parish in the Commonwealth. It puts an end to all acts of the Legislature, dividing the Commonwealth into convenient districts for the support of public worship. For what reason was this to be done? It was desirable to some persons to have the power of leaving their parish minister and going to another. This, no doubt, was sometimes a very convenient and pleasant thing, but there were two sides to the question. A parish forms a contract with a minister—an individual votes in making the contract, but the next year changes his mind, and wishes to be liberated. He is only to say he has changed his mind and he is liberated. Would this be borne in any other case? Suppose there was a banking institution in which the individual proprietors were responsible for its engagements, and an individual should withdraw from it and avoid his responsibility? It would be considered a breach of good faith. This provision authorizes every member of a parish, which has a contract with a minister, to go where he pleases, and no tax can afterwards be assessed upon him for fulfilling the contract—this gives a new inducement to another to go—and the corporation may be left without corporators. The minister may sue and get execution against the corporation, but he can get no fruit of his execution—and there is no way in which his contract can be enforced. If all do not leave the parish—suppose only one half leave, those who remain will be compelled to pay a double tax, or to violate their contract. It was said that this might be the effect of the present law. This did not diminish the force of the objection. The law may be modified so as to prevent these consequences, but if the principle is incorporated into the constitution, it cannot be. It was said that these evil consequences had not resulted from the law. One reason why the consequences of the law had not been felt was, that it was not generally understood. It was generally supposed that to entitle one to leave a parish and withdraw his taxes, he must become a member of a society of a different denomination. But the law had recently received a different construction, which was no doubt correct. It was true that under the law a person who becomes of a different denomination, has a right to withdraw, but this was understood, and the contracts have been made subject to this condition. This provision might be liable to abuses and frauds, but it did not follow that there might not be benefit in the restriction. There were instances in which pretended changes of opinion to avoid taxation, had not availed. He stated an instance of a man who left a Congregational parish, joined a Baptist society and was immersed—and who, on being asked if he had washed away his sins, replied that he had washed away his taxes, which was his principal concern. This declaration being proved, he was still holden to the payment of his taxes in the Congregational parish in which he resided. The resolution, if adopted, would change the condition of all ministerial contracts. Whether it would annul contracts made by bond, he did [not] know, but there might be doubts. It disables a parish from forming a contract which shall be binding upon both parties. Suppose a minister is settled in the usual solemn form to-day, this amendment points out the mode in which any member of the parish may avoid the obligation entered into. It may be all fair in relation to future contracts, but it is not in relation to those now existing. He asked if gentlemen were prepared to adopt such a principle in the constitution. It was of infinite importance, and threatened the most pernicious consequences. There was no adequate reason for the change in the trifling inconvenience that had been felt… .
… MR. LINCOLN said that originally every parish was of one sect and entertained a uniformity of sentiment. But now there was a great difference of sentiment in almost every town. In some towns there are persons who are obliged to play the hypocrite and associate with a society they do not agree with, or contribute to the support of doctrines they do not believe. What was the condition of almost every parish in the western part of the Commonwealth? Every person was born with the obligation of supporting religious instruction of a certain kind, for the dissemination of doctrines which many did not believe. He had the happiness to belong to an Unitarian society, where he could worship in a manner consistent with his views of the doctrines of Christianity. But what would be the condition of a man belonging to such a society, who, by what he conceives to be the operation of irresistible grace, is brought to believe in the trinity, and all the doctrines connected with it, and that his former opinions were erroneous? Shall he be bound to adhere to his society, or to contribute to the support of a teacher who according to his new views preaches what is without a particle of religion in it, and inculcates doctrines abhorrent to his conscience? It is only an act of justice to permit him to withdraw. As to its violating the obligation of contracts between the parish and the minister, it is done by the provision of the constitution already, and there is no mode of preventing it. If all are required to pay for the support of public worship in some society, it is all that can be done towards gaining the purposes of government. The differences between persons of the same denomination are many of them more essential than those which distinguish the different denominations. The latter are principally matter of form—the other may be a difference in fundamental doctrines. The learned gentleman proceeded to state the practice that was begun as early as 1807 by the Legislature, of incorporating poll parishes, and the operation and effect of the practice which he contended had been favorable in promoting attendance on public worship and the growth of piety and religion… .
Simple fact—the ineradicable split in the orthodox church—recommended the Fay resolution, and it passed. The delegates then took up the resolution of the Reverend Thomas Baldwin to exempt members of dissenting sects from the payment of taxes, thus raising the statute of 1811 to constitutional status. A similar resolution had been earlier rejected after lengthy debate. It represented the final effort of the dissenters to obtain a “second best” settlement. Samuel P. P. Fay was not a religious liberal. He voted against the Childs resolution, and his own was intended to help the Congregationalists. Baldwin, on the other hand, for several decades the minister of Boston’s Second Baptist Church, spoke for the dissenting interest. Several delegates addressed themselves to different aspects of the question, and the debate was concluded by a leading conservative and a leading liberal, Joseph Story and Levi Lincoln, who agreed on opposing the motion, though they had divided on the Childs resolution. The motion failed.
MR. BALDWIN said that some amendments to the third article of the declaration of rights, had been agreed upon by the Convention, but the most obnoxious part, perhaps, remained unrepealed. The most potent objection which had been urged against incorporating this resolution into the constitution, was, that the provision was liable to abuses. Particular instances had been mentioned, which, upon examination of the facts, would be found to have been misrepresented. He was sorry that such representations should be given, because they prejudice the minds of gentlemen, unjustly, against the merits of the resolution. The principle of the resolution was contained in the fourth resolution of the select committee on the declaration of rights. The whole thing claimed was, that the money of the members of a society of any denomination, should not be paid, so as to oblige them to draw it out of other hands. It was as contrary to the tenets of the Baptists, to levy compulsory taxes, as it was to those of the Friends to do military duty. The gentleman from Littleton had said, that seventy societies applied to the Legislature some years since, to be incorporated, only one of which was a Congregational society. The gentleman mistook the object of these applications. It was to get rid of paying taxes to other societies; not to obtain authority to tax their own members. He pitied that clergyman who depended on the compulsory taxation of his society to ensure him a subsistence. The exemption in this resolution lasted only so long as the person continued a member of the religious society to which he united himself.
MR. WILDE of Newburyport… . What was the amount of this resolution? that any man may join any society, and on producing his certificate of having joined it, may be exempted from taxation for the support of public worship in every other society. Any man may join any society, or any number of men may form a society, by which any man may be exempted from all taxation for the support of public worship in the town where he resides. The consequence will be that all who want to get rid of paying taxes will join a society. It is not necessary to support public worship—there is no need of a public teacher—the society may be in this town or in any other. A religious exemption society will be formed—exempt not only from taxation, but from all religious duties. A society may consist of one hundred thousand persons from all parts of the Commonwealth, and all the members residing in their respective towns. If this was not totally expunging