LETTERS ON THE INTRODUCTION AND PROGRESS OF

UNITARIANISM IN NEW ENGLAND.-No. VIII.

DEAR SIR,

I must be permitted to trouble you with another communication relative to the means by which Unitarianism has been promoted among us. And here let me call your attention to the advantage taken by the Unitarians of Massachusetts of the existing parochial laws, and of the decisions of courts.-By the laws of this State, all the citizens are obliged to belong to some religious society, and to aid in supporting the institutions of the Gospel. All the inhabitants within the limits of a local parish or town are considered as belonging to the first or original society in such town, unless they formally signify to the clerk of said society that they have connected themselves with some other religious body. And when those who have signified their secession from the first society for any cause choose to return, they have usually considered themselves at liberty to do so, without let or hindrance from any quarter.* Thus much it seemed necessary to premise respecting

It is doubtful whether those who voluntarily leave a religious society have any legal Fight to return to it against its consent, or without its consent, directly or indirectly obained. Those who wish to see an ingenious discussion of this subject may consult the Appendix to Rev. Mr. Cogswell's farewell sermon to the South Church and Parish in Dedham.

I am a friend to religious liberty, in every proper sense of the term. I wish all persons to have the liberty of worshipping God, according to the dictates of their own consciences; and the liberty of leaving a religious society, whenever they become sincerely dissatisfied with its doctrines or its forms. But when persons have once left a eligious society, I really think they ought not to be suffered to return, unless those who emain are willing to receive them. The religious liberty of one man should never coner on him the power to trifle with the religious rights and privileges of his neighbors-a tate of things which must often be realized, where persons take the liberty to play fast and oose, to leave a religious society and return to it just as they please, in the manner they have sometimes done, of late, in this Commonwealth.

the present legal establishment of religion (for it amounts to a sort of legal establishment) in Massachusetts.

This State was originally divided into towns and parishes, and over these parishes were settled, with few exceptions, Orthodox Congregational ministers. In the progress of years, as diversities of opinion and interest increased, and full liberty of dissent was granted, from most of the parishes, there came to be a considerable number of dissenters. Many of these were among the most respectable of the citizens, who left from motives of religion, because they conscientiously preferred a different form of worship. But others were induced to leave from motives of less value ;- -some in anger; some, because they were indifferent to all religion, and were little better than infidels; and many, because, in connexion with another society, they could discharge the demands of the law upon them at a cheaper rate.

When Unitarianism began to prevail among us, although the clergy, in general, were first corrupted, and endeavored, by a variety of influence, to withdraw their people from the truth, still, this was not uniformly the case. Leading individuals among the people in some instances became corrupted, while the pastor and the church continued steadfast. In cases of this latter kind, the design has been not unfrequently formed, and too often carried into effect, to dismiss the pastor, seize the property of the church, and turn it all to the support of Unitarianism. The mode of procedure by which this has been accomplished has, of course, varied according to circumstances. The following, however, may be considered as an outline.

The pastor is at first harassed, perhaps, with a proposition to exchange pulpits with avowed Unitarians, or with some other request, equally trying for him to refuse, and equally impossible for him to grant. The effect of this is to produce discussion, excite ment, and at length dissatisfaction, among a portion of the people. A party is raised to contend with the minister; and after skirmishing for a while and making due preparation, a meeting is called see what shall be done. If at this meeting it is found that a m jority is already gained, or can by any means be procured, to against the minister, a tone of authority is assumed, and bes given very significantly to understand, that he must either submi or be discharged. The unprincipled part of those who have be fore seceded, have been lying in wait to perpetrate mischie now stand ready to return, whether the society are ready to ceive them or not, and to make up a majority for the oppressio: and removal of the faithful pastor.

But if it is found, on examination, that a majority of voters, ev in this way, cannot be obtained, a different system of measures will be adopted. The mal-contents in the society will the

selves withdraw-setting up, at the same time, a loud lamentation over its broken and divided state-in hope of weakening it to such a degree, that the pastor cannot be supported.* A manœuvre of this kind may not immediately succeed, but it will be rather likely to effect its object in the end; as every secession, by increasing the expense to those who remain, holds out a temptation to further secession, and the friends of truth themselves will at length grow discouraged, and think that possibly another man may be more acceptable.

But when from this, or from any cause the pastor is dismissed, the society receives at once a great increase of numbers. Those who had left it come back in a body, and with them a host of old dissentients-nothingarians, infidels, unprincipled men, who declare that they were always Unitarians, although for a time they did not know it. Everything, in town and out, that can be brought to act in subserviency to the cause, is now rallied, and a desperate effort is made to secure a majority in favor of "the new doctrine."+

The friends of order refuse to compete with measures such as are sometimes resorted to, and the desired majority is perhaps secured. A Unitarian committee to supply the pulpit is appointed; a candidate to their liking is employed; and a determination is manifested to effect his settlement. Meanwhile the church remonstrates, and asserts her immemorial rights and usages in regard to the choice of a pastor in vain. She is given to understand that she has neither rights nor existence, separate from the parish, and that if she will not act in subserviency to the views of the majority, she shall not act at all. Thus trampled on and despised, the resolution is formed to secede from a connexion, where she can have no privileges, and from which she can expect nothing but abuse and injury. The brethren meet; they deliberate; and, having sought direction from on high, they solemnly vote to withdraw from the parish, and establish the worship and ordinances of the Gospel in connexion with those who will respect their rights. In accordance with their vote (with the exception, perhaps, of two or three brethren) they do withdraw. The Unitarian ordination is now hastened; a venerable council is convened; and by prayer and imposition of hands, a young gentleman is established over the first society, and-THE FIRST CHURCH!! in

While these things are transacting on the one part, the church and those associated with them, being driven out from their sanc*I do not object to the secession of dissatisfied individuals from a society, but to their secession for a sinister and malicious purpose.

In one instance at least, not only a large number from other societies, but some, it is understood, from other towns, were induced to join the first society in a town, for the purpose of creating a Unitarian majority.

Several first churches, like that here supposed, now exist in Massachusetts. As their claim to an existence, as first churches, rests entirely on a decision of the Supreme Court, they have been denominated, not improperly, Juridical Churches,

Provi

tuary and altar, begin to look around, and consider what shall be done. By their own sacrifices and exertions, and the needed assistance of friends, they commence erecting a house of worship, where they may serve the God of their fathers in peace. dence smiles upon them in the undertaking; the building rises; they prepare to enter it; and hope their troubles are nearly at an end. But even in this last hope, they are disappointed. A suit is commenced against them by the two or three brethren who remain behind, in connexion with such others as have been induced to join them, to take away their property, their communion furni ture, and even the records of the church. Relying on the manifest justice of their cause, they resolve to stand in defence of their rights. They go to the bar of their country, and plead there, that their property is their own; that they hold it by their own deacons, according to the Platform, to usage, and to law; that they have always had the entire control and management of it; that they have done nothing to forfeit it—nothing which they were not fully competent to do, and which has not been done by Congregational Churches from the first settlement of the country; consequently, that their ecclesiastical existence and rights remain unimpaired; that their property is theirs now, as much as it ever was; and that no man has a right to take it from them.

But,- -I would that truth would suffer me here to stop,— but they are told, from the bench of justice, in opposition to plain historical facts, that "before the migration of our ancestors to this country," and "for several years after they came here,” “there was little practical distinction between church and congregation;" that "almost if not quite all the inhabitants of the towns were church members ;"* that "a church cannot subsist without some religious community to which it is attached ;" that "the secession of a whole church from the parish would be an extinction of the church;" that, by their secession, they have destroyed their ecclesiastical existence; that they have now no rights or appurtenances,

From the three hundred and fifty persons, who commenced the settlement at Salem, the first church was gathered, soon after landing, and numbered only thirty communi cants. Neal's Hist. of the Puritans, vol. ii. pp. 229, 230. At the first General Court is Boston, 1631,"MANY who were not of any of the churches" were admitted freemen Hutchinson, vol. i. pp. 25, 26. Leechford, in 1637, says, "Most persons at New Eng land are not admitted of their church." Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 451.

To what "religious communities" were the original churches in Plymouth, in Dorchester, and in Rowley" attached," while removing, as ecclesiastical bodies, from Europe to this country? To what "religious communities" were the first and third churches Boston "attached," while removing from Charlestown? And the original churches # Cambridge and Dorchester, while removing to Connecticut? And the first church Wenham, while removing to Chelmsford? And the church in Granville (Ohio) while removing, in 1804, from Massachusetts? And the African church, formed in Boston in 1825, while removing to Liberia ? See Spirit of the Pilgrims, vol. i. p. 136, and ii. p. 30, and Boston Recorder for Dec. 20, 1825. To what "religious communities," or parishes. were the churches of Massachusetts "attached," before any parishes were incorporated, or any parochial power was committed to the towns? And such power, it is admitted, was not committed to the towns, until more than twenty years after the settlement of the country. A mistake like this in regard to plain historical fact was probably never before ade, especially in a case so directly affecting the civil and religious rights of men.

as a church that their property, their records, the furniture of their sacramentale, all belongs to those who have demanded it; and- -that the "inconvenience" of losing it "will never be felt, where a case of conscience is in question" ! !*They bow in silence, retire, and submit; but they do it with a sense of deep and complicated injury. They do it with a full consciousness that they have been wronged and plundered. They do it, feeling as the primitive Christians did, when called to take the spoiling of their goods.

I do not say that the whole of the above representation has ever been realized, in any particular case. But I do say, that it is a fair exemplification of the manner in which Unitarians have shown themselves ready to take advantage of existing laws and decisions, to promote their cause; and that, in all material points, the representation has been realized, in a number of instances.

The first church that was deprived of its property, to any considerable extent, in this way, was the original church in Dedham. In August, 1818, a majority of the first parish in Dedham elected the Rev. Alvan Lamson to be their minister. A majority of the church refused to concur in his election, or to receive him as their pastor. He was ordained teacher of the parish, but not pastor of the church, in October of the same year. Those members of the church who adhered to the parish chose him for their pastor, subsequent to his ordination; appointed deacons from among themselves; sued the church for its property; and at length recovered it. From the Report of the decision in this case, which was delivered March, 1821, I have already quoted. This has since been referred to as a precedent, an authority, on which to justify similar perversions.

About the time of the decision of the Dedham case, the views of Unitarians, in regard to the powers and rights of the churches, seem to have undergone a great and sudden change. It will not be denied that the doctrine of this decision is in palpable opposition to that of the Cambridge Platform. The Platform proceeds on the assumption, that the church is a distinct and independent body; this decision makes it a mere appendage of the parish. "The church cannot subsist without some religious community to which it is attached." "The secession of a whole church from the parish would be an extinction of the church." The Platform gives to the church, in the most express terms, the right of electing its

* See Report of Decision in the case of Baker & Fales, Mass. Term Reports, vol. xvi. + The events here referred to form an epoch in the history of the churches of Massachusetts. Those who desire a particular acquaintance with them should consult a Pamphlet, entitled "A Statement of the Proceedings in the First Church and Parish in Dedham, respecting the Settlement of a Minister," detailing a variety of characteristic incidents, and evincing a thorough acquaintance with the principles and usages of Congregational churches; also the Report of the Lawsuit, 16 Mass. Reports, 488, and Worthington's History of Dedham, pp. 112-115.