newton and John ~Locke, or to President Adams, who enumerates many eminent ‘divines of Massachusetts, who held these opinions m his youth, which must have ‘been before the middle of the last century—This language of contempt in which the Orthodox clergy:too often in- dulge, may well be spared. It only proves the want of the true spirit of our holy religion, as well as a convic~ tion that they are unable to meet liberal Christians, on the fair field of argument and scripture. ’ While a large portion of the Result is devoted to a question, as we have already said, not distinetly submit- ted to them, viz. whether the Supreme Judicial Court did, or did not understand, or wilfully misinterpret the Constitution and laws of this State, no notice whatever is taken of an important part of the third, and the whole of the fourth questions propounded to the Council by the small majority of the former Groton church. The part of the third question to which no reply is given, is, “Whether the claim of the minority of the church to be considered the first church in Groton, can or will be sus- tained by civil or ecclesiastical power? The Dedham case, which the Council appear to have studied with close attention, would have enabled them to reply, ‘ that the deserted minority of the Groton church could and A. would be held rightfully to be the first chureh in Sree . both by civil and ecclesiastical authority.’ Was it unkind, therefore, to lead the seceders into error, sea omitting to state these decisions to them ? Nay, was the part of peaceable and ‘loyal citizens to esis. Hsia to. - Church and People. 13 impress the opposite opinions on the misguided and ill advised majority ? The fourth question is, ‘ Do this Council regard the minority of this church as having walked disorderly, and what course do they advise the church to take concerning them?’ On this subject the Council have preserved a pru- dent silence. They felt, that it would savour of the ridi- culous to charge the minority with disorderly walking, merely becaise they did not desert the congregation, nor quit the house in which their fathers worshipped, or because they preferred a clergyman of liberal opinions. _In Massachusetts we have not yet gone so far as the Consociations of Connecticut have done, by expelling a brother for heretical opinions ; and as to excommunica- tion, in this case, after the voluntary secession of the majority, it would have been about as wise, as the papal excommunication of the realm of England, after parlia- ment and king had by solemn acts renounced the papal authority. Though the Council was silent, the church, it seems, did proceed to the thunders of excommunica- tion ; but the lightning did not strike. In this stage of our remarks, we would advert for a moment to the arrogant style of this Result. No bishop of the Romish or English church, would dare to use language so haughty, and insulting towards the great mass of Christians, who are non-communicants, and who comprise, among us, seven eighths of the christian pub- lic. They are contemptuously stigmatized as the ‘world,’ and lest you should doubt what they under- stand by this term, they define it to be the immoral, de- bauched, profane, and unbelieving part of society. "You are warned expressly that if the election of the pastor should devolve upon the non-communicants, there would be an end of all vital religion ;—indeed they add that religion would not even be supported. Let us take a single example of their way of speaking. ‘ The amalgamation of the church,’ it is said, ‘ with the world, in the election of her pastor, may seem a small thing to many; but small as it, may seem, the distinct power of the church to elect her pastor, and admit and expel her 2 i, 14 Church and People. members, independent of any secular alliance or influence, constitutes the mighty secret of uniting, in this alienated world, evangelical doctrine, vital godliness, and pure disci- pline, with libérty of conscience, equal civil rights, and per- manent civil support.’—p. 61. ; ’ , 4 This is the language of the Result, and we confess that coming from Connecticut gentlemen of all others, it fills us with astonishment. The experience of that State, in which their doctrines have been reduced to practice, ought to have made them hesitate to use it, Besides, if correct, the churches of Massachusetts have never, for one day, since 1692, according to the express admission of these Councilmen themselves, been in the enjoyment of this mighty secret of entire independence, They have never had the ‘ distinct power to elect their pastors.’ The parish, the ‘ world,’ the helots, the burden bearers, the paymasters have always had a negative; there has always been a ‘ secular alliance and influence” But it is not, to our dim perceptions, easy to see any trace of ‘liberty of conscience’ in such a case as that of the Groton church. Thirty members are the church, They claim the right to ‘admit or expel members.’ T annex their own conditions. You must pronounce their creed, and ‘ assent and consent, ’—two words in the act of uniformity of Charles II. which threw out two thou- sand dissenting clergymen on the famous St Bartholo- mew’s day,—to a creed of their devising, or sixteen out of the thirty may exclude the other three hundred chris- tian voters of the town, not merely from the communion, but from the right-of voting with the church. Call you this liberty of conscience ? The church members are to have a negative on the votes of the parish. The three - hundred and thirty shall not hear the clergyman and the opinions they prefer, because sixteen men do not ap- prove of them! Still they must pay, and give ‘perma-_ nent civil support,’ and this is misnamed ‘ equal civil rights.’ The very claim is evidently an assumption th ‘the church members have a monopoly of piety ; aye, am of knowledge of the scriptures ; and it is distinctly stated by this candid Council, that if the right of election be Church and People. ee restored to the great mass of christian worshippers, from whom it has been wrenched, there will be an instanta- neous decline and final extinction of religion. What a reproach on human nature! What distrust of that Be- ing, who has declared that he will uphold his church, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! It is perhaps treating these broad assertions of the Council with too much consideration, to test their sound- ness by an appeal to experience ; but we shall select one, case for this purpose from their own Result. They ad- mit that the society in Brattle Street, from its origin, elected their pastor in a general meeting of the church and parish. In short, its elections are as republican, as our civil ones have always been. What has been the effect in a trial of a century and one quarter? We say nothing of Colman, the two Coopers, Thatcher, and Buckminster. Of course we shall also be silent as to the living pastors. But we ask, what has been the charac- ter of the mass of that society? Have they been prof ligate, unprincipled, indifferent to the support of reli- — gious worship? Has the society not kept pace with any Orthodox church, in its zeal for the support of religion and in the moral and religious character of its mem- _ bers? The truth is, that the suggestion is a slander on hu- man nature. There is not the slightest foundation for the fears expressed, that the exercise of the natural rights of the whole christian society would be dangerous to the cause of vital piety. So far from it, we are con- vineed that the spirit of usurpation over these rights, which has been displayed by the Orthedox clergy and church members, has been exceedingly injurious to the spread of true religion. It is now, as we have said, more than fifteen years since the courts of law gave the only possible construc- — tion which could be given to the.Constitution, as to the right of electing religious teachers. Is it true that there has been the least diminution of zeal for religion? These Connecticut gentlemen know very little about our state of society, We know they-consider it ‘to be corrupt. 16 Church and People. Dr Dwight, with all his prejudices, had a more correct knowledge of the state of morals and religion here, and sufficient liberality to do us justice. Yes, insulted as we are by these laborers in our vineyards, who have come in at the eleventh hour, aNd have not borne the heat: and burden of the day, we are confident that the moral and religious character of this State will compare even with that of their. own, with ail its Consociations and i tions.—Perhaps we have said more on this point than the illiberal suggestion at has called forth these Temarks, merited. a ae It would be too severe a trial of the patience of our readers, should we attempt to follow the Result im ‘its rambling course of assertion, argument, and declamation: We can only select, in addition to those we have alre noticed, some prominent parts, and show the little reli- ance we can place, either upon its statements of facts, or of legal principles. There is, throughout, a fearless rashness of assertion but too common in the theological writings of some of our sects. We do not make this re- mark in a spirit of censure ; for we are fully rn Foie the habit of degmatizing, like all other bad habits, soo: gets the mastery over our resolutions, and often renders insensible when we are acting under its despotic influ- ence. Weare not, however, “casuists enough to decide the precise shade of difference in a moral view, between assertions made at hazard, which those who make. them, do not know to be true, and those which are made against knowledge and conviction. Christian’ vos of will induce us to ‘place the almost innumerable errors fact in the pamiiphlet under review among the former. ~ Let us give a specimen of its unfounded assertions. ~ “Our fathers came here professedly to°org ea establish churches, wholly independent for existe an any civil associations ; and the right of electing t pastors was claimed and exercised by the er iid recognised and confirmed by law, first im 1641, twelve years from the commencement of the cc - Massachusetts, and again in 1668, after the comm ment of the parish controversy y, and again in 1695, at Church and People. ee the close of it; and the churches continued in the unin- _ . terrupted enjoyment of this right until mterrupted by the _ late decisions, a period of about one hundred and fifteen years.’—pp. 22, 23. *e Again, ‘The churches existed for eighty years before the towns and parishes were allowed any voice in the elec- ~ tion of a pastor; and then the right came jn the form of a concession, on the part of the churches, and a comprom- ise, in consideration of the aid furnished by taxation, for the support of the Gospel. And now, did the church depend for her existence and protection in law, upon “her alliance with towns and parishes, when she had for almost an hundred years, enjoyed absolute independence, and was, in fact, the primary institution, for whose sake our Fathers came hither, and to whom these civil asso- » ciations were made subservient, without the least shadow of alliance, or power of interference, and which were afterwards received into partnership, upon the specific condition, that each should enjoy a concurrent vote in the election of a pastor ?—pp. 29, 30. Here is about as pleasant a foundation for a papacy, or at least a presbytery, as one might wish to see. The State was founded for the Church, and all its rights and privileges are ihe result of a charter on the part of the Church! Civil associations were made subservient to her, as her champions would express it, and she takes them into “partnership! . The truth is that there areas many errors in the state- ment quoted above, as there are sentences. “« Ist. So far from our fathers having refused any alli- ance between church and state, the whole history of Chris- tendom can hardly disclose so close a one. To the state, the clergy went for permission to hold a synod in order to force all men to think as they did. ‘To the civil rulers, they “plied to give to the proceedings of the synod the force of law ; they demanded the arm of flesh to enforce their creeds. 9 2d. It is untrue that the concurrent right of election im the parish was a concession made by the churches. Q* 18 Church and People. It was forced from them by public sentiment. They protested against it. They predicted, as these gentlemen now do, that the ruin and downfall of all religion would be the consequence of it. The parish owed this imper- fect act of justice to the legislature, not to the church. The true history of the case is this. In 1641, when the legislators were all church members, they made a law to perpetuate their own power, This is not an ano- malous case. Men are always ready to relieve others of the labor of making laws, and to assume it themselves. But discontents of the most violent nature arose against the usurpation. This is expressly and repeatedly admit- ted by the Groton Council themselves.* The dispute was asharp and angry one. The rights of the great body of Christians prevailed, and in 1692, the whole power of election was given to the people. The church made great efforts, and regained a portion of its power in ~ 1693. The law then enacted gave a concurrent choice to the church and people. But the usurpers were dissatisfied with-an equal division of power, and by aiming at too much, they have finally lost all;—an issue not by any means unusual to those who aim at unlawful power. In 1635, the church had- influence enough to procure a law which virtually gave the exclusive right of election to them, by bringing to their aid an ecclesiastical coun- cil. But why are these gentlemen so disingenuous as to speak of the act of 1695, as an operative one? They must know that it was so odious, that it was never enforc- ed in a single case from that day to the present. The communicants acquired a power by that act which they never dared to exercise. Why, too, do they so often re- fer to the act of 1693, giving the concurrent power to the church, when they know that it was repealed by the act of 1695? These omissions, or misstatements, or mis- takes, have no tendency to gain our confidence. * See Result as quoted above, p. 16,17. Again;—‘ The efforts of the church to hold, and of towns and parishes to acquire, the sole power in the election of the minister, produced one of the Nein controversies that ever raged in the State, until it was’composed by the compromise ‘of 1595! ~ Result, p. 40. "pits a _ Church and People. 19 3d. One is not a little amused with the ease, with which these gentlemen extend the period of their usurpa- tion. They begin by stating the duration of their dynas- ty, or exclusive power, to have been eighty years. The fact is that the power was taken from them in sizty years, and fiercely disputed forty years before. Soon after, this young right, which never had a legitimate exis- tence, grows to the age of nearly one hundred years.— We mention this inaccuracy, but it is unimportant in any other view than as tending to show, that this Result is rather poetical than historical and legal. 4th. They say, that the admission of the people to an equal, or concurrent vote in elections of ministers, was a concession made to the people in consideration of the aid furnished by taxation. There seems to be a small ana- chronism in this statement, even according to the facts adduced by our learned, but rather negligent friends. They state that the legal obligation on a town to support the pastor, originated in 1652, and the act giving to the parishes an equal voice, did not pass till 1693. Was this concession, then, the effect of the grant of taxation ? Were the gratitude and sense of justice of the churches ‘so very feeble, and the recognition of their duties so very tardy ? ads ul Lastly, these venerable Counsellors are still more mis- taken in a more important assertion, which they repeat in many places with increased confidence ; viz. ‘ that there never was any interruption to the concurrent claims of the church from 1695 down to the /ate decisions.’ What a deplorable ignorance of our history! We are not in the least degree surprised at it, however, in gentlemen who are so ignorant of our laws and ‘usages, that, im- stead of speaking of our ‘ inhabitants,’ our ‘ citizens,’ our ‘people,’ they almost invariably call the mass of voters the ‘ freemen,’—a phrase familiar in Connecticut, buat which must appear as strange to our ‘ inhabitants,’ ‘ citi- zens,’ and ‘ people,’ as if they had called them their ‘ high mightinesses. ~ - . _A tolerable acquaintance with our ecclesiastical histo- tory would have shown the Council.at Groton, that ffe- & ” 20 Church and People. quent disputes arose between the church and people as to the right of choosing the pastor, between the passage of the stillborn act of 1695 and the adoption of the Con- stitution. We shall ‘here cite a single case, which of it- self refutes the sweeping assertions of the Council, and ~ which explains the reason why all parties, Orthodox and liberal, united in taking away the exclusive and unfound- ed pretensions of the church, by an explicit provision of the Constitution. The case which we shall cite, was a very remarkable one. It is exceedingly instructive; because it shows to what hazard a religious people may be subjected by the fanaticism of a few members of the church. It was a case in which the church changed its creed, while the - parish retained their own; and we cannot refrain from asking, by the way, with all suitable reverence for this venerable Council, whether, if it had so happened that the church at Groton had been Unitarian, and the parish had remained Orthodox, we should have been instructed and enlightened by the learning of these gentlemen ? The pastoral office in the first church in Middlebo- rough, in the year 1744, being vacant by the death of the Rev. William * Thatcher, a majority of the church,— _ having been converted to the doctrines and fanaticism of Whitfield, designated by the title of ‘ new lights,’ and having thus abandoned the opinions which they and the congregation had before held,—were resolved not to agree to _the choice of any minister who’ did not hold these new opinions.—These ‘new light’ opinions, we would remark by the way, were not those of our fathers. The Orthodox clergy do not now hold them; they op- posed them at that time, and especially Whitfiela’s field preaching. We ask these venerable Counsellors what: are the rights of a parish, when a majority of the. church desert their former principles? Are t parish bound by their proceedings? Must their faith follow that | of a body of men, who are not their superiors in under- standing, and often not their equals ? * We are not sure that we should not say Peter instead of Williany Thatcher. Church and People. 21 The church of Middleborough kept the parish na state of confusion from May till September. They vexed and harrassed them with contradictory votes and resolu- tions. On the Sth of September thé> majority of the church brought a clergyman of their own sentiments, without the assent of the parish, nay, when they knew the parish had provided another, and broke into the meet- inghouse. Great disorder and disgraceful scenes ensued. The parish had more physical force and were victorious. They were not, however, insolent or intolerant. They invited the ‘ new light’ preacher to fill the pulpit half the ’ da The most essential part of the case w as, that the parish and minority of the church called a council, who decid- ed that ‘ the church ought to give way—that the custom of several parishes, when destitute of a minister, had been to supply the pulpit by a committee chosen by the whole _ parish.” 'The church would not listen to the advice of this council, proceeded to call a minister of their own new opinions, and actually ordained him against the wishes of a majority of the people! The people however did not submit to this usurpation, but proceeded to choose and settle a minister of their own opinions. Thus, there must have been two councils, at least, im the middle of the last century, who declared the right of election to be in the people. If the members of the Groton Council had read through — the ‘ Ratio Discipline’ of Cotton Mather, which they quote with respect, they would have found that even that zealous stickler for church authority, admitted that in his time, the early part of the last century, great discon- tents prevailed at the concurrent power of the church. ‘Though,’ says he, ‘ the law of the Province about choos- ing and settling a minister be a very wholesome law, and has much of the gospel it, yet there grows too much upon the inhabitants who are not yet come into the communion, a disposition to sepersede it and overrule it. Many peo- ple would not allow the church any privilege to go be- fore them in the choice ofa pastor. The clamor is, “ We must maintain him ;’’—and a most reasonable clamor it i i a 92 Church and People. was, These discontents kept increasing, the church pra- dently yielding to a storm, which they could not resist, until the formation of a Constitution in 1780, furnished a fit opportunity Church and People. 25 of the third article of the Bill of Rights, they say, that the construction given to this article by the courts, ‘is not a “ fundamental expression of the public will,” and that the freemen who adopted the constitution, had noi con- ception of its alleged hidden import. Indeed, say they, “there is a tradition, that the first legal expounder of the _ third article said, soon after having given his first exposi- tion of it, “ That when it was framed, he believed it would come to this, though he had not expected it would be in his day ; and that the people did not understand the article when it was adopted; and if they had, they would as soon have voted in a hierarchy.” ’—p. 53. .This is a most serious attack on the integrity, and understanding of Chief Justice Parsons. We believe it ‘to be wholly a fabrication intended to impose on the credulity of these venerable strangers. We think more- over, that prudence and delicacy towards the memory of that great man, should have induced the Council to re- quire some better evidence in the case than ‘tradition.’ The story is as absurd as the calumny is atrocious. Chief Justice Parsons was one of the youngest members of the Convention for framing the. Constitution. The Com- mittee appointed to draw up the Constitution was nume- _Yrous. The Convention adjourned for some months to give full time to prepare it. The committee met daily m Boston and discussed every topic with the greatest — caution. The third article received more attention than any one. Upon that committee were, if we recollect rightly, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Caleb Strong, * James Bowdoin, and many other eminent statesmen. When their report was made to the Convention, every -part of the Constitution was fully examined. Nearly the whole people were then Orthodox. The Constitution i in the hands of the people for, some time before the iod of voting upon its acceptance. Is it possible that - Orthodox Caleb Strong,* and Samuel Adams, the ‘ roel the Old South, + a man of rare sagacity, and all : .* The third article has always been reported, was drawn up by Miao le y ported, p by + Samuel Adams, however, was not a member of the Old South till sowie time after 1780. ; . . 3 oe 26 Church and People. the other astute men in the Convention, could not per- ceive the hidden meaning of the simplest sentence in the Constitution? Why did they not imsert the word ‘churches’ instead of the words ‘religious societies,’ which last is strictly technical, and used as such in all the acts of incorporation before and since? Or why did they not insert a saving proviso ‘ reserving to the several -churches their usual and accustomed right of concur- rence? It cannot possibly be explained but upon the ground that they intended to settle the right of election, for ever, on those who support the teacher.—We shall have occasion to revert to this subject in the close. There is another criminating imputation to which we beg the attention, of our readers. In the year 1800, a bill was brought in and passed for the support of religious worship. That act adopted the same construction, which was. afterwards given by the Supreme Judicial Court, with regard to the exclusive right of the whole parish to _ elect their pastors. - "The language of the act is, ‘that _ the churches shall have, use, exercise and enjoy, all their accustomed privileges and liberties, respecting divine _ worship, church order, and discipline, not repugnant to the Constitution.’ But, as this law passed some time before the Court had occasion to pronounce its decision on the meaning of the clause in the Bill of Rights, the Council at Groton unadvisedly undertake to affirm, what st is absolutely impossible they could know, that, at that time, ‘ it had never been whispered or dreamed, that the Constitution had “ impaired” the rights of the churches or “ enlarged those of towns,” ’—according to the words ” of Chief Justice Parsons. They proceed : “ Th : standing of the law of 1800 could, therefore, : other than that the churches should co e to under the protection of the law, 1 the they had been accustomed to enjoy. and Italics are their own,] who subjoi “ not repugnant to the, Constituti i” what he meant by it, but even he have dared to tell the people.’ . Here again we have another uw brought upon the stage. Who ‘ Church and People. 27 told. It was however some artful, intriguing man, who held the understandings of the legislature in utter con- tempt, and, the Council seem to think, deservedly ; for they did not know, as the Council pretend, what was the purport of a very plain clause in their own act. Who was this second culprit—for it must have been a second? Having had some connexion with the legislature of 1800, ‘we are satisfied that it was not Chief Justice Parsons ; that he was nota member. We believe that the father of this bill was Enoch Titcomb, a deacon of a church. Samuel Phillips of Andover, one of the founders of the Theological School, and many other eminently Ortho- dox gentlemen, were in the Senate at the time of the passage of that act—Why could not the venerable Coun- cil have favored us with their own views, as to the mean- ing of this exception ? When we look into the Constitu- tion, with minds not disposed to find a Jesuitical trick in every thing, not prone to the habit of suspecting others of base and dishonorable intrigues, we must own, that we can see no part of the Constitution to which this excep- tion could possibly apply, but that relating to the right of _election. 'The Constitution does not ‘ impair’ or restrain the rights and privileges of the cliurches in any other respect than this. It must therefore be presumed that this exception referred to this particular feature of the Constitution ; and if so, there was a legislative construc- tion of it, several years before the decision of Chief Jus- tice Parsons, and in entire conformity with his opinions. We are much indebted to the reverend Council for bringing this statute of 1800 to our recollection. We considered the law so settled, the habits of Massachu- setts so naturally lead us to respect our courts of law, that we had suffered it to escape us. By what unhappy accident the Council at Groton drew it into notice, we are unable to say. All we can affirm is, that it is en- tirely fatal to all their pretensions, and takes away the whole effect of a heavy mass of eloquence. By the first section of the act of 1800, no privileges are given to churches except such as are connected and associated with existing bodies politic. By the second section, all the towns, mepttes, precincts, bodies politic, 28 Church and People. or rédiaious societies, are held to be constantly provided . with a public teacher of piety, religion, and morality, un- der certain penalties to be recovered by indictment. Surely it will not even be pretended, that both the reli- gious societies and the parishes, and also the churches attached to them are liable to these fines ! If this should be the case, there would be a double set of fines; a fine | on the parish as a corporation, and an equal fine’ wae included corporation, as the Council consider it, the church. For, if the churches are incorporated societies, and within the provision of the Constitution, as ‘ reli- gious societies’ they~ are entitled to elect ; e converso, as religious societies they are liable to this penalty and subject to indictment. The rights and responsibilities must be reciprocal. Is there a lawyer in the State who would not laugh, till he could laugh no longer, at the indictment of a church—without property, as most churches are, without means of raising the fines—and at the same time another indictment against the parish for the same offence! It is so absurd that we are ashamed ~ that we have wasted so much time in prea the thought. But this is the least important objection. Th are liable to a perpetual and increasing fine, cuncealiet every six months, for not electing and providing a reli- gious teacher ; and yet, by the construction of this yene- , rable Council, they have not the power to do it. A ma- jority even of one, in a church,*éan deprive the parish of power to fill the vacancy. Nine men. for-that, was the majority in Groton, could keep that years, and yet the parish would be li of the fine every six months! Tt Legislature, in 1800, gave the sam Constitution, which the courts ha’ By the third section of the any contract made by any town public teacher, who may by them for their religious teacher, shall be ration.’ It will not be ieee And yet why not, if they ‘are b of the Constitution ? Church and People. 29 By the fourth section, every town, parish, and body politic, or religious society, has a right to assess tazes for support of public worship, &c. Will any man pretend that churthes have this power? No. It will not be pre- tended. The Legislature, in 1800, therefore, did not con- sider the churches as bodies politic and corporate. But the conclusive reply to this pretension, will be found in the sixth section of this law, by which all laws providing for the settlement of ministers made prior to the Constitution, are expressly repealed. Why repeal ‘the law of 1695 unless repugnant to the Constitution 2 _ Let the construction adopted by the Supreme Judicial Court be right or wrong, this repeal has annihilated the pretensions of the churches. The property of the church ' was preserved by the act of 1754, incorporating the dea- cons. -But the privilege of election depended solely on legislative discretion. ‘The power which gave it, not to a corporate body, but to individuals, had surely a right to resume it. ‘They have done it. There are no longer any exclusive privileges in church members. We shall now make a few remarks on the three grounds taken by the Council. The first point they assume is, that the church, in their narrow sense of the term, was instituted by Jesus Christ himself ; that he gave her the right to elect her own pastors ; that the church in the early ages was com- posed only of covenant members ; that our ancestors so considered its rights, and character ; in short, that there is a rightful permanent despotism in the church ; for such must be the effect, since not only the rules of admission are made by the church, but the church members have an arbitrary haa of rejecting an applicant on any pre- text or no pretext at all, and are not responsible for such rejection. Indeed they would in all the eminently Or- | _ thedox churches, reject an applicant for the meritorious offence of thinking for himself; for making his owr creed ; for refusing assent and subscription to a cove- nant containing sentiments which he cannot find in his bible.» Si ‘ This q is rendered of very little moment, since the repeate cial constructions which have been put 30 Church dull People. on the third article of the Bill of Rights ; but we shail not pass it by without remarking, that there is something revolting to the feelings to see our Saviour’s name cited to support a gross abuse. With the bible in car hands, we know that it contains no directions of our Saviour whatever, about the form of his church, no rules or limi- tations for the admission of members, ‘and that he was wholly silent as to the choice of pastors, or the persons who should choose them. All these matters rest on tra- dition. : But we forbear an examination of this question, now immaterial, and refer our readers to a discussion of it in a review of the Dedham case in the Christian Disciple for July and August, 1820. ‘They will there find it main- ‘tained, that in the early ages of Christianity, the church was the society of Christians worshipping in one place ; —that in this, the usual acceptation of the word, the church’ was divided into two classes only, clergy- and laity,—not into three, clergy, church members, and or- dinary worshippers ,—that church and parish were in the _ language of those times, convertible terms ;—that the choice of bishops, or presbyters—one and the same thing, that is, pastors, was made in a meeting of all the people ;— that even if it could be proved, that no persons were in ‘the first centuries admitted to the church without entering into a special covenant, it would by no means follow, that such a course is necessary in the present age, which is of a very different character ; nay, that Hooker him- self, one of this Council’s favorite authorities, maintains that the children. of confederate parents are, ipso facto, ‘ true member's according to the rul : profession of their fathers’ coven not make | Uny personal and sa of the We ackadent from the: Pe teenth century ; and that the high pret in regard to the election of pastors, are * Hooker’s Survey, Part I. pide “a Church and People. 34 supported by an uninterrupted usage even for the last twe - centuries, that they have never been fully recognised for a single hour. But if it had been otherwise, we main- tain, that no length of time however great, can give a prescriptive right to usurpation, The reformation pro- ceeded wholly on this principle. ‘Equality in the chiis- tian church is one of its fundamental principles. It is to be sure, one which has been more often violated than any other. There has been an unceasing effort to lord it over God’s heritage, and this Result is but one of the latest of the million of efforts to this effect. But it comes in an inauspicious age for the spirit ofdomination. Popes and Jesuits may be restored in name, but not to their dange- rous power. The glory.has departed fromthem. The hu- man mind is free, and men will no longer, except in dis- tracted Spain, hail their despots as benefactors, and in- sist upon the restoration of their chains. There are two grounds of a legal nature taken in the Result, which are new. They are pretensions, which escaped the notice of all the re and public characters, who have been employed i in examining this question. It is rather curious that these points of law should never have occurred to the counsel in the three decided cases on the rights of churches, or to the learned judges, or to the Legislature, or to the late Convention, when they were discussing the third article, and yet that Drs Beecher and Porter, strangers to our laws, should have dis- covered them at a glance. The clause in the Bill of Rights which restores definitively to the parish, to the _ people, the exercise of inalienable rights of which they had been a leprived, was expressed in these terms ; owns, .parishes, precincts, and other religious societies, shall, at ‘all. times, right of electing their public teachers, ith them for their support.’ This unambiguous, positive, and per- of great importance, that we should he same hodies which have the right of e power of contracting with the pastor ave this power but the civil corporations. make a contract. No church ever did ither before, or after the Constitution -— > . ties of Boston? They were neither t 32 Church and People. was adopted. We may say, ergo, the churches were ‘not the bodies to which the right of election was given. The pretensions of the churches of Massachusetts were gone forever, unless they could show, that they came with- in one of the descriptions of that short clause. Towns, parishes, or precincts, they could not pretend to be. No man in Massachusetts was so ignorant, or so bold asto affirm, that either of these descriptive names applied to oe churches. But’ at last, fortyseven years after the adop- tion of the Constitution, and about fifteen years after a judicial decision was made upon it,. the Council at Gro- ton discovered that churches are corporate bodies and re- ligious societies. In order to show this in avery logical — and truly legal manner, they begin by denying that any bodies of men existed in 1780, capable of fulfilling these — terms, or which answer to them, but churches. This, if correct, would have some weight. It would not of course make the churches bodies politic ; but as the words must be supposed to have had some meaning, there would have been a color for the pretence, that churches were intend- ed or designed by these words. If the assertion of the Council had been true, it would indeed be very perplex- ing to us, that Caleb Strong who drew up, and the ac- curate lawyers who examined, and discussed this article, should have omitted the word ‘ churches,’ and should have given to these poverty stricken institutions the power of contracting, when they knew that they had no funds, and no means of raising them ; but we might are, bow- ed with submission to an inevitable construc . But the assertion, ‘that besides precincts, there were no other religic politic but the churches,” is a mo traying an ignorance at which a a country academy would haye books are full of acts of incorpo: eties ;’—they were so at the t Constitution. What. were the fa precincts. They were ‘ bodies politic eties.’ These were their precise tec] they exactly correspond to the phras But these learned civilians may Church and People. 33 churches too. They were bodies politic and religious so- cieties.’ We reply, that neither in law, nor in common language, were they the one or the other. How do they show that they were bodies politic? By sucha strain as this; ‘ Our fathers came hither to preserve the liberties of the church. They would not suffer her to depend on the world. Incorporations must be presumed. They » would not have permitted this poor handmaid, the ehurch, to be turned out, without her shepherd, among a merci- less, infidel, wicked race.’ This is the general tone, though not in the precise words of the pamphlet.—We ask these gentlemen, why they did not apply to two or~ three learned professional men, who are the just pride of Orthodoxy? These gentlemen would have said to them, —‘In Massachusetts we have no corporations by prescrip- ' tion.. Our statute law has no chasms.. We can find no act incorporating a church. A corporate body can act only by its common seal We know of no church that ‘hasone. We search the registry of deeds for two hundred years ; we cansee nodeed from any.church. We consult the records of the courts ; we find no suits for or against.a church. The act of 1754 shows that the churches were not corporations then, and that act did not make them such. Gentlemen, you injure the cause of Orthodoxy by meddling with topics which you do not comprehend. Preserve a discreet silence. Imitate the apostles in a suitable sub- mission to the ruling powers. Set an example of decen- cy and moderation, and you will gain more proselytes = real without knowledge.’ Such i “advice ofthese excellent we have in_this State, vay 0 of judging of the in- . by their words. If they are | or ambiguous expressions, if well known institutions, and 34 Church and People. describe them in a simple and accurate manner, we nev- er resort to fanciful and imaginary suppositions and con- jectures. We hold, that if the people are fit to be ed with power, they must be supposed to be capable of comprehending the clearest language.* We know the Orthodox rule is different ; credo quia impossibile est. But upon the principle we have j ust stated, we infer, that the people comprehended the third ‘article of the Bill of ry We infer, that they knew of the decisions of the f preme Court in Avery vs. Tyringham, Burr vs. wich, and the case of the First Church in Dedham. ee Orthodox lawyers certainly knew of them.. We infer, therefore, that as these decisions were all published before the discussions in the late Convention, as the third arti- cle then underwent very full revision, and no man at- tempted to restore the churches to their usurped powers; » —we infer that the construction of the courts on the third article met with universal approbation. We con- sider the silence of that Convention equivalent to a con- » firmation of the exclusive right of the people, who are *The great burden of eit on the peat of Dr Beecher, and others, is, that the clause in the Bill of Rights ety h exclusive right - of choice to the people; was smuggled through the Convention and not understood. e have taken some pains to ascertain the facis from au- thentic documents, The Committee who reported the draft of the me stitution, did not introduce. this clause. They simply ee ae third article, that parishes and towns should be required religious teacher. When that article was under Convention, the re paca igges of the | oviso, giving to the people, who were a reacts (See “the prin by order of the Convention. ) And Sami dams and sig they, Wihteresnt long ebates, a tance; and we feel ourselves you, that though the debates wei nations, it was finally agreetl ally takes place in disquisition: ed and thus commended, the meet with the support of In the convention of 1820- respecting the election of te: not at this moment even an vote to give up its parochial rig church members, Church and People. 35 * the contractors and the tax payers, to elect those who are to teach them and their children morality and religion. We shall not insult the understandings of our readers by replying to, or retorting the sometimes canting, some- times inflammatory, and sometimes threatening language of this Result. Take a specimen ; ; it would not have disgraced a midnight meeting in the Convent des Jaco- bins. ‘'The reaction which is begun, is but begun ; and if it be terrible now, what will it become when an ex- tended sense of injury shall have roused and united the intire mass of Christians of all denominations, whose rights are placed in jeopardy ?—for of all modes of pro- moting sectarian views, that of legislation and aggression, . is the most hopeless, ina republican government.’ p. 62. To us, all this is a sealed book, a mystical jargon. We can comprehend nothing of the existing, or the threaten- ed ‘terrible’ reaction, nor of ‘ promoting sectarian views by legislative enactment.’ But one thing we do know, and which these gentlemen do as certainly not know— ‘that the people of Massachusetts have a natural sagacity and shrewdness, which will at once enable them to ap- preciate this Result according to its real merit, which, in our opinion, is not such as will entitle its authors to canonization. We feel no apprehension, that our peo- ple will, by coaxing or threats, be induced to surrender rights which it cost them one hundred and fifty years af patient but i Spe efforts to secure. . ras sent to the press, we ‘the first and Bi, ah ir side of this case, which passed between the lad that we were not in iting the review. There ould appear from these a: j it Would have been difficult to have’ “moderation, which such a subject ciples, not of the conduc of the yadiee | christian liberty. town of Groton, for it seems there rT - might have been | _rash, or its measures i I, the principles of the Result of Dr Beecher, been unsound and indefensible, and his ar our highest courts, turbulent and refractory. what we have seen, and we have a document, we are compelled to say, thi transaction, in civil or religious con meet with greater moderation ;.a more “corum, not to be disturbed by prove inciple: lightened determination to vindicate civ liberty, than in the proceedings of the and of its committees. _ “heir temper; duct is ‘highly honorable to: should be, and indeed must be submi itt The town of Groton owes it to its _ has been by this Council. S it owes = ‘othe We shall simply state, what our jimmita’s | ‘enable us to do, that. jouncil was md ero z= parte one, but a mutual one was: never asked. direct violation of the Ca order,of church dise on the part of gentien tion for the’ usages o not notified of it, nor The point in disp / pers; was) brought ‘s Sunieden, ‘and. changi oe. vorene, de com