Remonstrance of Phineas Fish to the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled

Agreeably, to an Order of Notice on the petition of Eben Attaquin and others, I attempt to show cause why their prayer should not be heard!

First, I would make a few remarks on some expressions contained in the petition.  I know not who the petitioners are, but among the signers of the petition of last year, for a similar object, some are my friends and constant hearers!  They say when the paper was brought to them it was asked by the bearer, "Are you willing we should have a meeting house?", meaning, as they supposed, a new building for which they were intending to ask aid.  On their expressing a willingness, their names were set, as they afterwards found, to a petition asking for their own house half the time!!  Whether it be so now, or not, I have no means, at present, of knowing.  But as such petitions have come to be held exceedingly cheap in the estimation of many, I have not sought any Indian signatures at this time, nor did I in 1838 when I sought of the legislature the means of repairing the house in question. The petitioners call it "Our" meeting house, a phrase unusual, it is believed, for those who leave a house of worship, and assume another denomination.

They complain of the distance they have to travel at present, to find their meeting.  Were they in possession of the meeting house, the case would not be greatly altered.  Only one or two families live less than two miles from it, the most of them much farther, and others more than twice that distance.  Indeed, some of my people, on account of their distance from the meeting house, go in occasionally to the Baptist meeting.

They speak of being crowded in the schoolhouse.  It is thought by those who know best that this would not be the case did none but Indians attend!  But whites are there, as at my meetings.  They are received into the Baptist church, and I should think as many, or even more, white persons than colored, have joined that church during Mr. Perry's ministry.  Why then should it be more faulty for me, than for them, to receive such? I am obliquely reproached with having the exclusive occupancy of the house.  I cannot discover the offense of retaining the house of worship to which I was ordained, until I shall be legally dismissed, or until my ministerial or moral character shall be implicated.  I am stated to have about four colored families.  About twelve families attend on my ministry, with more or less frequency, though no so constantly as might be desired.  Recently, within the course of a little more than four months, eighty-four different colored persons have been observed attending my meeting.   Some of them possibly were spies, for I have noticed some such attending, even through a communion service, and then go away. All I ask is to be left to my own natural influence, but there are not a few both at home, and elsewhere, who at once charge me with being useless, and at the same time employ very disingenuous art to prevent attendance on my meeting!

They say their "Sabbath Schools, and Bible Classes, are deprived of the services of the Missionary half the time."  In most towns, the pastor cannot superintend in person at the schools.  In one section of Mashpee, however, most of the children belong to my Sabbath school, therefore the grievance is so far alleviated.  But the children of my school are so variously dispersed, that when the meeting house ceases to be a point of convention, my school must be nearly annihilated! And I would ask here, do I deserve this, when my school existed some fourteen or fifteen years previous to any attempt of the kind in the other society? My school has ever been open to all, all were urged to attend, and at the time when this train of foreign hostile influence commenced against me, I hardly recollect a family that did not send, more or less, children to my Sabbath school.  My records prove this.

The state of the case then is this.  Here are two religious societies, and two missionaries on the Williams Foundation.1  One embraces the sentiments entire of Dr. Williams, and will cheerfully and joyfully commune with all Christians at the Lord's Table.  The other religious teacher differs from Dr. Williams in several important points, and adheres to close communion (so termed).  Yet with all this incongruity, he seeks community of interest in the same temple with his fellow missionary and society, whom yet he refuses to receive at the great feast of love!

Secondly, I therefore remonstrate against the prayer of said petition for the reasons following.

     1st:    I allege the questionable nature of most such petitions. I have already adverted to that of last year.  That also which deprived me of half my College Salary, was signed by some, who told me they "were sorry, & that they did it to please others, having no thought such a petition would ever be heard", but, said they, " the Ruling Party will spite us if we do not please them."

     2nd:   The request is discredited by something mean and insidious.  About eight months before my successful application to the Legislature for aid in the repairs of the meeting house, I proposed to them, viz., Reverend Mr. Perry and the selectmen, who have ever been attached to the Baptist party, a joint petition and an equal division of the results!  Neither minister nor people taking any notice of my proposal, within that time.  With low expectations, I undertook the business by myself.  Through the goodness of the Legislature, I was successful, and now that the house is in decent state, it seems to them very good indeed!  They have an ardent longing for that, for which others have labored.  They would gladly share the advantage.  I will only say, that if my fellow missionary of the Williams Fund, can enjoy himself in such a situation, I envy not his moral tact.  Before doing the same myself, I would say "let my arm fall from the shoulder blade."

       3rd: Because the meeting house was ever used for Congregational purposes and stands on the parsonage lot which was "set apart for the support of the Congregational Worship forever" and which the Honorable Legislature have declared to be "so dedicated, for a specific object, that it is not expedient for them to interfere."  If, therefore, the house may be taken from the Congregational incumbent, either in whole, or part, why may not all connected with it be transferred on the same principle?  This no doubt is the ultimate aim of the petitioners.

       4th:  This concession may be of essential injury to me as regards the College Corporation.  They have already set aside a plain contract, existing between myself and a former board, solely on the ground of diminished success.  They have brought no other charge.  What will they say and do  when they shall learn that in addition to my other misfortunes, I am excluded from the meeting house?  They may well infer that the legislature sees something more faulty in me than they themselves discovered.

       5th: Because the petitioners have more than equivalent to what (exclusive of my own labor) can be derived by me from the parsonage, two hundred and forty dollars per year, in ready money (without the trouble of collecting from uncertain sources) being the moiety of any college salary, received by them, constituted no small advantage, and might well content them.  This,   united with the annual gratuity from the state, enables them to have a schoolmaster and minister at once, without any expenses.  Their pastor and teacher can give himself wholly to his calling.  While I am compelled to cart wood, etc. in order to meet my necessary expenses.  Surely, such a favored people ought not to complain of want of a place of worship, when they have the exclusive use of two good and large school houses, for which myself obtained a grant of $400   from the state, for their accommodation.

       6th: Because it will virtually promote one set to the disadvantage and possibly suppression of the other, the party making request have the civil arm on their side.  The Selectmen of Mashpee, have, in unusual degree too, the means of annoying such as do not coincide with them.  Myself and society have already as nearly suffered persecution as the present state of society will admit.  Should they obtain but a share of the meeting house, they will easily find means of making our seats uncomfortable, and affecting our expulsion.  The selectmen have full discretionary power in the application of the alienated half of my salary.  A distinguished member of the corporation assured me, "they had a right to apply it to the support of a Fanatic -  if they had evidence that true religion is promoted."  Is if not credible, that it may be very troublesome (to say no more) to be associated in possession of the same house, with a fanatic?

       7th: Because union houses of worship are noted failures in the most favorable circumstances.  Here the union will be constrained.  The wide difference in faith and practice render the scheme impracticable.  Judging from facts within my certain knowledge, nothing but the love of victory, and the hope of suppressing all religious liberty, so far as my society is concerned, even of exterminating that society, has led to this proposal.  Indifference and skepticism will be likely to arise here, from having opposing statements from the same desk, even though the discussion may be on only the minor topics of the Christian system.  Unkind feeling will unavoidably be generated, especially on the part of those who necessarily feel themselves aggrieved by the proposed arrangement.  Inconveniences incalculable will occur.  Neither party will be fully accommodated.  They will embarrass each other and contests will arise.  It is scarcely in human nature, even when measurably under the control of Divine Grace, to feel complacently, or worship purely, where others worship who may have injured us already and would injure us still farther if they could.  Surely, therefore, we have reason to put up with redoubled frequency and fervency the prayer "Lead us not into (this) temptation."

      8th:  As a final reason, why their prayer should not be granted, it is believed on grounds satisfactory to myself and others, that this request is only preliminary to further demands.  No one acquainted with the history of recent events, can suppose that said petitioners will be satisfied with the object of their present asking.  The dominant party have always been encroaching in their disposition.  When they obtained half my salary, it whet their appetite and they almost immediately took measures to obtain possession of the remainder.  In 1834, their legal adviser, by letters read in open town meeting, urged them to assume immediate possession of the meeting house and parsonage as their undoubted property. They were restrained from compliance with such "Counsel", only by another letter from a respectable hand, providentially received, just in time to prevent proceedings.  They have, for five years past, been ruled by the same spirit.  Their first petition (1833) prayed the legislature to dismiss and removed me out of their bounds.  And the leaders in power have never lost sight of this project.  Hence, they have used almost constantly every means of annoyance within their power.  They have dealt in a manner so indescribably treacherous and used such an amount of artifice, that I have no reliance on them, in any case where it is possible for them to gain advantage.  I do not think it possible, therefore in the present case, for them to give me a pledge that will justify me and my people in believing, that if they are now gratified, other designs are not mediated and that other petitions will not be presented to an indefinite extent.  There are no bounds to their claims and demands upon me. No concession has ever yet been made from any quarter, but their demands have been increased!   I am also well aware of the foreign influence exerted upon them!   I well remember the parting address to me, by their legal adviser, in the capital, "I shall be able, depend on it, to unsettle you in about three years." Will not then the desired arrangement prove but "as the letting out of waters?"  And is it expedient or justifiable, to put a society actuated by such dispositions, and under such an influence, into a position by which they might affect the extinction of an ancient order of Christianity and of a church of Christ dating its era from the venerable Elliot?              

Myself and society feel ourselves under deep obligation to the Honorable Legislature for their late grant. Through their liberality, we have placed the ancient house of worship in excellent repair.  We have done something for its embellishment at our own private expense.  We have enjoyed a few months quietude and we hoped we might go on our way rejoicing and living in peace with all men, grow in grace, and seek the prosperity of Zion.  And we most humbly and ardently beseech those who have the power over us, not to tantalize by barely allowing us to taste the cup of comfort, and then dash it suddenly to the ground!

I solemnly protest my unfeigned wish for peace. I declare that I cherish no vengeful feelings and that I have a love and hearty good will even towards those of whom truth and a just defense has compelled me to state some unsavory truths.  It is my firm belief that under paternal counsel from Your Honorable Body and through a provision granted to each, to move without collision, each portion of this community in their several appropriate spheres, great good may yet be done and great happiness be enjoyed.  I therefore humbly and ardently entreat that the petitioners may be helped to a place of worship by themselves. There will then be no cause of provocation or interference with each other.  The two societies, beneficiaries of the same charity, will no longer either offer or receive uncharitable measure and it will no longer be unmarked to our disgrace, that the seamless coat of our Savior, is rent by us.  And that through the misuse of his bounty, the venerable Dr. Williams is felo de se2!   In fine, myself and society, cannot but remonstrate with our whole heart, against the prayer of our opponents.  Grant their first request and we shall feel it as the sealing of our doom.   We shall never afterward enter that house without a feeling that we have been supplanted.   We shall not indeed ever be able so much as to look toward that house, so long the seat of our solemnities.  In surrendering this, we cannot but feel we shall surrender all.   And we plead exemption from any charge of disrespect when we finally entreat Your Honors.

Give our opponents no use in the meeting house or give them all!

And as in duty bound will ever pray, etc.

Phineas Fish, Missionary at Mashpee                            

• 1. The Williams Fund was a sum of money, $16, 665,80, donated to Harvard College by Reverend Daniel Williams, an Englishman, for the purposes of supporting missionary work to the Indians. Ayer, Richard Bourne, Missionary to the Mashpee Indians, 7.
• 2. Latin, "felon of oneself," or suicide. OED