ots, who began the troubles in the New England churches, were violent and headstrong men, who were not content with peaceably holding their own opinions, nor yet with calmly and modestly avowing and defending them, but saw fit, also, rudely to assail the religious institutions of the country. It was this which roused, not only the bigots, but the experienced and sober-minded statesmen, who, whatever might be said about the doctrines of Christianity, were not willing to see its institutions broken up and destroyed. They thought, and not without reason, that religious institutions, of some kind or other, were of the utmost importance, not only in a religious, but in a moral and political point of view; and they also believed that the parishes, as by law established, were the only effectual provision for this object, that would or could be made. This conviction often hurried them into extreme measures against whatever menaced the harmony or stability of the Congregational parishes. But it suggests, at the same time, as it seems to us, the best apology of which their conduct admits, proving that they were not actuated by bigotry alone, but by what they conceived to be a sound policy. It was not merely because the existing parishes were Congregational parishes, that many of them were so eager to beat back sectaries, but because they were the only existing parishes; and if these were broken up and destroyed, there would probably be nothing to supply their place, and the religious institutions of the country would be thrown into irretrievable disorder.

The first serious disturbance which the churches suffered, was that occasioned, in their very infancy, by Mrs Hutchinson and her followers. These uneasy and disaffected zealots sent their emissaries into every society, who insinuated themselves into the confidence of well-disposed, but weak-minded people, and exerted the influence thus obtained in fomenting differences, and undermining the good opinion generally entertained of the regular ministers and their preaching. It was a knowledge of these arts, and that they were constantly intriguing to disturb and break up the regular parishes, a thousand times more than their Antinomian errors, which awoke against them the public vengeance; and they were put down. The same is also true of Gorton, and the Familists, as they were called, and also of the first Quakers; for these fanatics were banished, or otherwise punished, not for their opinions merely, but as fierce or unmanageable disorganizers. Our fathers, at an in

credible expense of toil, and tears, and blood, had succeeded in establishing civil and religious institutions, under the influence of which the wilderness had been converted into a fruitful garden. Was it to be expected, that they would let the boar out of the wood waste it, and the wild beast of the field devour it ?

Next came the Baptists, a respectable sect, it is true, and one which has always numbered among its members some of the best men in the community. Still, it cannot be denied, that their first preachers amongst us, and those especially who scoured the country as missionaries, were, many of them, extremely ignorant, endeavouring to make up in zeal and clamor what they wanted in real weight and respectability. For a long time they poured out the bitterest scorn on human learning, considered as a preparation for the ministry, and launched their fiercest denunciations against older, wiser, and better men than themselves, whom they were pleased to stigmatize as hireling preachers; and by such proceedings offended and disgusted the judicious and sober-minded, almost to a man. If they were sometimes handled roughly, it was no more than what they had defied, and courted, and in some cases, we must say, richly deserved; not indeed for their opinions, or for avowing and propagating their opinions, but as disorganizers and incendiaries.

The first coming of Whitefield, in 1740, was another occasion on which the great body of the people and ministers rallied in support of existing religious institutions. It is true, the passage of this extraordinary man through the province, was almost like a continued triumph. But, when it was found that dissensions arose wherever he came; that he openly vilified the colleges and the clergy, and proposed himself as an example and patron of every kind of ecclesiastical irregularity, the good sense of the people threw off the delusion, and a reaction took place, which saved the Congregational churches. Calvinists and Arminians, Trinitarians and Unitarians, felt that it was high time to combine their forces against men, who, whatever might be their pretensions to sincerity and piety, were certainly acting the part of disorganizers and schismatics. Time would fail us to speak of the Episcopalians, who advanced but slowly, as if opposed by the very genius of our institutions; of the Methodists, who came in upon us like a flood; or, lastly, of the Universalists, who, though comparatively a

recent sect, are now thought by some to have, or to be rapidly gaining a political influence equal to that of any other denomination. These sects had, of course, an undoubted right, and perhaps it was their duty, to use all fair and reasonable efforts and expedients for the diffusion of their sentiments. Still, as it seems to us, every friend of order, either in church or state, must regret the issue, when these endeavours have had no other effect than to disturb and break up the religious institutions already in existence, without establishing any others in their place. Any Christian, who has the good of his fellow-creatures at heart, will find but poor consolation for the failure of his plans, in reflecting, that, at any rate, he has broken up and destroyed the regular provision which the people had previously enjoyed for instruction in morals and piety.

After all, the mortal wound inflicted on Congregational ascendancy, was inflicted, as such wounds commonly are, in the house of its friends. From time immemorial, ministers and churches of this denomination had been of different persuasions on points deemed by some fundamental. This, however, though sometimes the occasion of sharp controversies, and partial and local estrangements, had never led to anything like a dismemberment of the sect. But, in 1814 and 1815, several publications appeared, impeaching the orthodoxy of some of the Congregational clergy, and accusing them of practising dishonest concealments, and calling on the people, in the words of the apostle, Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing.' From that hour the ascendancy of Congregationalists, for some time the sole, and until then the predominant sect, was at an end in this State. The house was divided against itself, and it fell.

In consequence of this passion for division and separation, a large proportion of the parishes throughout the country have been disturbed and rent. We are far from meaning to intimate that this state of things has been productive of nothing but unmixed evil. Good has resulted from it, and evil has resulted from it; and these we would weigh, one against the other, as calmly and dispassionately as we can.

In the first place, it is said that this state of things is peculiarly favorable to religious liberty. To compel a whole town, against their will, to worship together, and support the same minister, would be an infringement on their liberty; and for

be a

this reason it ought never to be attempted by the Legislature.-But if a whole town can be convinced, notwithstanding the difference in their tastes and opinions, that it is advisable for them to unite in the support of religious institutions, and can be persuaded to do so of their own accord, this is no infringement on liberty. Nay, it is liberty itself; for, after all, it is but acting out their own pleasure. The present state of things may, therefore, be more favorable to religious liberty, than that which formerly existed in New England, when every man was compelled by law to support the established worship. But no liberal minded man wishes to see the policy of that day revived. All that he can desire is, that, in small towns, there may voluntary amalgamation of sects, so far as is necessary for the respectable and independent support of religious institutions. Now if this amalgamation is voluntary, of course, we repeat, it is no infringement on liberty, but only one way in which men exercise their liberty;-by doing as they think fit. Besides, it should be considered, that, though the multiplication of churches of different denominations may serve to make sects more independent on one another, it will not make individuals more independent on sects; and this, as it seems to us, is the quarter whence religious liberty has most to apprehend at the present day. The jealousies, collisions, and rivalships of these little societies, are adapted to excite and bring into intense action the sectarian principle; and where this principle is thus excited and brought into intense action, it is oftentimes as injurious to individual freedom, and in some respects still more so, than a national religion. Men are trained to think the thoughts, and say the words, and cooperate in the plans of a sect; and they do not, and they dare not, act themselves. Everybody is quick to discern and condemn this mischief in other sects, and nothing but a want of reflection or magnanimity prevents him from seeing and confessing it in his own.

Again, it is said, that the present state of things is peculiarly favorable to the discovery and dissemination of religious truth, as it affords the people an opportunity for hearing what can be said on both sides. This, however, is a privilege, which, even if men would avail themselves of it, is not so important and necessary now, as it used to be formerly, when they had to depend almost exclusively on the pulpit for their information on religious subjects. The almost endless multiplication of tracts, and other cheap publications, has put into the hands of all class

es the ablest expositions and defences of disputed dogmas. As the press, therefore, is supplying us so liberally with doctrinal and controversial discussions, is it not better that the people should look to that source chiefly, for their knowledge of this description? Is it not better, under these circumstances, that the pulpit should be given, for the most part, to the inculcation of those practical and devotional topics in which all can unite? Besides, is it quite certain that in consequence of thus setting up altar against altar, and pulpit against pulpit, the people will in fact be more likely to hear both sides? On the contrary, so far as this system of exclusion and separation has been carried into effect, has not the practical result been, at least in many places, to make persons less and less disposed either to hear, or read, the arguments of their opponents? Each party has become a little better drilled, perhaps, in its distinctive tenets and watchwords; but this has had the effect, as might have been expected, to obstruct, rather than promote, liberal inquiry, enlarged views, and thorough investigation. The popular religious publications, the preaching, and the conversation of religious people, evince how few and narrow are the subjects, especially in practical religion, on which the bulk of the community are at all enlightened. In this respect, society has been retrograding since the days of Doddridge and Watts.

Others rejoice in the present state of things, because, as they say, it has given a death-blow to priestcraft, and the unjust domination of the clergy. That there is such a thing as priestcraft, and that the people should be jealous of its encroachments, is readily conceded. But priestcraft is not the only thing of which they should be jealous. Persons who have anything at stake dependent for its security on the public morals, would do well to consider, whether, at present, they have not quite as much to apprehend from the radical and disorganizing principles of those who are loudest in the hue and cry against priestcraft, as from priestcraft itself. It becomes us also, in this connexion, to distinguish between a due and an undue influence of the clergy; for that they are intended and wished to exert some influence, is manifest; else why are they appointed and paid? We are willing to confess that a contempt for the clergy, wherever it exists, is an evil which the clergy commonly bring on themselves by their scandals, or their officiousness. Still the evil, however created, is a public evil, as it must essentially impair the benefit of their public labors, especially in