66

collecting money for this object. They had also the power of raising money by tax for the support of their pastors." These positions of our C. are supported by the express declarations of Winthrop and Hubbard, who inform that some CHURCHES raised money by "rates" and "compulsion by levies" to build their houses of worship; that they raised money "by way of taxation" for the support of their ministers; that this mode of doing it was very offensive to some;" and particularly that "one Briscoe of Watertown, being grieved that he and others who were no members were taxed, wrote a book against it."*-To this Mr. L. replies, "that the practice of taxation by churches, even if it existed, was not general," and consequently could not have been authorized by any "provision or enactment of the General Court." But might not the General Court confer a power on the churches, which all of them did not think proper to exercise? The inference from Winthrop and Hubbard is, that though all the churches might have raised money" by way of taxation," the church in Boston, with some others, preferred to do it by weekly contribution.

But in opposing this argument, Mr. L. principally relies on a discovery he has made in the records of Watertown, that a sum of money was raised by the town, in 1642, for the support of their ministers. Now we see no difficulty in reconciling such a grant by the town, with the testimony of Winthrop and Hubbard as to the parochial powers of the church. For the church might have made to the ministers another grant, in addition to that made by the town; or the historians mentioned might refer to some year other than 1642;† or if it shall appear that they were mistaken in supposing the church at Watertown to have raised money by a tax, it will not follow that they were mistaken in regard to all the other churches to which they refer, of which Hubbard tells us there were 66 many." If the tax complained of by Briscoe was not raised by the church, why did he, on account of it, “cast reproach upon the elders and officers of the church?" And why was his "book fuller of teeth to bite and reproach the ministers of the country, than of arguments to convince the readers?"

We shall now introduce some additional facts and witnesses, going to illustrate the parochial power and authority of the first churches of Massachusetts. Emerson, giving the early ecclesiastical history of the country, says, "The mode of raising the salaries of ministers was different in different churches. Some did it by TAXATION; others by voluntary contribution." Again, speaking of his own church, he says, "The fiscal, as well as religious concerns of the society, were now managed entirely by members of the church; and the pastor probably, for the most part, was

* Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 93. Hubbard, p. 412.

+ Winthrop's record, from which Hubbard's was probably taken, is dated 1643. VOL. II.

50

present and presided. At these meetings" (church meetings where the pastor presided) " a variety of matters was usually agitated; and provision for the ministry, for the stranger, for the poor, for the reformation of morals, and for the preservation of church property, was often made at the same meeting." Again, he says, "Until now (1730) the church, that is, the male communicants, were alone concerned in fixing the minister's salaries, and in making all pecuniary appropriations."* Does not this look like parochial power?

The Old South church in Boston own the land on which their meeting house and ministerial houses now stand, the same having been conveyed to them (in 1669) by deed from Mrs. Mary Norton, relict of Rev. John Norton, teacher of the first church. On this spot, the church erected their first house of worship, completed in 1685. In 1729, this house was taken down, by vote of the church, and a new one was built immediately after, by vote of the same body.

It will serve to illustrate the parochial powers of the churches to make some quotations from the records of this church, relative to these and similar proceedings.

"At a church meeting, April 21, 1722, a consultation was held respecting repair of the meeting house. Voted to spend about £40 to make the roof tight."

"At a church meeting, Feb. 27, 1728, the church voted to build a new meeting house."

"At a church meeting, April 23, 1728, voted that the new meeting house be set upon the place where the old one stood."

At a church meeting, June 26, 1728, the church voted to build the new house with brick, having at a former meeting deliberated whether it should be built with wood, stone, or brick."

"At a church meeting, Feb. 18, 1729, the church voted to take down the old meeting house. At the same time, voted to assemble in the old brick meeting house (belonging to the first church) for the first time on the ninth of March, and to desire the congregation to assemble with us."

"At a church meeting, Oct. 29, 1729, voted that the Treasurer be desired and empowered to borrow such a sum of money as the Committee for building shall judge needful for expediting the building, not exceeding, £800."

At a church meeting, April 19, 1730, the church voted that they would assemble for worship in the new meeting house next Lord's day;—and that the congregation be notified accordingly.”

If here is not a full exercise of parochial power, we are at a loss to know what such power is, or how it can be exercised.

4. Our Correspondent next refers to "the act of the General Court accepting and establishing the Cambridge Platform,” as “a

*Hist. of the first church in Boston. pp. 77, 139, 174.

virtual incorporation of the churches." This argument, Mr. L. passes over in profound silence. It would not be known from his Review that he had ever seen it.-There can be no doubt that the Cambridge Platform was "by law established ;" and that, being thus established, it became, what it was often denominated, "the religious constitution of the colonies," the "constitution of our Congregational churches."*

5. Our Correspondent further urges the corporate powers of the churches, from the fact that they have uniformly acted as corporations, in buying, selling, holding and controlling different kinds of property.

They held, as we have seen, the first houses of worship. They early commenced the purchasing of lands. Would they have done this, if they were not allowed to take them in fee, and to hold them in succession? Frequent grants of land, and donations of other property, were made to the churches, all which supposes that they were acknowledged to have the power of holding and improving them. And the property thus acquired, they did hold and improve. They have held it, by their deacons, in uninterrupted succession, and (as was proved in regard to the church in Dedham) have had the exclusive control and management of it,' to the present time." p. 23.

"This argument would alone sustain the corporate existence of the churches, were all that has been said previously, to be set aside; For the churches, it appears, have so long and by so general consent exercised the powers of corporations, in holding and controlling property, that their claim to be regarded as incorporate bodies is well established on the ground of prescription or custom, if on no other." p. 24.

To this Mr. L. replies,

"In Massachusetts we have no corporations by prescription. There are no vacancies in our statute books, no lost acts; and therefore there can be no presumption that there may have been acts of incorporation which are now forgotten." vol. iv. p. 150, vol. v. p. 487.

How a gentleman, pretending to know as much about law as Mr. L., could have hazarded assertions such as these, we are at a loss to imagine. "No vacancies in our statute books!" Does he not know that "the oldest edition of the legislative acts of Massachusetts is that of 1672"-forty two years subsequent to the commencement of the settlement? And that "no edition of the Province laws is known to have comprehended a complete series of the public statutes from the charter of 1692, to the time of the revolution?" Has he never read in the Massachusetts Reports, that "a corporation may be proved by reputation, if it appear from regular evidence that no act of incorporation can be found? For by the fires in the town of Boston in 1711, and 1760, a great part of the public records of the late province were destroyed; and unless the existence of a corporation may be proved by reputation, many towns and parishes would lose all their corporate rights

*See Hutchinson's Hist. vol. ii. p. 18. Trumbull's Hist. vol. i. p. 289, and Mass. Term Reports, vol. iii. p. 165.

t Mass. Term Reports, vol. xvi. p. 491. "The church meetings," in the ministry of Mr. Haven, "were convened principally to give instructions for the management of the church lands," &c. See Worthington's Hist. of Dedham, p. 108.

See Preface to the Colony and Province Laws.

and privileges."* Has Mr. L. never read or heard of facts such as these, that he ventures to assert before the public "Our statute law has no chasms! We have no lost acts!"

That the churches of Massachusetts have, from the first, acted as corporations, in holding and disposing of property, is matter of unquestionable and acknowledged fact. In 1644, the original church of Plymouth purchased of the natives" in the name of the church," and the Court of the Colony "granted unto the church," all the territory now included in the towns of Eastham, Wellfleet, and Orleans. In this instance, did not the church act, and was it not recognized, as a corporation?-By extracts from the records of the first church in Boston, published in Mr. Emerson's History, it appears that that church sold lands, and "executed sufficient deeds, IN DUE FORMS OF LAW, for passing and conveying the same;" recovered debts; contracted with its ministers, and fixed their salaries, &c. In all such instances, did it not act as a corporation?

In a manuscript now before us, prepared by the late Dr. Eckley, urging the rights of the church, (the Old South) of which he was pastor, he says, "From the foundation of the church, for upwards of one hundred years, the land, ministerial houses, and meeting houses have been claimed, managed, and used by the church, as its OWN PROPERTY, and so acknowledged by the congregation, with the exception that the pews have been considered as the property of the purchasers and their heirs, not however as estate in fee simple, or as giving any right to, or property in, the soil," (these belonging to the church) "but for the advantage of enjoying the privileges of public worship on certain conditions, which conditions not being complied with, they have reverted to the church."

The first church in Charlestown has uniformly acted as a Corporation, in holding property to the amount of several thousand dollars, consisting of lands, notes, bonds, bank stock, mortgages &c.-in leasing and renting its lands-and in recovering debts, by legal suit, and otherwise. The following is a copy of a certificate of Bank stock, now in possession of the treasurer of this church. "UNION BANK STOCK. Be it known that the first CHURCH in Charlestown is holder of eight hundred dollars in the Union Bank Stock, transferable only at the Bank, by the treasurer of said church or his attorney, and there producing this certificate." Witness the hand of the President, &c.

The first church in Cambridge has been for a long time in the possession of property to a considerable amount, obtained in part by contributions at the Lord's Table. At one period, it held a demand against the parish, on which the interest was paid regularly, from year to year. This church has had the entire control and management of its funds, from their origin to the present time.

Indeed there can be no question, and we presume there is none, that the churches of Massachusetts have, from the first and uni* Vol. iii. p. 276. v. p. 547. xii. p. 400. + Hist. Coll. vol. viii. p. 165.

formly, acted as corporations, in holding and controlling their owu property. But is not this, of itself, sufficient and conclusive proof of their corporate existence and powers? In the case of Dillingham vs. Snow and another, the north parish in Harwich was proved by reputation to be a corporate parish, on the ground that its inhabitants had exercised parish powers for more than forty years.* And in the case of the inhabitants of Stockbridge vs. the Inhabitants of West Stockbridge, West Stockbridge was proved to be a town, from the fact that "for more than thirty years, its inhabitants had exercised and enjoyed all the powers, privileges and immunities of a town."+ But many of the churches of Massachusetts have unquestionably acted as corporations for almost two hundred years. On what grounds then can their corporate existence and privileges be denied and taken from them?

6. We come now to the sixth and last argument urged by our Correspondent.

"In 1754, an act passed the Provincial Legislature, which went to confirm and establish the corporate existence and powers of the churches. In this act it is assumed, that grants and donations had previously been made, not only to the churches, but to "the poor of the churches," and to the officers of the churches. It is farther assumed, that "these several grants and donations" were intended to " go in succession." But," doubts had arisen, in what cases such donations and grants might operate, so as to go in succession." Doubts might well arise as to what had been given to "the poor of the churches," and to the officers of the churches, if not in respect to church property itself. Wherefore, to remove all doubt, this law of 1754, was enacted, and "the deacons of the several Protestant churches (not Episcopal) were incorporated, to take in succession all grants and donations, whether real or personal, made either to their several churches, the poor of their churches, or to them and their successors, and to sue and defend in all actions touching the same. And whereever the ministers or elders shall, in the original grants or donations, have been joined with the deacons; in such cases, such officers and their successors, together with the deacons, shall be deemed the corporation for such purposes as aforesaid;-saving, that no alienation of any lands belonging to churches, hereafter made by the deacons, without the consent of the church, or a committee of the church, for that purpose appointed, shall be sufficient to pass the same. And the several churches in this province, are hereby empowered to choose a committee, to call the deacons, or other church officers, to an account, and if need be, to commence and prosecute any suits, touching the same, and also to advise and assist such deacons in the administration of the affairs aforesaid." Pp. 24, 25.

To this argument, as urged by our C., Mr. L. attempts no reply. Indeed, he scarcely alludes to the act of 1754, in the whole of his second publication. In his first publication, he endeavors to prove from this act, that the churches were not previously incorporated. "If churches had been corporate bodies, the act would have been superfluous.". But has Mr. L. forgotten, or did he never know, that it is as much the duty of the legislature to confirm existing corporate rights, when they come to be doubted, as to create new ones when they are needed?-He insists, however, that the framers of this law" do not say there were any doubts

* Mass. Term Reports, vol. v. p. 547. Province Laws, p. 606.

Ditto, vol. xii. p. 400,