ous opposition. The advocates of freedom, however, could point to the example and experience of other states. Rhode Island, Vermont, Connecticut and the Federal government were on the side of freedom. Although it was argued that the Toleration Act meant "a repeal of the Christian religion," and "the abolition of the Bible," it was passed, and, as Sanborn says, "was productive of little evil and the highest positive good."

In the year following the dis-establishment in New Hampshire came the separation of Maine from Massachusetts. The battle for religious freedom had already been fought in many places, and now all the New England states, except Massachusetts, had surrendered the right of controlling the church. Maine could not go back to the old practice; the opposition was too great. She consequently incorporated the following article in her Bill of Rights:

"All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; and no one shall be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, liberty or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, nor for his religious professions or sentiments; provided, he does not disturb the public peace, nor obstruct others in their religious worship; and all persons 'demeaning themselves peaceably, as good members of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the laws, and no subordination nor preference, of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law; nor shall any religious test be required as a qualification for any office or trust under this state; and all religious societies in this state, whether incorporate or unincorporate, shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and contracting with them for their support and maintenance."1

'Hough, American Constitution, Vol. I, p. 509.

The Bill of Rights of the Massachusetts constitution declared that "no subordination of one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law."

The dissenters were bent upon making the most of this clause. They claimed that to require certificates of them, for exemption from supporting the Congregational church, was subordinating them to that church. They, therefore, proposed to test the law.

The case

In 1781 several dissenters in the parish of East Attleboro' were taxed as usually. A Mr. Balkom, who had refused to pay, was seized for his tax. He, therefore, brought suit for damages against the assessors, before a justice of the peace. The decision was given in favor of the assessors. was brought upon appeal to the County Court, where the decision of the justice was reversed and a judgment rendered in favor of Mr. Balkom. This judgment ought to have settled the certificate matter; but it did not. It was kept up throughout the state. Buck says the decision in Balkom's case "seems to have been local in its influence." Backus says, however, that it settled the controversy in Attleboro', and was extensively used elsewhere.2

1

Other efforts were made by the dissenters to secure justice under the Bill of Rights. According to the statutes enacted under it individuals might direct their taxes to be paid to any public Protestant teacher of piety, religion and morality, of their own sect, provided there was one in the town, on whose instructions they attended. A Universalist minister, Mr. Murray, brought suit under this law to recover the taxes which his parishioners had paid into the town treasury. The state's attorney in the case aimed to prove that a minister "who denied the eternal punishment of the wicked was not a teacher of piety, religion and morality.' The decision of

3

the Court, however, was in Mr. Murray's favor.

1 Buck's Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Law, p. 41. Hovey's Life and Times of Isaac Backus, p. 246.

3 Buck, p. 40.

In 1799 a law was enacted allowing the minister of a dissenting sect to recover from the town treasurer the taxes that had been paid for the support of religion by members of his congregation. A Methodist minister tried to recover his share of the taxes under this law, but he failed because he was not "settled." He had preached in various places, from Pittsfield to Springfield, and consequently the law did not touch his

case.

A few years later a peculiar construction was put upon the law that allowed individuals to support any public teacher of piety, religion and morality. The Supreme Court decided that ministers of unincorporated societies were not public teachers. The decision affected a large number of dissenting societies but few of which had been incorporated.

All these difficulties placed in the way of religious liberty, served only to make the dissenters more zealous in their opposition to any state interference in religious matters. They were now strong and well organized and it was only a question of a short time when the church establishment would be overthrown.

In 1811 the "religious freedom" act was passed. It was like the act passed in Connecticut twenty years before. Under this act any one could leave the Congregational church and attend a Baptist, Episcopal or any other church. His taxes went to the minister whose instructions he attended. He, however, had to file a certificate with the town clerk that he had joined a new society.

In 1820 an effort was made to amend the Bill of Rights so as to include the provisions of the religious freedom act of 1811. An amendment to this effect was prepared but was rejected by a large majority.

The Unitarian ascendency is the last chapter in the history of the struggle between the churches and state in Massachusetts. The Bill of Rights gave to the parish or town not to

the church the exclusive right of electing the minister and contracting with him for his support. "This well-meant provision was the cockatrice's egg out of which those great judges, Parker and Shaw, successively sitting thereon, afterwards hatched dire mischief to the churches." The Congregational church of Massachusetts now rested on popular suffrage. Any change, therefore, in the beliefs and opinions of the voters, was sure to manifest itself in the church, and, particularly, in the selection of a pastor. In 1818 it happened, in the little town of Dedham, that the pastor of the First church resigned to accept the presidency of a college. The orthodox Congregationalists had for a long time been in the majority here, and the town was supplied with a Congregational minister. But public opinion had been changing, and it was here first learned that the Standing Order, built on popular suffrage, must change as the sentiment of the people changes. The citizens of the town, as distinct from the church, decided to exercise the rights guaranteed to them under the Bill of Rights of 1780, and accordingly chose a minister for the town. They elected a Unitarian. The majority of the church true to Congregational orthodoxy, refused to accept the new minister. The matter was brought to the Supreme Court where the case was decided in favor of the parish. "Whatever, said Chief Justice Parker, the usage in settling a minister, the Bill of Rights of 1780 secures to towns, not to churches, the right to elect the minister in the last resort." 2 The Unitarian minister was given charge of the parish. Here was a Congregational church, the state church, under laws made by Congregationalists themselves, turned over to a sect with which the early Puritan would have had no sympathy. To the Unitarians, professing a doctrine that they hardly dared bring to the light, this orthodox church with all its funds was transferred. In this way many other churches of the Standing Order, with all their property, were turned over

1Chas. E. Stevens, Essay on Church and Parish.

2 Buck, p. 52.

to the Unitarians. The first church of old Plymouth itself was in this way made Unitarian. Bishop Burgess has said that in 1843 there were one hundred and thirty Unitarian Congregational churches in Massachusetts hardly twenty of which were Unitarian in their origin.'

The old Calvinistic state church that had withstood all attacks so long, was now superseded in many places. The reaction of the laws intended to make it secure had brought on its ruin. Massachusetts was now willing to give up the struggle it had carried on so long. In 1834 the Bill of Rights was amended, and "the ancient policy of the Commonwealth, derived from the mother country, steadily maintained for two hundred years, was entirely abandoned."

During the last period there have appeared two forces to aid in the dis-establishment of the church. (1) The examples set by the Federal government, and by many of the states, doubtless had great weight in determining the future policy of New England. (2) In Massachusetts the change in the belief of the citizens manifested itself in the church. Congregationalism began to give way to Unitarianism. The unfavorable turn of events which the state experienced in the execution of its laws. was all that was needed. Massachusetts was now ready to join with her sister states in her attitude toward the church.

While many forces contributed to bring about the separation of church and state in New England, there is none so prominent as the work of those who were once dissenters. The Baptists, Episcopalians, Quakers and others, fought a good fight in behalf of freedom. Their labors never ceased until the victory was won. New England was now ready to "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's and unto God the things that are God's."

1

Burgess' Pages from the Ecclesiastical History of New England, pp. 121–2. Buck's Massachusetts Ecclesiastical Law, p. 64.