the limits of the parish, according to poll and property, and collected by a legal officer. If all within the parish are acquiescent, I have only to say, it is putting the law to a use for which it was never designed by Him who rules above, and sinking religion to a level with worldly articles. But, when any are dissentients, such force and cruelty follows, as to disgrace the religion of the meek and lowly Jesus. Disgrace it, did I say? It is as foreign from gospel religion, as darkness from light. Some relief, however, is provided for a certain description of deficients, by giving in certificates, or suing their money out of the treasury, but the mode is so intricate, and the event so uncertain, that, in many cases, where the deficient) have exerted themselves, they have gained only heavy costs upon the back of the original sum. In many cases, also, the deficients are not allowed to sit upon the jury, because they are parties concerned, but their oppressors, not being interested, judge the case alone. The expense of building meeting-houses, has the same course as ministerial salaries. Now, where shall we find the chapter or verse in the New Testament, that coincides with such proceedings ?

Fifth. The framers of our state Constitution, and the makers of our canonical laws, seem to have been conscious that the hierarchy which they were forming, was distinct from the gospel, for they uniformly give it other names. The privileged order of preachers, which these laws are designed to foster, are never called ministers of the gospel, but invariably, "teachers of piety, morality, and religion." Peter gave the following definition of piety: "But if any widow have children or nephews, let them learn first to shew piety at home, and to requite their parents." Piety, then, consists in relieving distressed widows, and not in taking away their property to pamper the teachers. James explains religion thus: "Pure religion, and undefiled before God and the Father, is this, to visit the fatherless and widow in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." But how can the saints keep themselves unspotted from the world, when they get the world to define their religion, and, by worldly power, force the people to attend their worship, build their temples, and pay their teachers?"

The word morality, is not in the Bible: it is a word, however, of common use, but of somewhat indefinite signification. The Armenians use the word to express those actions of men which tend to the good of families, societies, etc., when there is no gracious disposition in the men who perform those actions. The Hopkinsianists, and Calvanists, make use of the word to describe the quality of actions, or the motives which stimulate. Others, again, say, there is a legal honesty, and there is also a moral honesty; supposing that a legal honesty consists in conducting so to ourselves and others, that the laws cannot impeach us, but that moral honesty is from a sense of God's laws, and a love to his ways; doing that which is right of itself, whether the laws of men enjoin it or not. But so far as my acquaint

ance extends, all parties agree that the words of our Lord give the best description of morality that ever was given: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye the same to them." Taking this to be a just description of morality, I wish to ask whether the hierarchy of Massachusetts teaches men this lesson? Let the ruling party in the state answer. Gentlemen, were you the minor part, should the Quakers, Methodists, or Baptists, form a majority in the various towns and parishes in this state, and tax all those of the standing order to pay their preachers, build their meeting-houses, endow their colleges, etc., or, in order to get relief therefrom, that you must give in a certificate, or sue your money back out of the treasury, and that none of your order could be admitted jurors, but the case must be decided solely by them, would you not in such cases say, (if you are allowed to speak,) "you know, in your consciences, that you are not doing as you would be done by ?"

The question then arises, whether the establishment of religion is friendly to piety, morality, and religion, or whether it is not rather, in its nature and tendency, sapping the foundation of all of them? "I speak as unto wise men, judge ye what I say."

To myself, there remains no doubt, that the religious establishments of Massachusetts, and all state establishments of Christianity in the world, are all of them, ANTI-CHRISTOCRACIES.

36

AN

ELECTIVE JUDICIARY,

WITH OTHER THINGS,

RECOMMENDED IN A

SPEECH,

PRONOUNCED AT

CHESHIRE, JULY 4, 1805.

There is none that holdeth with me, in these things, but Michael, your Prince.—Daniel.