diversity of sects, it must certainly be more agreeable, and equitable, and in our judgment more practicable and convenient, and equally safe, to let each sect adopt its own method. We can hardly help smiling at the solicitude sometimes manifested about what is likely to happen after sects have ceased, or ceased to be zealous and active, as sects.

Alarmists in this case may see further than we can; but it is a happy circumstance in the history of our country, that alarmists, thus far, have not been prophets; events have not verified their forebodings. Indeed, we must be permitted to doubt the good sense, the expediency, the dignity, every time an obnoxious sentiment is promulgated, or an important election is lost, of crying out, "We be all dead men." We read the heavens differently. When were greater, or more systematic, or, we may add, better intended, or better directed efforts made for building up the waste places of Zion, here and every where, than at the present moment? Doubtless it is consistent with religious liberty, not that religion itself, but that religious institutions should be made matter, in some respects, of civil regulation; but it is another question whether this course, under existing circumstances, is necessary, or expedient, or safe. There are things which the people will do voluntarily, which they will not do, and cannot be made to do, on compulsion. For the future support of Christian worship, we rely much less on human legislation, than on human nature. We rely, moreover, on the intelligence and virtue of the people, being convinced that they will not suffer institutions to fall into decay and ruin, to which this community is indebted for almost every thing by which its character is so honorably distinguished. We rely on the intrinsic vitality and energy of the religion itself, which, though overlaid as it is by such masses of error and corruption, the error and corruption cannot kill. Above all, we rely on the over-ruling providence of God, we hope not superstitiously, nor presumptuously, but yet implicitly, that He will not suffer the church, which was planted by the care, and watered by the tears, and consecrated by the prayers of our fathers, to be prevailed against by the gates of hell.

[For the Christian Examiner.]

ART. VII. - Defence of the Third Article.

[We have given briefly, in the preceding article, our views of the subject here discussed by our correspondent. It will be seen that we differ from him materially in regard to some of his statements and reasonings, and his general conclusion, and must not be held responsible for them. Truth and justice, however, require that the argument of those who oppose the amendment of the Third Article should be understood, and not be misrepresented. - The Editors.]

This article has stood unaltered ever since the adoption of the Constitution of the State. On this rests the legal liability of every citizen to be taxed for the support of religious institutions. On this depend the privileges of the territorial or first parishes throughout the State. With this are connected, more or less immediately, the present financial arrangements of almost every religious society in the Commonwealth. The question now pending, with regard to this Article, ought not then to be viewed with indifference. Its main feature is that it empowers the legislature to make legal provision for the maintenance of public worship.

Those who are in favor of its repeal, or essential modification, in my opinion, mistake the question at issue. They state it to be this: "Has government, which was established for political ends, a right to step out of its province, to interfere in the controversy between the friends and foes of Christianity, and to patronize a system of belief in which its subjects are not agreed? Has government a right to provide for the support of religion as such?" To this question I should unhesitatingly reply in the negative. To this question our Constitution itself replies in the negative; for in its preamble the end of government is said to be "to secure the existence of the body politic; to protect it; and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquillity, their natural rights and the blessings of life." This end government effects, 1. directly, by providing for the appointment and compensation of public officers in all departments, and for the making and administering of such laws as bear immediately upon personal security, liberty, and property; and, 2. indirectly, by conducting such operations and patronizing such institutions as tend to make men better citizens, to facilitate the enjoyment of their rights and their property, and to extend the means of social intercourse. These operations and institutions are not conducted and patronized on account of their intrinsic excellence; but because they indirectly tend to promote the end of government. We do not support schools at the public expense, because education is in itself a good thing, because it enlarges and ennobles the mind, because it is the ornament of prosperity and the solace of adversity; but because, unless intelligence be diffused, the existence of the body politic cannot be secured, and the natural rights of man and the blessings of life cannot be enjoyed. We make and repair roads at the public expense, not because a good road is a good thing in itself; but because without convenient means of passage, the citizens cannot hold that intercourse with each other, which is requisite for the enjoyment of social rights and property, for mutual protection, for the very existence of the body politic. And thus if government can lawfully support religious institutions, it is not because religion is a good thing in itself, because its consolations and hopes are man's best, - his only enduring treasure; but simply because it makes men better citizens, and secures to them the safe and tranquil enjoyment of their natural rights and the blessings of life. This is the ground taken in the Article now under consideration. Those who framed it do not say, "As religion is intrinsically excellent," or "As the Christian religion is a divine revelation," or "As man cannot be happy here or hereafter without religion," "therefore we provide for the establishment of public worship." This, as Christians, they might have said; but as legislators they say: "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 the people have a right to make provision for the support of public worship." Thus it appears that the framers of our Constitution placed religious institutions on the same footing with our public schools, our highways, &c., as one of the indirect means of effecting the end of civil government. Whether they were right in assigning this place to the insti

1

tutions of public worship, whether legal provision ought to be made for the support of religion at the public expense, depends upon the answer given to the three following questions: 1. Have religious institutions an important political bearing? 2. Is it the tendency of the Christian institution of public worship, "to secure the existence of the body politic, and to protect and facilitate the enjoyment of natural and social rights, and of the blessings of life"? 3. Can this institution be the most permanently established, the most equitably maintained, and the most generally enjoyed, by means of a legal provision for supporting it at the public expense ?

To the first of these questions every man, and to the second every Christian, must needs reply in the affirmative. But many sincere friends of Christianity oppose the granting of legislative support to religious institutions, on the ground that they may be better supported without the interference of the civil power. Whether this ground be tenable or not will depend upon the answer given to the third of the questions above proposed.

And in answer to this question let me first observe, that a tax laid upon every one in proportion to his ability, is the most equitable mode of supporting public worship. I have showed that the only ground on which the government have a right to support it is on account of its tendency to secure the order and welfare of the community. And there is no reason why a tax should not be laid for its maintenance, on the same principles on which one is assessed for the support of education, of the militia system, and of every other auxiliary of government. The rich man has the greater amount of property, which is preserved from depredation in part by the knowledge of the Christian system of morality and the sense of religious obligations diffused through the community; and, by the profanation of the Sabbath, and the freedom from religious restraint consequent upon the suspension of public worship, he would be obliged to furnish the larger quota for the support of paupers and the detection of criminals. He therefore should in justice contribute his full proportion to the parish, as well as to the town or the State tax. Every man that pays a tax would have that tax greatly increased by the suspension of public worship. Every such man, then, is in equity bound to contribute to its support in proportion to his means.

VOL. XIII. - N. S. VOL. VIII. NO. III. 45

1

But, should the Article under consideration be repealed, it would be impossible for parishes to enforce the system of taxation. Those who are rich in this world's goods are not always rich in faith and in good works; and, unless the law compelled them to it, it would be difficult to induce many of them to pay the parish tax which they now pay. There are also among us many infidels, many who are unable to attend places of worship belonging to their own denomination, and a still larger class who are altogether indifferent to religion, all of whom would at once rob the parish treasuries of their annual taxes. The result would be, that in many places public worship could be maintained only by the greatest efforts and sacrifices on the part of the devout; and in many more it would be entirely suspended.

Again; the support of public worship by a general tax is not only equitable, but it is the system under which worship will be the most generally attended. Many attend it simply because they pay for its support. They go to meeting in order to get their money's worth. There can be no doubt that it is the circumstance of their being paid for by every one, that makes every one so ready to use our public schools. In Connecticut the common schools are supported by a State fund; and it has been observed by those qualified to make the comparison, that attendance upon such schools is there much less general and punctual than in this State, where every man knows that a part of his town tax is paid to the teacher of his children. Now I do not say that he, who sends his child to school because he must at any rate help support the school, sends him from a right motive. But yet he keeps his child out of harm's way, and furnishes him with the means of improvement. Nor would I assert that he who goes to church because, whether he goes or not, he must help support the minister, goes from a right motive. But he nevertheless keeps himself out of mischief, and puts himself in the way of the holiest influences. Those who go to scoff, often remain to pray; and how much more likely is he, who goes soberly, though not religiously, to use a purchased right, how much more likely is he, I say, to have his attention arrested, his feelings awakened, and his mind interested in divine truth. And even if he receive no profitable impressions, he is at least kept from places, where he might learn much evil. If he does not hallow, he is kept