ought to be enforced; although some gentlemen thought otherwise. He did not apprehend, if the present proposition were adopted, that the Sabbath would be neglected, that public schools and other benevolent institutions would go down; for we had experience to the contrary. He objected that it was impossible to enforce the present provisions. He thought it unfair to say that religion did not take care of itself originally, because it was protected by its author; for its author had no power to protect it; except so far as miracles went—our Saviour derived no aid from the civil arm. He said that under the word Protestant, which applies to a great many varieties of religion, the government had established one particular denomination. He denied the propriety of mixing civil and religious institutions. When in the dark ages, from which we ought not to take example, the amalgamation of these two distinct things was made, it was done for improper purposes, and was attended with mischief. The people had no right to establish any religion, whether Protestant or Catholic, or any other. He hoped the substance, at least, of the proposition of the gentleman from Pittsfield would be adopted… .
… MR. SALTONSTALL said he rose with unusual embarrassment, because the subject had been so ably discussed, and still more, because of its intrinsic importance; he thought it more important than any that had been considered. It is a trifling question comparatively, how the council shall be chosen, or whether there be any council; whether the senate be founded on valuation or population, or how the house of representatives is modified—we shall have a Legislature so constructed as to insure a free government—but strike out the constitutional provision for the support of public worship, and who can tell the consequences? As was said by the able gentleman from Boston, (Mr. Blake) we have heretofore been inspecting the superstructure—we are now examining the foundation, and he doubted not the result of the examination would be that the foundation would be found laid firm and deep, and capable of sustaining a superstructure that may rear its lofty head to the skies. Two questions arise—first as to the right of government, and second, whether there is anything in the subject—religion—which should prevent or restrict this right. There is no subject upon which such inadequate views are entertained as the duty, and of course the right, of government. A stranger acquainted with this subject, would be surprised at some of our debates upon the rights of the people in framing a government. They have a right to adopt such measures as will promote the happiness of the people and the good order and preservation of civil society. Whatever tends to promote these great objects, it is the duty of government to cherish and support, because these are the objects for which government is instituted. The design of government is not merely the security of life against those who would attack it, and property against those who would plunder it, but to improve the character and condition of those who are subject to it. Mr. S. enlarged upon this point. Is it true then, that the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government, do essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality? All seem to admit this, and yet their tendency to promote these great objects has not been sufficiently considered. The Christian religion is the great bond of civil society. It teaches us that we are all children of one beneficent Parent, who constantly watches over us for good, who notices all our actions, and will hereafter reward or punish us, as they have been good or evil. It teaches us that God is everywhere present, that he knows our most secret thoughts, that he sees us where no human eye can, and will call us to account when human laws cannot reach us. What an immense effect would the single doctrine of accountability have on the conduct, if properly realized. Our religion also contains the most comprehensive as well as minute directions for our conduct towards each other, declared under the most tremendous sanctions—all our hopes of happiness, all our fears of suffering; directions, which in proportion as they are obeyed, supersede the necessity of human laws. But this is not all—
“How small, of all the ills that men endure,
That part which laws or kings can make or cure.”1
It is on the observance of duties of imperfect obligation, which human laws cannot reach, but which are the great care of religion, that our happiness essentially depends. Can the regulations of society make us kind and affectionate and faithful in the relations we bear in life? Religion extends to the heart—human laws concern actions alone. Religion cleanses the fountain that it may send forth pure streams to refresh society. Christianity also furnishes a model of the character she would form. Moreover, it reveals to us the perfections of Jehovah, the great object of worship and source of all good, and commands us to be “perfect as he is perfect.” Who then can doubt that the happiness of a people and the good order and preservation of civil government do essentially depend upon such a system of “piety, religion and morality.” These are principles in which all agree—the essential principles of piety, religion and morality. The constitution then asserts that these cannot be generally diffused, but by the institution of public worship and instruction. Mr. S. enforced this. It then follows as a necessary inference, that to promote these great objects, the people have a right to invest the Legislature with the power, &c. (as in the constitution). And why not this as a civil institution, as well as any other means for the same end? It provides a most beautiful and liberal system; making it the duty of towns and parishes to make this provision, but consistently with perfect religious freedom. No denomination is established. The election is given expressly to each society, and of course to the majority of each. There is no more hardship than in being obliged to contribute towards the support of a minister than any other teacher. You may have no children to send to school, or may dislike his opinions, or his mode of instruction, or may be willing to contribute to the same object in some other way—but the tax you must pay. The right of society in both cases rests on the same foundation—the right to tax for the common good; and the reason is the same, the common benefit received, as members of society. Objections have been made to the abstract right of government, and to the particular provisions of the constitution. It is strange how much sensitiveness there is on this subject. No one hesitates to confer on government the power of inflicting any punishment, even death itself, for any crime; but the moment you would attempt by the influence of religion to destroy sin in embryo, an alarm is excited! Mr. S. then answered the objections made against granting the Legislature any power on the subject of religion,—as, that “religion is under the protection of the Almighty, who will take care of his church”; that “his kingdom is not of this world.” His kingdom is not of this world in the highest sense, because our final reward will be in another; but in a most important sense it is, because it would make us good members of society—would prepare us for a better state by making us good in all the relations of life. We are told that the kingdoms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord. May not governments coöperate in this glorious design? (Mr. S. noticed other objections, which we have not room to insert.) We are told that the constitution grants exclusive favors to one denomination. Will gentlemen read the constitution? No language can be plainer. It is most explicitly declared that “every denomination shall be equally under the protection of the law.” It is elevated far above all partial considerations—it regards all in the equal favor as all agreeing in the same essential principles, and leading to the same great object, the Father of all. If one parish alone, in some places where there are several societies, have the right of taxing non-resident lands, &c. it is because they have been left in the possession of this right. When a part of a parish (referred to Lynn) became Methodists, they separated, and petitioned for an incorporation with certain powers, which were granted, have they any right to complain? And so of the other societies, and the little remnant is left with the obligation to support public worship, and would you deprive them of their ancient rights? Would you punish them for adhering to the religion of their fathers? There is nothing exclusive in this—it would be the same, should the majority of a parish be of any denomination. This principle is not confined to parishes; it is the same as to towns. When a part is separated, the remainder has all the rights of the town not expressly granted to the new corporation.
It is said also to be inoperative. It is indeed too inoperative, and ought to be made more effectual; but this objection does not well come from those who complain of it as exclusive and oppressive. Some little cases of individual hardship have been stated, and some law suits have grown out of it, in which however those who complain, claim always to have obtained a remedy. What general law is there, or what part of the constitution against which such objections may not be made? They prove nothing against a great principle. But