may hope to be heard with indulgence, and have any reasonable favor granted them."

The document from which we have been quoting concludes with the following manly sentiments, manfully expressed. "On the whole, by this view of our ecclesiastical and religious laws, we find that the cause of liberty hath gained ground in this colony. Those laws which were inconsistent with freedom of thought and liberty of conscience, are either wholly repealed and set aside, or so modeled that none can be oppressed by them. We have indeed a religious establishment; but it is of such a kind, and with such universal toleration, that the consciences of other sects cannot be affected or wounded by it, while every one is at perfect liberty to worship God in such way as is most agreeable to his own mind. Whatever oppressive measures have been heretofore adopted, we recollect with regret and disapprobation. We rejoice that these have ceased; and that there is such freedom of religious inquiry and worship that no man need be in bondage. We desire not the aid of other sects to maintain our churches; and while we stand fast in the constitution we have chosen, and think it in doctrine and discipline most agreeable to the scripture, the unerring standard of faith and worship, we would not oppress others, nor be oppressed ourselves, but exercise good will and charity to our brethren of other denominations, with fervent prayers that peace and holiness, liberty, truth, and purity may be established more and more among those that name the name of Christ, and be universally diffused among mankind."

Such was the spirit of the Congregational ministers in Connecticut more than sixty years ago. When has such a spirit been manifested by the clergy of any other church establishment? In particular, when has a dignitary of the church of England, ever uttered the sentiment, "We desire not the aid of other sects to maintain our churches." Yet, Mr. Calvin Colton, born in Longmeadow, educated in Connecticut, and four years a resident in Great Britain, says, "The cases are precisely parallel." What a historian! Shade of Samuel Peters!

At the close of the revolutionary war, there was another revision of the statutes, the revision of 1784; and then the legal establishment of the Saybrook Platform was repealed by being omitted; and liberty of conscience was granted, not merely to the two or three existing sects by name, but to christians of every denomination." Here," says Swift, himself no Puritan in doctrine or in discipline, " is a complete renunciation of the doctrine, that an ecclesiastical establishment is necessary to the support of civil government. No sect is invested with privileges superior to another. No creed is established; and no test-act excludes any person from holding any offices in government." "The regula

tions grant to every person the full liberty to adopt such creed as he pleases, and secure to every denomination the power and privilege of worshiping according to the dictates of their consciences."

What, then, was the ecclesiastical constitution of Connecticut, after the repeal of the Saybrook Platform in 1784? It was just this. The state was divided into parochial districts, called ecclesiastical societies, for the purpose of maintaining in each society, religious worship and instruction. Each society was at liberty to adopt such creed and form of worship as it might choose, and to change the same at the pleasure of the majority. To secure the consciences and the property of minorities, it was provided, that christians of whatever denomination, differing from the worship and ministry adopted by the majority, in any located society, might form themselves into distinct churches or congregations for public worship; that the churches or congregations thus organized, should have all the corporate powers and privileges of the located societies; and that any person attending such churches and congregations, and lodging a certificate of the fact, signed by the minister or clerk of his own society, with the clerk of the located society, should be exempt from all taxation for religious purposes, except by the society of his choice. Every person was bound to belong ecclesiastically, somewhere; and unless his certificate was given to the contrary, he was presumed to belong to the located society. The support of christian worship and instruction was taken to be one of the great interests of the community; and, in theory, no man was allowed to rid himself of his part of the burthen. In 1791, the system was completed by an act, authorizing any man who might prefer some other place of worship to that of the located society, to give a certificate of the fact, under his own hand, and by such a certificate, to free himself from all further responsibility to that society.

Look now at the series of changes in the laws of Connecticut, concerning religion, from 1672 to 1791. Who made these changes? The Congregationalists,-the men of the establishment,"the standing order." We have before us, from among the papers of Dr. Goodrich, "an estimate of the proportion of Episcopalians to Non-Episcopalians" in Connecticut, founded on returns from nearly all the towns in the colony, and dated Jan. 1, 1774. The Episcopalians were then, and always had been, as they are now, the most powerful of the "minor sects;" and they were then, to the entire population, as one is to thirteen. The Quakers and the Baptists added together, could not have outnumbered the members of the church of England in Connecticut. The Congregationalists, according to this estimate, must have been at least eleven-thirteenths of the people, at the commencement of the revolutionary war. Tell us, then, who, in a community where the ma

jority always ruled,-who of the thirteen, made these changes in favor of religious liberty? The minority of two, or the majority of eleven? Who made the great change in 1784? The Episcopalians and Baptists? Every body knows where the New England Episcopalians, generally, were, during the revolutionary war, and will any body tell us, that in 1784, the returning refugees repealed the law establishing the Saybrook Platform, and enacted a statute, "which," we use the words of no less a man than bishop Seabury, who, having served in the royal armies against his native country, had come, with king George's half-pay for his revenues, and with Scotch Jacobite consecration for his right divine,' to episcopize in Connecticut," puts all denominations of christians on a footing of equality, except Roman Catholics, and to them it gives a free toleration." "Yet Mr. Colton tells us, that "the standing order in the State of Connecticut" "took their stand against the proposal to put all christian denominations on an equal footing." Shall the novice of yesterday, whose conversion has but just been sealed by his admission to the holy order of deacons, rise up to contradict the first and most Episcopal of American prelates?

Here, we ask, Where is the proof that the pastors of the Congregational churches, as a body, opposed these changes? Where is the proof, that any one of these enactments for the relief of minor denominations, had not the full approbation of the clergy? Who will show us, that even the repeal of the establishment, was contrary to their wishes?

The arrangement of 1784, completed in 1791, though satisfactory to Episcopalians, at the time, was not satisfactory to all men. The Baptists, from the days of Roger Williams, had always held, that religion and religious institutions ought not to be, in any sense, the subjects of legislation. To them, therefore, it was not satisfactory, that they were exempted from parish taxes, and had the privilege of supporting their teachers in their own way, or of not supporting them at all, as they saw fit; it was not enough, that every man might connect himself with whatever church or congregation he might prefer to the local society; to them it was a grievance, that atheists and deists, if any there were, should be even theoretically liable to taxation for the support of christian institutions, and, that a malcontent Congregationalist had no way of getting rid of his relations to the society, but by converting himself to some other sect, or by removing his residence to some other parish. Accordingly there was a period of several years, from 1800 to 1807, in which our Baptist brethren were agitating the great question of religious liberty. At last, on their memorial to the legislature, they were

* White's Memoirs of Prot. Epis. Church. Appendix, p. 287.

heard by counsel; and a large committee, of which Oliver Ellsworth was chairman, reported on the alledged grievances. The investigation showed, that the memorialists suffered no hardship, real or supposed, and when called upon explicitly to specify wherein they were wronged, could name no grievance, other than that of having been obliged to let the parish clerk know, that they were determined to be Baptists. Nothing was done in the matter; and for several years afterwards, nothing farther was heard of it.

In the year 1816, a political party was formed in Connecticut, the leaders of which used great diligence to make the minor sects believe themselves oppressed, and at the same time took for their rallying cry, that most popular word, toleration. In 1817, that party was the majority, and was pledged to do something in the way of unbinding the heavy burthens from the shoulders of Baptists and Episcopalians. We dare say Mr. Colton cannot guess what was done towards redeeming the pledge. Was it the repeal of the Saybrook Platform? Was it the establishment of the right of all men to worship God in their own way? Was it the concession, that every man should "support only the religion of his choice?" Was it the granting of power to all christian ministers alike, to administer the marriage covenant, and to perform the rites of burial? No such thing remained to be done. The oppressed denominations were relieved in this way. Before that momentous revolution, the dissenter from a local society had been required to lodge the certificate of his dissent with the clerk of the society; but the toleration of 1817, directed him to lodge his certificate with the clerk of the town! The actual inconvenience to all the parties, under this arrangement, was threefold greater than before.

The new constitution of the State of Connecticut was formed in 1818. In that instrument, the article on religion contained one provision entirely new; namely, that no person should, "by law," "be classed with, or associated to, any congregation, church, or religious association." This was undoubtedly a great change. It was the final giving up of the old idea, that the maintenance of religious institutions was to be cared for by the government. It was the giving up of the long cherished principle, that, as every member of the community is profited in respect to his outward estate and personal security by the influence upon society of public worship and christian instruction, therefore, every member of the community ought to bear his part in the support of such worship and instruction, he being at liberty to choose to what sect or denomination his contributions shall be paid. To such a change, very many Congregationalists were, at the time, seriously opposed. But this change had nothing to do with "putting all christian sects on an equal footing;" and to say, that the men who opposed this

change, were opposed to the rights of other denominations, or to the demand of "those who claim to support only the religion of their own choice," is to bear false witness.

But as for this last, in the long series of changes, the question remains, Who made it? The "minor sects?" No. Then, as now, all the "minor sects" united, were but a fraction of the people of Connecticut. Nothing could have been done, politically, without the votes of the "standing order." It was by the votes of Congregationalists, that the new constitution was formed and adopted.

Having dwelt so long on this exposure of a single historical mis-statement, we have only to say,-if indeed it is necessary for us to say anything further on this head,-that our estimation of Mr. Colton's competency to give an accurate account of the religious state of the country is very low. His anecdotes, illustrative of his sweeping and unconsidered assertions, have very much the appearance of having been gleaned from the files of some Universalist newspaper, or picked up in some circle of scorners and scoffers. For specimens of sweeping and unconsidered assertions, look at such as the following: "The ministry, [in the Congregational churches,] to a great extent, has been run over and trampled on by fanaticism." p. 59. "I see my brethren [Presbyterian and Congregational ministers,] fallen and falling around me, like the slain in battle, the plains of our land literally covered with these unfortunate victims" to the demand for protracted meetings and other extrordinary efforts in the way of preaching. p. 41.

Nor can we say anything better for Mr. Connelly, as a witness to the religious state of the country. He too seems to have fallen into unfortunate company, and to have heard their railings against "fanaticism" and "fanatics," till he has become infected with their way of thinking and talking. It may be observed, however, that he and Mr. Colton agree remarkably well in at least the outlines of their statements, though they differ materially as to the inferences to be derived from them. Mr. Colton is sure that the ministers in the Congregational and Presbyterian churches are broken down and held in subjection by the sweep of fanaticism, and that the "pastoral office is robbed of its primitive, legitimate, essential, reasonable influence." p. 33. In like manner Mr. Connelly exclaims, "O my bishop, our church is not the mistress of herself, nor of her clergy. Her scepter has departed and as in Israel when there was no king, so in our Zion, every man believes and does what is right in his own eyes. Her course is not her own, even in most sacred things." p. 20.

"She has lost the

power to enforce what she has most holily decreed." p. 19. "It cannot be doubted that at this moment the whole tendency of the Protestant religion in these United States is to rank puritanical fanaticism." p. 20. Mr. Colton takes refuge from "this sea of