It was proposed in the Legislature of Massachusetts, at the last session, to amend the constitution of the State, by annulling or essentially modifying the third article in the Declaration of Rights. As this proposition is one of general interest, and will in all probability be renewed in the next legislature, it is important that the people should have the means of forming a correct judgement in regard to it. The following is the Article in question:

"As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness, and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their Legislature with power to authorize and require, and the Legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, and religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily. And the people of this Commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their Legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend :-Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance. And all monies, paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise. it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said monies are raised. And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the Commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

According to the provisions of this Article, and of existing laws, every inhabitant of the state is obliged to belong to some religious society; and the legislature are bound to require every such society to support a "public Protestant teacher of piety, religion, and morality." They have authority also to enjoin attendance on his ministrations. In the opinion of the writer, this article needs to be greatly altered, if not to be wholly set aside. It will be the object of the following paper, first, to assign reasons for the opinion here expressed; secondly, to answer objections; and thirdly, to offer some remarks relative to the alterations that may be requisite.

1. My first objection to the article in question is, that it goes to create a legal, religious establishment. It establishes the Protestant religion by law, as the religion of the state. This is evident on the face of the article, and was expressly admitted by its advocates in the late Convention for revising the Constitution.* The objections to such an establishment are various. In the first place, it is altogether unscriptural. Where did Christ or his Apostles ever intimate, that they wished their religion to be incorporated with the state, and to be supported by civil enactments and penalties? Where do we gather a hint from them, that they thought such a connexion desirable, or even possible?-Besides; a legal establishment of the Christian religion is inconsistent with the genius and spirit of this religion, and tends invariably to secularize and corrupt it. The visible kingdom of Christ exists in this world, and while its members remain here, they are required to yield obedience to every lawful human ordinance; but we have it on the authority of Christ himself, that his kingdom is not of this world. Its interests, its objects, and the entire spirit by which it is actuated, are totally distinct from those of every worldly kingdom. This spiritual, holy kingdom, the seat of which is in heaven, and the design of which is to train up moral beings in a meetness for heaven, does not require to be supported by civil statutes, or admit of becoming a creature of the laws. Accordingly, the pen of history has recorded, that every attempt to establish Christianity by the state, and support it by the force of law, has tended to corrupt it. So it was in the days of Constantine. So it has been in all periods since. The hierarchy of Rome is a standing memorial of the evil of attempting to secularize the religion of Christ, and support it by the civil arm. And the reformed, established churches in Europe afford convincing evidence of the same truth. Religion there has been taken into the arms of the state to be fostered and upheld by the civil power; but in an embrace so unnatural, instead of being sustained and cherished, it is confined, encumbered, and corrupted, till its spirit and life, in many instances, are gone.

* "He [Dr. Freeman of Boston] agreed that making this provision was establishing religion, and that religious establishments had been mischievous; but it was because something else had been mixed with religion." Journal, &c. p. 168.

When our fathers came to this country, religious establishments were the order of the day every where. They existed in every country of Europe, where Christianity in any form had obtained the ascendency, and the utility of them had not been questioned. As a matter of course, religion was almost immediately established here. And the evil consequences of the measure were soon manifest. Dissenters were harassed and persecuted, and in the established churches, the, power and glory of religion were sensibly diminished. A spirit of coldness and slumber was induced, and a disposition to rely on the civil arm, rather than on the power and protection of Jehovah. It was in this way that the seeds of error were first implanted in many of the Pilgrim churches, and a foundation laid for their consequent defection from the truth and excellence of the gospel.With such views as to the nature and tendency of religious establishments, I feel constrained to urge that the third article in our declaration of rights, which goes confessedly to create a religious establishment in Massachusetts, may be essentially altered or expunged.

2. The spirit of this article, and of the laws which have grown out of it, is repugnant, in many ways, to the rights of conscience. The article requires, as we have seen, that every inhabitant of the state shall belong to some religious society, shall aid in the support of some Protestant religious teacher, and attend upon his instructions. But how can such a requisition be made to comport with the religious rights of the Catholics, thousands of whom now reside in this commonwealth? And how does it agree with the rights of those, not a few of whom are found among us, whose consciences are not sufficiently enlightened (as they say) to perceive the necessity or propriety of belonging to any Christian society, or of supporting or hearing any public teacher of the Christian religion? Will it be said that such persons ought to be Christians? We may think so, indeed, but they assure us that they think otherwise. And what, in these circumstances, is the most likely method to bring them to think favorably of our religion? Shall we compel them to support and to frequent our worship, contrary to what they declare are the dictates of their consciences? Or shall we treat them in a more forbearing and conciliatory manner?

The whole system of taxation, by which our laws require religion to be supported, is in direct opposition to the consciences of a respectable portion of our citizens. They are willing those should be taxed who consent to be, for in that case the tax is no more than a voluntary contribution; but they assure us that they cannot themselves pay a compulsory religious tax, nor can they do any thing which implies an acquiescence in this mode of supporting the gospel. Accordingly, it was no relief to such persons that, previous to the law of 1811, their teachers could, by a certificate, withdraw their money from the hands of those by whom it was assess

ed. Their objection was to the tax; and this must be assessed and collected, let the money come ultimately into whose bands it might. The act of giving and obtaining a certificate was understood by many as a virtual acquiescence in the propriety of the tax; and consequently they would not obtain certificates, and neither would they pay their taxes, till these were taken from them by force of law. Within less than a year after the adoption of the Constitution, Mr. Backus informs us that "four Baptists had been imprisoned, and a fifth had had a cow taken from him," for taxes.* Between that period and 1811, a multitude of similar cases occurred. It was said of a member of the Convention of 1820, that he "had had his property taken from him to the amount of 300 dollars, for the support of public worship in a form which he did not approve."+.

And where certificates were given, and the dissenting teacher undertook to withdraw his taxes from the parish treasurer, these were not always relinquished without trouble and expense. In the late Convention, Dr. Baldwin mentioned the case of a single town in which "fourteen lawsuits" had been instituted to compel the parish treasurer to pay over the money of dissenters. Mr. Varnum alluded to another "case, in which a man was taxed four dollars, and it was only after a series of lawsuits, which lasted four years, at an expense of one hundred dollars to him, and as much more to the parish, that he succeeded in having it appropriated to the teacher of his own society."+

To be sure, the law of 1811 brought vexations and oppressions of this sort comparatively to an end; but it did it by, in effect, nullifying the provisions of the Constitution ;—by opening a way in which these provisions may be so easily evaded, that it is no longer possible they should be strictly enforced. And after all, the law of 1811 is not entirely satisfactory. Still there remains the religious establishment-crippled indeed and inefficient ;-but still it exists. There is still the legal tax, which every citizen must pay, unless he makes what has been termed 'the certificate bow,' or contrives in some other way to evade it. In short, the evil, in principle, still exists, although so modified as to be less troublesome to the purses and the consciences of dissenters than it was in former years.

I know it will be said, that these scruples about a legal tax, and about certificates, are needless and childish; and perhaps they may be so. But that they exist in the minds of many of our citizens, and of some of our most worthy citizens, there can be no doubt; and the question is, whether a provision shall be retained in our Constitution and incorporated with our laws, which goes (to make the best of it) needlessly to violate them; or whether it shall be set aside.

Hist. of Baptists, vol. ii. p. 332.

† Journal, &c, pp. 163, 167, 254.

There is another class of persons, whose religious rights are entirely disregarded in the existing establishment;-Iefer to minors and wards. Persons in this situation often become intelligently established in religious principles the opposite of those of their legal guardians. And in such cases, they may have the mortification and grief to see their property taxed to aid in the support of a religion which their souls abhor. I would simply inquire whether this is right; and whether such a system of things ought longer to be tolerated.

There is still another provision in the article before us, by which great violence inay be done, and often has been, to the consciences of individuals.

"All monies paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any, on whose instructions he attends, otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinci in which the said monies are raised."

That is, if a inan is so unfortunate as to be situated where he cannot attend, with his family, on that religious worship and instruction which he believes is right, then is he liable to be compelled to contribute for the support of that which he believes is wrong! A Calvinist so situated that he cannot attend the meeting of his choice may be compelled to pay for the support of Universalism; or a Universalist so situated that he cannot attend the meeting of his choice may be compelled to pay a man for preaching what be considers as the horrible dogma of eternal punishment.

3. The third article in the declaration of rights is inconsistent with the second. The second article provides that "no subject shall be hurt, molested, or res'rained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and seasons most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship." This article is so framed as to secure equally the rights of all religionists,—the Catholic, the Jew, and the professor of the mere religion of nature, as well as of the Protestant Christian. But how does this agree with the provisions of the third article, which binds every citizen to aid in the support of some Protestant religious teacher, and to attend on his ministrations? The inconsistency is gross and irreconcileable, and that it was not discovered by the venerable framers of our Constitution can be accounted for only from the fact, that there were almost none at that time in the state, who were not nominally Protestants.

But the operation of the third article has been such in respect to Protestants, as perpetually to violate the provisions of the second. Has no Protestant subject been "hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner