ther enacted, that the several parishes and religious societies, at any legal meeting for that purpose, duly notified and warned, may make, ordain, and establish by-laws, prescribing the manner in which persons may become members thereof; and such other by-laws as they may deem expedient: provided, that such by-laws be not repugnant to the laws and constitution of the commonwealth: and provided, also, that any person, who at the time of the passage of this act, shall be an inhabitant of any territorial parish, and not a member thereof, but who may formerly have been a member of the same, shall at any time within six months from the passage of this act, have a right to re-unite himself to such parish, by leaving with the clerk thereof a written notice of his intentions so to do. And any inhabitant of such territorial parish, upon arriving at full age, shall have a right to become a member of the same, by filing notice of his intentions as aforesaid, within six months from the time such inhabitant shall arrive at full age. And no person shall have a right to vote in the affairs of any territorial parish, until he shall have been a member thereof for the term of six months."

The fourth section points out the manner in which taxes may be assessed. The fifth and seventh sections authorize unincorporated religious societies to exercise the same rights and enjoy the same privileges as those which are incorporated. The sixth section points out the method in which a religious society may be organized. The eighth section prescribes the duty of assessors; and the ninth repeals the sixth section of the act of 1792, the acts of 1800, of 1811, and of 1824, pertaining to this subject; also all laws providing for the settlement of ministers, and the support of the public worship of God, made prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

Before closing our historical notices of this deeply interesting subject, we must briefly advert to some decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, of a most important character.

In 1811, a parish in Sandwich voted to dismiss their minister, the Rev. Jonathan Burr, a great majority of the church nonconcurring. These, together with the minister, and a minority of the parish formed themselves into a new society, were incorporated as a poll parish, and the members of the church claimed to be the first church in Sandwich, and an action was defended at their instance and request. The cause was decid

ed in favor of the plaintiffs, on the ground that the church (the small minority remaining with the original parish,) was the lawful successor of the church, to which certain property had been devised. It had before been decided by the Court that the dismission of Mr Burr was regular and lawful, notwithstanding more than three fourths of the church members adhered to him, and continued in another place, to attend on his ministry.*

Another case of a very interesting character occurred in Dedham in 1819 and in 1820. On the dismission of the Rev. Joshua Bates from the pastoral charge of the first church in that town, the Rev. Alvan Lamson was elected by the parish to be his successor, a majority of the church refusing to concur. After his ordination, the church no longer associated in worship with the majority of the parish in the house where they had been accustomed to assemble, but erected another house, and settled a pastor. The church were possessed of property, the income of which had been for sometime nearly sufficient for the support of a pastor. This property had been under the control of the deacons according to the law of the state, and the title of the church to the property was supposed to be as safe, as the title of any corporate body whatever to their property. But a few members of the church, who continued to worship with the parish in the old meeting house, claimed to be the first church in Dedham. They passed a vote of removal against the deacons, who were with the majority, chose two new deacons, and made claim, through them, to all the property belonging to the church. This claim was sanctioned by the Judges of the Supreme Court, and final judgment entered at the October term in 1820.

The following paragraphs are from the opinion of the whole court given by Chief Justice Parker: "It appears to us clear from the constitution and laws of the land, and from judicial decisions, that the body, which is to be considered the first church in Dedham must be the church of the first parish in that town, as to all questions of property which depend upon that relation. If a church may subsist unconnected with any congregation or religious society, it is certain that it has no legal qualities, and more especially that it cannot exercise any control over property, which it may have held in trust for the soci

* See Massachusetts Term Reports, 9, 277, Burr vs. the inhabitants of the first parish in Sandwich.

ety with which it had been formerly connected. The secession of the whole church from the parish would be an extinction of the church; and it is competent to the members of the parish to institute a new church, or to engraft one upon the old stock if any of it should remain; and this new church would succeed to all the rights of the old, in relation to the parish. The only circumstance which gives a church any legal character, is its connection with some regularly constituted society; and those who withdraw from the society cease to be members of that particular church, and the remaining members continue to be the identical church. Probably in the early history of this country there was no very familiar distinction between the church and the whole assembly of Christians in the town. We have had no evidence that the inhabitants were divided into two bodies, of church and society or parish ;-keeping separate records, and having separate interests; but if the fact be otherwise than is supposed, there is no doubt that most of the inhabitants of the town were church members at that time."

These decisions have not been acquiesced in, we believe, by the great majority of the religious people of this commonwealth. In opposition to the opinion of the judges, the following facts and arguments have been adduced. In the first place, it is to be observed that churches are bodies corporate, though perhaps, in some parts of the country existing without a formal act of incorporation by the legislature. Such an act is not necessary to their existence as corporations. Bodies may become corporate by mere prescription, and without an express act of incorporation, and they are often recognized as such by the supreme authority. Many towns have become incorporations in this way.* The churches of Massachusetts were early in the possession of corporate rights and powers. They were gathered and organized according to law. They assessed and collected taxes of their members and others, for the building of meeting-houses and the support of ministers. They were virtually incorporated, by the legal acceptance and approval of the Cambridge platform. By a law of the province passed 28th George II, and re-enacted in part by this commonwealth Feb. 20, 1786, since the adoption of the constitution, churches are constituted corporations to receive donations, to choose a committee to advise the deacons in the administration of their affairs, to call the

Upham's Ratio Disciplinae.

church officers to an account, and "if need be to commence and prosecute any suits touching the same.”* In the second place, there was a marked distinction in the early settlement of this country between the church and the congregation or parish. Of the company, who commenced the first settlement of Salem, 350 in number, only thirty were communicants. The church in Boston commenced with but four members; that in Cambridge with but eight. Thomas Lichford, a discontented attorney, who visited this country in 1637, said on his return to England, doubtless with some exaggeration, "Most of the persons at New England are not admitted of their church, and therefore are not freemen." In 1646, the number not connected with the churches, who petitioned the British parliament for a redress of grievances, were represented as amounting to thousands. In the third place, a church can subsist without any religious community to which it is attached. In the act of 1641, respecting the gathering of churches, no mention is made of their being connected with parishes or towns. In the acts of 1642, 1646, 1658, and 1754, we find no reference to parishes or towns. The original church at Plymouth came into the country in an embodied state. The first church, the Old South church, and the first baptist church of Boston, were organized in Charlestown. The first church in Dorchester was formed at Plymouth in England, and removed in a body to this country. This same church afterwards removed from Dorchester to Windsor, Conn. The first church at Cambridge removed to Hartford. Individual church members were left behind, but they were not reckoned the churches. Chief Justice Parsons in the Sandwich case, affirms that the " members of a church are generally inhabitants of the parish; but this inhabitancy is not a necessary qualification for a church member." He also says that a church and parish are bodies with different powers. In the fourth place, the constitution secures to the churches the same rights which they had before. In the third article, the terms "bodies politic," and "religious societies," were understood at the time of the adoption of the constitution as referring to churches. Judge Sedgwick, (Mass. Term Reports, Vol. III.) says that "the mode of settling ministers has continued in every respect the same, since the establishing of the constitution, that it was before. The church call

* Monthly Anthology and Boston Review, Nov. 1806.

the minister; the town, at a legal meeting, concur in the invitation, and vote the salary; and the minister, after solemn consideration, accepts the invitation." The acts of 1800 and of 1834, provide that "the churches shall enjoy all their accustomed privileges and liberties."

We have thus briefly alluded to this subject, not for the sake of any denominational feelings, for all the religious sects are alike concerned in these decisions of the Courts.-We have no desire for controversy. We believe that the rights of the churches have been taken away from them; and we also believe that the matter ought to be held up to the attention of all the people of the commonwealth, till those rights are restored. We do not ask for the church the power to choose a minister for the parish, or the power to hold or control parish property. We only ask that the church may exercise those rights, which are secured to her by our constitution and laws-those of electing her own pastor and controlling her own funds.

The inferences and conclusions deducible from the facts and statements presented in the preceding article, we must postpone for the present. It is a fruitful subject, and worthy of the most attentive consideration.

ARTICLE III.

ON EXPOSITORY PREACHING AND THE PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD GUIDE US IN THE EXPOSITION OF SCRIPTURE.

By C. E. Stowe, Prof. of Biblical Lit. in Cincinnati Lane Seminary.

By Expository Preaching I understand that kind of popular religious instruction in which the sentiments and emotions of the sacred writers are exhibited in the language of the preacher. Some complete paragraph, or a series of connected paragraphs, is selected from the Bible-the course of thought is traced out, the meaning developed, the illustrations explained, the sentiments enforced and applied by such remarks as naturally arise from the text; and the preacher stands before his audience not as an orator, priding himself on the originality and brilliancy of