The Portland gazette. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1818-1824, 1818-10-20

Il
or The manner IN which they shall worship their
Creator--but we think it both their right and du-
ty 10 require Of them that they should, IN some
way or other, support institutions OF plefy ana
RELIGION. and contribute to the maintenance OF
publick teachers who preside over them. For
in these institutions are found the strongest props
Of civil government, and the most ehectuai aid to
the labours of the legislator and the Judge. The
constitution of our state while it grants all that
| federation which the most liberal could desire,
makes it the imperative duty of the Legislature
to require the several towns, parishes, precincts
and other bodies poltick or religious societies, to
make suitable provision, at their own expense,
for the institution of the publick worship Of God,
and for the support and maintenance Of pubhck
protestant teachers Of pety, religion and morali-
~. in all cases where such provision shall not be
made voluntarily"
| Inreation to this subject, and as an able ex-
ros;t;on and refutation Of the errours which have
been entertained upon it, we have subjoined an
extract from an opinion given by the late Chief
Justice Parsons, in the case Of Barnes Us. First
Parish Of Falmouth, 9th vol. Massachusetts, Term
Reports, D. 4OS. Speaking of the existing re-
Hgious establishment of this state he thus pro-
! ceeds:-
"Seyeral objections have at times been made
| IN This establishments which may be reduced to
three That when man disapproves OF any re
| igion, or of any supposed doctrines otany reiig-
| ion, to compel him by law to contribute money
| for pubick instruction IN such religion or doc
trine is an infracton ofhis lber ~ OF conscience.
That to compel a man to pay for pubhck rellg-
| ious instructions, on which he does not attend,
and from which he can therefore derive ho bene-
| fit, i unreasonable and Indifferent. And that it
il antichristan for any state to avail itself Of the
precepts and maxims Of Christianity to support
| civil government because the founder OF it has
declared that his kingdom is not OF this world.
/ These objections 60 to the authority Of the peo-
nle to make this constitution, which Is not prop
er nor competent for us to bring into question
| And although we are not able, and have no in
clination to assume the character OF theoogians,
vet it may not be improper to make few short
observations to defend our constitution from the
charges Of persecution, intolerance and impiety.
! When it is remembered, that no. man is com-
pellable to attend on any religious instruction
which he conscientiously dSapproyes and that
he is absolutely protected in the most perfect
freedom of conscience in his religious opinions
and worship; the first objection seems to mistake
a mans conscience for his money, and TO deny
the state right of levying and OF appropriatinS
the money of the citizens, at the will OF the leg
islature, in which they all are represented. But
as every citizen derives the security of his prop
erty and the fruits Of his industry, from the pow
er Of the state So the price Of this protection
he is bound to contribute, in common with his
fellow citizens, for the publicz use, SO much Of
his property, and for such publick uses, as the
state shall direct. And if any individual
lawfully withhold his contribution, because he
dislikes the appropriation, the authority Of the
state to levy taxes would be annihllated t; and
without money it would soon cease to have au-
thority But all monies raised and appropriated
for publick uses, by any corporation, pursuant to
powers derived from the state, raised and APP
propriated Substantially by the authority OF the
the state. And the people, in their constitution
instead of devolving the support ofpublick teach
ers on the corporation by whom they should be
elected, might have directed their support to be
betrayed out of the publick treasury, to be reim
bursed by he levying and collection ofstate tax
es. And against this mode of support, the OBJ
lection of an individual, disappearing of the OBJ
iect of the pubick taxes, would have the same
weight it can have against the mode of pu5lick
support through the medium Of corporate taxa
ton. In either case it can have no weight to
maintain a charge of persecution for conscience
sake. The great errour lies in not distinguishing
between liberty of conscience in religious opin-
ions and worship, and the right Of appropriating
money by the state. The former is an unaliena-
bic right; the latter is surrendered TO the state
as the price Of protection.
The second objection is, that IL is intolerant to
compel man to pay for religious instruction,
from which, as he does not hear it, he can derive
no benefit. This objection is founded wholly in
mistake The object ofpublick religious instruc-
ton is to teach and to enforce by suitable argu-
ments, the practice ola system of correct morals
amsng the people, and to form and cultivate rea-
sonable and just habits and manners by which
every mans person and property are protected
from outrage, and his personal and social enjoy
nents promoted and multiplied From these eff
fects every man derives the st important BEN
efts; and whether he be, or iot an auditor of
any public teacher, he receives more solid and
permanent advantages from this publck instruc-
tion than the administration of Justice in courts
of law can give him. The like objection may be
made by any man to the support of publick
schools, if he have family who attend and
any man who has no lawsuit may object to the
support of judges and juToys on the same ground
when, if there were no courts Of law, Ire would
unfortunately find that causes Of lawsuits would
sufficiently abound.
The last Objection Is founded upon the supposed
antchrstian conduct Of the state, IN avaiIinr IL
self Of the precepts and maxims Of Christianity
f.,r tla, arr ss,f