"The Toleration Act"
History of New Hampshire
by George Barstow (1842)

From Chapter XII, pg. 422:

The passage of the toleration law,in 1819, was by far the most important measure of this administration. [Governor Bell's administration] It for the first time placed all religious sects in the state upon equal ground, and made them dependent upon the free contributions of the people for their support.

From the first establishment of a few infant settlements in this state, the people had been disposed to resist the imposition of all restraints upon their religious opinions, and all unnecessary burthens upon their property. The first settlers were men who sought to better their condition by the use of such humble resources as our woods and waters afforded. These were soon followed by religious non-conformists, flying from the persecutions of the puritans. The former class thought more of their fisheries, their searchings after mines, and their trade, and the latter of secluded homes and religious liberty, than of the doubtful advantages to be derived from the exclusive establishment of a particular sect. Here Quakers and non-conformists were safe. Religious distinctions were unknown in public affairs. And as a natural consequence, when our little settlements were annexed to Massachusetts, the religious test which the rigid rulers of that colony had established, were entirely dispensed with, so far as related to citizens of New Hampshire. They were authorized to vote, and their deputies were allowed to sit in the general court, even when they did not claim to be members of that church, to which , in Massachusetts, all such privileges were confined.

Descending from such a stock, and representing ancestors of every possible creed, there was never any general feeling among the people averse to the religious rights of any portion of the community. From a regard, however, for religion in the aggregate, rather than the interests of any particular sect, the early legislators of this state had enacted a law, empowering the several towns [and parishes] to raise money, by taxation, to build churches and support a Christian ministry.

The progress of new sects, gradually springing up in the state, soon produced a great diversity of new and feeble divisions of the religious community, a single denomination held supremacy in nearly every town. The dissenters from this prevailing sect, divided among themselves, were seldom strong enough to support a ministry of their own. In this event, they were liable to be pursued with all the rigors of the law, if they failed to pay the established clergy a full share of the expenses incurred in their support. Thus many of the people were compelled to pay for the erection of churches they never entered, for teachings they never heard, and clerical labors which they conscientiously regarded as tending only to perpetuate the dominion of religious errors over the public mind. A law, undoubtedly established in the first instance from pure motives and for the public benefit, had thus become converted into an engine of oppression.

Its repeal, however, met with a very decided opposition. It was declared that it would at once be destructive to religion and the public morals. Such objections have ever been raised against measures designed to extend the liberties of mankind. But when the toleration bill had once gone into operation, equalising the privileges of the different sects, and promoting harmony of feeling among their members, it gained additional respect for the sentiments of all religious denominations, and operated injuriously upon the interests of non. Churches have grown up under its provision sin every neighborhood, and a numerous ministry, dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the people, have been sustained with the most honorable liberality. The people have given twice as much, of their own free will, as could be wrung from them under the old law, and it seems long since to have been conceded that the true interests of every sect have been promoted by its repeal.

Before the passage of the toleration act, the people had borne, with astonishing patience, the support of the congregational order by law. Year after year had the honest Quaker, the Baptist, the Universalist, been taxed for the support of a religion in which he did not believe; and when he refused payment, was sent to a dungeon, or ruined by a never-ending lawsuit. The courts were tinctured with orthodoxy, and corruption appeared upon the bench. The jury were secretly "culled" -- dissenters were taken off, and their places supplied with those whose well known orthodoxy afforded a guaranty that the law, right or wrong, would be enforced.

While such was the state of things at home, the people of New Hampshire had seen a revolution progressing in Connecticut, similar to that which was now beginning among themselves. Ever since the first settlement of Connecticut, the people had groaned under an oppressive system of religious intolerance. It was a complete an most odious union of church and state. None but the standing order of clergy could there obtain a legal support; and the laws for the support of that order were such a direct violation of the right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, that by many they were deemed "disgraceful to humanity." Often was the parish collector seen robbing the humble dwelling of honest poverty of its table, chairs and andirons, or selling at vendue the cow of the poor laborer, on which the subsistence of his family depended, in order to load with luxuries the table of an indolent priest, or clothe in purple those who partook with him of the spoils of the poor. All ministers not of the standing order were viewed as thieves and robbers--as wolves in sheep's clothing--who had gained a dishonest entrance into the fold, and whom it was the duty of the standing order to drive out. In 1818, a bill was reported to the convention of that state, confirming freedom of conscience to all. Every man possessed of real independence and enlightened views, rejoiced at a revolution which sundered so monstrous a union of the church and the state in Connecticut. The clergy of the standing order deprecated--mourned--threatened, and exclaimed, "Alas! for that great city!" But the vast concourse of the people joined in thanksgiving for its destruction. Such was the change which the people of New Hampshire had witnessed in a neighboring state. They themselves were bound by a system less odious in the degree of practical evil which it inflicted, but in principle essentially the same. The act of the 13th of Anne, empowered towns to hire and settle ministers, and to pay them a stipulated salary from the town taxes. This was not directly a union of church and state; but it operated most oppressively. Each town could select a minister of a particular persuasion, and every citizen was compelled to contribute toward the support of the clergyman and to build the church, unless he could prove that he belonged to a different persuasion and regularly attended public worship elsewhere on the Lord's day.

The bill of rights (Art. 6) declares, "that no person of any one particular religious sect, or denomination, shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the teacher or teachers of another persuasion, sect, or denomination, and that no subordination of any one sect or denomination, to another, shall ever be established by law." Notwithstanding these clear provisions [of the 1784 Constitution], the statute of Anne continued substantially to prevail. The act of 1791 changed the form but not the nature of the oppression. It vested in the selectmen of the towns the powers (essentially) which had before been vested in the body of the citizens. The selectmen could still settle a minister and tax the people for his support. They could build a church, and search the pockets of dissenters for the funds. They could prefer whatever persuasion they pleased, and thus compel the people to bow to whatever image man might set up. How could a dissenter avoid paying the tax? Only by proving that he belonged to another sect. The proof was often difficult to obtain, sometimes impossible. When a suit was instituted against him for the tax, and he was brought into court, he was met by able counsel, employed by the selectmen, well versed in law, and ready to quibble at the slightest lack of proof, and vex him by nice legal distinctions. Mr. Smith and Mr. Mason, in one case, contended that the defendant, whose defence was that he was a Baptist, could not avoid the payment, because he had not proved that he had been dipped. Neither is he a Congregationalist, replied Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Bartlett, because he has not proved that he has been sprinkled.

Such was the vexatious nature of the suits to dissenters themselves. But if they could not avoid the tax, how must it be with those who belonged to no religious sect? For them there was no standing the plain declaration of the constitution of the United States.

Were it not for the general intolerance of that day, it might be a subject of wonder that the people should submit to a law thus unconstitutional and void, as well as oppressive, for the space of twenty-eight years. Yet such was the period of their submission and such the provisions of the law. But they manifested an increasing dissatisfaction. They had seen the poor man cast into prison, and the obstinate man after spending his fortune in a fruitless resistance to the claims of the selectmen, overpowered at last, when perhaps the destitute wife and children needed the little fortune he had thus squandered in an unsuccessful contest. The New Hampshire Patriot, (then conducted by Isaac Hill) a popular paper at the seat of the government, had spoken warmly against the oppressive exactions of the old law. Many of the most enlightened minds in the state were known to be its opponents.

Besides the revolution in Connecticut, they had seen the representatives of France vote down a proposition to enforce respect to the established religion of the French empire and to punish outrage against it. They had read of those movements in Maryland, in which the name of Breckenridge had become famous for a speech which he had made on the Jew bill, and in which he brought out, and set in lucid and beautiful order, the great doctrines of civil and religious liberty. The state of Vermont had commenced, in 1791, the same system established in New Hampshire. In 1803, it was relaxed, and any person declaring to or writing to the selectmen, that he was not of the same religious sect with the majority of the town, was exempt from taxation. In 1807, the compulsory law was wholly abolished. Yet the state of Vermont was not ruined by the change, as had been predicted by the advocates for compulsion. In Connecticut the laws had been abolished which compelled uniformity of religion, by obliging every town to support a clergyman, and allowed to no man the right of suffrage, unless he was in full communion with the church. All this was swept away, to give place to complete toleration and equality--yet neither vice nor crime increased. The state of Pennsylvania never compelled the support of religion; yet the people were not wanting in piety, and they had little of the clamor of religious faction.

The constitution of Maine, formed about this time, seemed to embody the liberal sentiments which began everywhere to prevail. Her bill of rights, modelled after that of New Hampshire, declared that there should be no religious test as a qualification for any office--that no person should be hurt, molested or restrained in his person, liberty or estate for worshiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience. Such was the progress of opinions abroad, when the toleration act of New Hampshire came up on its final passage in the house of representatives. It was a favorite maxim with the anti-tolerationists, that "every man ought to be compelled to pay for the support of religion somewhere." (Hubbard's Speech) and they contended that this was implied by the constitution. (Speeches of Hubbard, Pitman and Parker) The tolerationists denied both the constitutionality and the expediency of the doctrine, and contended for absolute freedom and voluntary contribution. (Speeches of Whipple, Bartlett and Butters) The opponents of toleration maintained that it was the design of the framers of the constitution that every citizen should be compelled to contribute his just and equal proportion for the maintenance and support of the ministry. (Hubbard's speech, June 1819) They also gravely contended, and with much sincerity argued, that the passage of this law would produce the dire effect to "make young people walk in the fields and associate and visit much together on the Sabbath"--that it would introduce confusion--that it would discourage preachers of the gospel, by making them too dependent.

On the other hand, the advocates for toleration maintained that the law of 1791 was an attempt to compel uniformity of religious faith, and that such attempts were destructive to liberty and disastrous to religion. They endeavored to prove that by the constitution neither the selectmen nor the courts had any right to require evidence of a man's religious faith, beyond his own declaration--that his own deliberate avowal of his belief should be the highest evidence required, and should excuse him from paying the taxes. "Have we," said Whipple, "any tribunal to which, as a standard of faith, men's consciences can be referred for decision and regulation? Has our constitution provided any such? How then, sir, is this question to be settled, but by the individual's declaration, concerning his own religious belief? And, sir, do not your existing laws in effect establish such an inquisitorial tribunal? They authorize the selectmen to assess monies voted by towns for the support of ministers, and for building and repairing meeting-houses. In this assessment they necessarily exercise their judgments, an assess those whom they deem liable; your collectors are armed with strong powers; no barrier is interposed between the delinquent's property and their grasp; property is taken, exposed to public sale and the tax satisfied. The only remedy left the oppressed citizen is an appeal to his peers--under the direction of judicial officers, where his conscience is submitted to the arbitrament of jurors, and of jurors too, perhaps, under the influence of strong religious prejudices! (Whipple's speech, June 1819) After struggling for years against the combined influence of the town, the prejudices of the jurors, the corruption of witnesses, the ingenuity of counsel, disposed to perpetuate the oppression, and the `glorious uncertainty' of the law; after spending the means on which his family depend for support, ruining his fortune and reducing himself to beggary; he may recover the amount of tax and cost. For, sir, let it be remembered that unless he shows corruption in the selectmen, or assessors, or a design to tax wrongfully, he can recover no exemplary damages. But even this pitiful redress is not certain. In stances have frequently occurred when jurors could not agree, and the man wrongfully assessed has been dismissed from the tribunal, where `drowsy justice still nodded upon her rotten seat, intoxicated by the poisonous draught of bigotry prepared for her cup.' " (Dr. Whipple's speech, June 1819)

It was not enough for a man to declare to the selectmen that he was not of the established religion. This denial, far from pacifying, rather served to inflame the agents of the dominant creed, who were never satisfied until the dissenter was arrested an committed to prison.

The fifth article of the bill of rights declares, that "every individual has a natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience and reason; and no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshiping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, or for his religious profession, sentiments or persuasion; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or disturb others in their religious worship."

Notwithstanding this plain declaration of the bill of rights, no Christian but Congregationalists were recognised as a religious sect. There was but one sect known to the law of 1791. Universalist, Methodist, Baptists, were indiscriminately classed with the Orthodox, and when they pleaded their difference of sentiment as a reason why they should not be taxed, they were told that they were not acknowledged by the laws as religious denominations, and that the assessors therefore might assess them with Congregationalists. The courts even sanctioned this doctrine; and, for the first time, perhaps, the confidence of the people in the judiciary was shaken. After having been "molested" by the most oppressive taxes, contrary to the express language and plain meaning of the bill of rights for thirteen years, the Freewill Baptists procured an act of the legislature to be passed in 1804, recognising them as a religious denomination! The Universalists did the same in 1805, and the Methodists in 1807.(Records of Acts, Dec. 7, 1804; June 13, 1805; June 15, 1807)

In the course of the discussions which arose upon this vitally important questing, the opponents of toleration strenuously contended that it was the duty of the state government to establish and enforce uniformity of religion. This position was assailed in a most powerful manner by Dr. Whipple.

"This attempt at uniformity," said he, (Speech of Dr. Whipple) "has in all governments and countries produced that very state of public depravity and moral desolation so much deprecated by the opponents of this amendment. The requirement in a foreign government, (Connecticut) that any individual shall have partaken of the sacrament, before the exercise of any civil trust, is directly calculated to produce hypocrisy and irreligion. For this reason you see men arising from the sacred emblems of the blood and body of our Lord, to drunkenness, lewdness and profanity. It was this spirit which kindled the fires of the Inquisition--collected the fagots and emboldened the horrid inquisitor to chant 'expurgate Deus,' around the consuming corse of the human victim. This was the spirit, sir, which, under the mask of Christianity,
'With Heaven's own thunders shook the world below,
And played the God an engine on his foe.'
"it was the indulgence of this spirit which fixed a stain on the character of Calvin, which not all his excellent virtues, nor time, nor oblivion can wash out. To this idol, Servetus was sacrificed as a burnt offering. To glut this monster, the blood of Balzec flowed; and to slake his thirst for revenge, the amiable, learned and industrious Castalio was slandered, traduced and exposed to suffering. It was this, sir, which caused the bloody Mary to sacrifice her hecatombs of human victims in the sight of Heaven, in the sight of that God who has declared himself the common Father of us all.

"This spirit, sir, caused our forefathers, who themselves fled from persecution, to banish Quakers, whip dissenting females, persecute Baptists, and to do other enormities which have stained the pages of our history. And is none of this spirit left among us? Is it extinct? No, sir--this spirit now operates. It is this which causes those who advocate the cause of religious freedom to be stigmatized with the opprobrious epithets of deist, atheist, and men of no religion."

After this speech was delivered, the antagonists of Dr. Whipple sharpened their weapons anew and prepared to make another and stronger appeal to the prejudices and fears of the legislature.

"Pass the bill now on the table," said Mr. Hubbard, (Hubbard's speech, July 1819) "and the temples now consecrated to the worship of our Saviour of the world will soon be deserted and forsaken."

The opponents of the bill carried the minds of their hearers back to the epoch of the French revolution, and informed the house that the blood scenes of that drama commenced by treating with contempt the institutions of religion.(Parker's speech, July 1817)

Yet so rapid was the change of public sentiment in favor of the bill, and so poorly did the objections raised against it bear the test of examination, that even some of the ablest opponents (among these was Mr. Hubbard) of the bill while it was under discussion, voted in the affirmative on the question of its final passage.

The remaining opponents of the law, however, endeavored to convince the house that some of the most bloody scenes in history had been cause by a want of respect for the clergy. (Journal of House, June session 1819) It was for Dr. Whipple to reply to arguments like these, by illustrations drawn from the same sources. "Has the gentleman," (Mr. Parker,) said he, "forgotten the day of St. Bartholomew, at Paris, when, in one fatal night, sixty thousand dissenters were murdered in cold blood, under the direction of the officers of the established church? Has he forgotten the revocation of the edict of Nantz, in the reign of Louis XIV., by which measure fifty thousand dissenting families went into exile and numbers perished? Or can it be said, that those scenes, so shocking to humanity, so repugnant to the pure principles of the Christian religion, happened from any want of respect for the clergy of that day? No, sir; the church was then abundant in her revenues, splendid and imposing in her worship, and the clergy dictated the government itself. These outrages originated, sir, not in a want of respect for the clergy, nor in sectarian influence; but in that desire for uniformity, that itch for splendid external worship, which in all ages and in every country has produced domination and cruelty in the clergy and stupidity and slavery in the people. We neither ridicule nor oppress the clergy. We commend their virtues and value their labors, while directed to the great and important purposes of teaching that religion which is pure, peaceable, gentle, easy to entreated, full of good works, without partiality and without hypocrisy. But, sir, when we see them anxious to amass power, wealth, worldly honor, rather than that which cometh from above; when we see them endeavoring to establish `the splendor of the church upon the misery of the citizen'--heady, high minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of truth, justice, mercy and charity; when, like Thomas A. Becket, they are aiming at the civil authority--then shall we have reason to exclaim, in the language of the litany, from such men 'good Lord deliver us!'"

This speech was replied to a great length, and ably, by the advocates for intolerance, who lost no opportunity to show that the law was unconstitutional and subversive of religion. Their arguments were met by Ichabod Bartlett, a young but distinguished advocate, of Portsmouth.

"It is objected," said he, (Speech of Icabod Bartlett, July 1819) "that the bill before the house permits every person to settle the question for himself, what denomination he is of--that his consent is necessary, to be subjected to any denomination, and his dissent frees him. Praised be God, that the wisdom of our fathers has so ordained--for thus I undertake to say it is decreed in our constitution. This is apparent, in the first place, from the nature of the evils intended to be guarded against by the provisions of that constitution. (Bill of Rights, Art. V) Their object was not only to secure the perfectly free exercise of religious opinions, but to remove all pretence for disturbing or annoying any in the enjoyment of it. The intention was not merely to authorize a defence against oppressors, but to disarm bigotry and fanaticism--not only to interpose the shield of charity and toleration, but to wrest from the hand of persecution the sword that would be used to perforate it. The framers of that instrument had learned, by fatal experience, the truth of Lord Mansfield's declaration before the house of peers, that 'conscience is not controllable by human laws; nor amenable to human tribunals. Persecution or attempts to force conscience can never produce conviction, and are only calculated to make hypocrites or martyrs.' They had learned the outrages of religious infatuation when countenanced by law. History had told them of the horrors of the civil power, under the pretence of pious purposes, which were practised upon the followers of our Saviour. They had seen, with the cruelty, the inefficacy too of the civil government upon this subject. They had seen an army of seven hundred thousand men, for religious purposes, making prisoners an victims, but never converts or Christians. They had seen its absurdity in 'solemn convocations' upon the most frivolous pretences. They had not only seen the effect of the stake and fagot in the reign of Mary; they had not only looked upon the condition of the sufferer, but had themselves passed through the fires of persecution. They had encountered the savage beasts and savage fury of religious intolerance. And, such is the effect of fanaticism, they had seen those yet bleeding with the stripes and wounds of persecution, themselves become persecutors; and even the legislative records of a neighboring colony stained with an act authorizing the putting to death, without even the form of a trial, 'any Quaker, Adamite, or heretic.' Disgusted with the follies and absurdities, shocked at the horrors, and bleeding with the wounds, which religious bigotry, armed with civil power, had inflicted, the framers of our constitution determined to guard against the repetition of such scenes. They had become convinced, too, that the pure religion of the gospel would ever flourish best unencumbered with legal pains and penalties; that every effort of compulsion and force reacted upon the movers; and that even should an external observance of any particular creed be enforced by the civil authority, it could at best command but a hypocritical service; that tenets, enforced by an officer of the law, or the point of the bayonet, could produce no salutary influence upon the mind. And while experience had taught them th e inefficacy of such attempts, revelation proclaimed that the principles of the gospel were their own best support; and that the work, 'if it were of God, would prevail.' With such convictions, they determined to remove every pretence for violence--and that the arm of civil power should in no case interfere where the peace of civil society was undisturbed.

"Those evils, sir, are not guarded against; the views of those who framed our constitution are not accomplished upon any other construction of that instrument than the one adopted by this bill. Say to the majority of any town that they may tax not only their own sect, but all, who, they may please to say, do not belong to some other sect; and deprive the person so assessed from deciding that question; and what is the consequence? Do we want new evidence of the propensity of any dominant sect to assume to itself all claim to correctness--to dispense indiscriminately the title of infidel and heretic to all who differ? Do we not know that the privileges and powers of the constitution, thus interpreted--
"Like saving faith, by each would be applied
To one small sect, and all are damned beside?'
"Did those who sought the blood of our forefathers believe they were sending to the scaffold and stake persons of any religion? Never. Take from the dissenter the power of determining his faith for himself, and the sect in power, while they levy their contributions upon him, will claim the merit of seizing the goods of infidels for the support of religion; as the executioners of our ancestors did the praise of destroying their bodies to save their souls from heresy.

"It may perhaps be thought that in the present age there can be no danger in putting a construction upon this provision of the constitution, which shall give the majority a right to decide upon and control the religious opinions of the minority. Has human nature changed? Has it ceased to be true that like causes produce like effects? Give to religious bigotry the power, and you shall again hear the thunders of the Vatican denouncing all dissenters. You shall soon see a second edition of the famous unam sanctam, declaring a universal assent to the exercise of omnipotence by some particular sect, in matters of faith, essential to salvation. They may not perhaps again clothe those they condemn as heretics in garments of pitch for a conflagration, or in the skins of wild beasts to be devoured by dogs! but they will enrol them in their tax lists, to support doctrines which may be thought of a pernicious tendency, and set upon them a no less ravenous race of blood-hounds. `Fanaticism,' said Sir James M'Intosh, `is the most incurable of all mental diseases, because, in all its forms, it is distinguished by a mad contempt for experience.' Not the enemies, but the friends of religion have too much reason, with regard to the leaders of different denominations, without distinction, to describe each in the language of an eloquent divine of the present day, as `arrogating all excellence to his own sect, and all saving power to his own creed; sheltering, under the name of pious zeal, the love of domination, the conceit of infallibility, and the spirit of intolerance; and trampling on men's rights under pretence of saving their souls.'"

These and similar speeches went forth to the people--were eagerly read and loudly applauded by all but the Congregational order. The soundness of their arguments produced great effect. Indeed, so evident are most of their positions, and so apparent, that at the present day the only wonder is that they should ever have been doubted, or should ever have found opponents. These opponents constantly sought for historical proofs of danger of multiplying sects. But had they sought to find illustrations of the danger of swallowing up all minor sects in one predominant order, they would have been much more successful in their researches.

Against the toleration act fanaticism fought with its usual ferocity. By the enlightened portion of the people it was hailed with joy. By the orthodox it was loaded with anathemas. The clergy feared that their tithes would be diminished when the people were no longer compelled to pay them. The ignorant and bigoted mourned over the change with well-meant sorrows. "Alack! Alack!" quoth they, "religion! we have none of it. Our general court at Concord have put away our religion. The godly folk there fought hard and long for religion, but the wicked ones outnumbered them, and religion is clean gone." The clergy had instilled into the minds of the ignorant that the wicked ones (who composed a majority of the legislature) had destroyed a law without which religion could not exist.

After the passage of the toleration act, a clamor was raised throughout the state, with the hope of producing a reaction against the bill and thus influencing the elections. Some declared it to be "a repeal of the Christian religion;" other said that "the Bible is abolished;" others that "the wicked bear rule." The truth perhaps was that the dominant sect could no longer support their system by extortion and oppression, that all sects were placed upon a level--so that it was not religion which was abolished, but the power of the Congregational order.

In the passage of this law the friends of religious liberty found cause for rejoicing. They regarded it as an auspicious era in the history of New Hampshire, and believed that it would be viewed with peculiar interest throughout the country, and with pride and pleasure by their posterity. They rejoiced that a law, which they regarded as a stain upon the statute book, had at length been wiped away--and that every citizen might now worship in the manner and season most agreeable to him, without being driven to a confession of faith before a jury, or to the necessity of expending hundreds of dollars in a court of law to recover back an illegal assessment of a few shillings.

Notwithstanding all the clamors raised against the toleration act, no sooner had it gone into operation than religion began to be supported more liberally by voluntary contribution than it had before been by compulsion. When this fact was apparent, and stood clearly revealed by the light of experience, the bitter censures which had been passed upon the friends of the law, began to be withdrawn, and the severest strictures were dealt out freely to its opponents. Thus it happened that the men, who, at the outset, while the law was unpopular, put their political character and success at stake by their fearless and decided conduct, gained finally their reward, while the honest dupes of fanaticism, and the timid and time-serving politicians who stooped to gain popularity by compromising principle, met with the odium which was their due, and with the distrust which their conduct inspired-- thus illustrating the wise saying of Governor Bell, that "the statesman who takes the constitution for his guide, and faithfully adheres to its spirit, may confidently indulge the assurance that he cannot materially err; and though prejudice or self-interest may misrepresent and censure his official acts, time, with that candid and dispassionate consideration which it never fails to bring, will eventually do justice to his motives and his conduct."

During the toleration contest, the Congregational order leveled their sharpest weapons against the Methodists; a sect then comparatively feeble and possessed of but limited means to make their real doctrines known. The Orthodox denounced them as "antichrist" and immoral; and affirmed that their church government was a monarchy. Time has shown that whatever may be th faults of their system of church government, no denomination of Christians has done more to improve the morals of society. Their distinguishing characteristic is humility--the substance without the show of godliness. They seem to take no pride in collecting large funds, erecting costly churches, and passing in splendid pageantry before the world. Their preachers receive but a scanty livelihood, and expect no more. Is a Methodist clergyman rich? it is in the treasures of another world. Incessant in labor, plain in his garb, and meek in his deportment, he moves through the humble sphere of his labors visiting the abodes of the poor as well as the mansions of the rich, imparting comfort to the dying and the destitute, encouraging the disconsolate, rebuking the proud, and holding out a free salvation, without partiality and without hypocrisy, to the whole family of man. When these humble Christians first appeared with their doctrines, they were described as "disturbers of the peace"--"brawlers"-- "disorderly persons," and "enemies to learning;" and their arduous and honest labors were treated by the Congregational order with proud contumely and vaunting reproach.

Nothing intimidated by this undeserved censure, they continued their labors, which at first began with the poor, but gradually spread though the wealthier portions of society. If they have not disarmed the hostility of opposing sects, they have commanded respect by their increasing numbers intelligence, and power. They have commended themselves to all men by their ardent love for humanity, by the genuine simplicity of their faith, and by their attachment to liberty and the rights of man. The coldest skeptic can hardly deny that they have been successful imitators of Christ; and it would be difficult for the most jealous republican to discover that their system of church government has thus far had any practical tendency to monarchy.

The hostility which had been displayed towards the Methodists, was directed with equal severity against the Baptists, and was equally undeserved.

The Universalists, a sect then much weaker than either of the others, and distinguished by essential differences of opinion from both, did not escape the general attack.





New Hampshire Politics
P.O. Box 1120
Merrimack, NH 03054

Full T1 direct Internet Backbone connection and Internet Services
provided by Mainstream EIS