The Heritage of a Political Theocracy by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Jun 25, 1908

The Heritage of a Political Theocracy

By J. O. CORLISS

J. O. CORLISS

The wise man spoke discreetly when he affirmed that “there is no new thing under the sun.” Certainly this is true when studying causes and their effect. So far as these count in the problem, “the thing that has been, it is that which shall be.” It can not be otherwise, since the laws of being are inexorable, and so beyond the reach of argument and entreaty.

When the Massachusetts colonists adopted the “Cambridge platform,” they were then fully organized to carry church-and-state union to its legitimate end. The first step in this order was to decide who were to be counted “freemen,” or bona-fide citizens of the community. This was done by the church. And one desiring to be thus recognized was first privately examined by officers of the church as to his orthodoxy; and if determined sound in this particular, he was afterward brought before the public congregation, where any one could interpose objections to his reception as a member. Thus for months one might be harassed and mortified while attempting to qualify himself to exercise his privilege of citizenship.

To be denied the right of a freeman, and then to be subject to a civil trial by the church for any reported misdemeanor by some prejudiced church-member, meant a biased judgment on every occasion. This could not fail to be so, because such persons were accounted adversaries of the church. (“Plain Dealing,” page 23.)

No department of human affairs was exempt from the interference of the clerical oligarchy of those infamous times. Even the militia was regulated by them. As an instance, one Abel Platts was nominated by his company for the position of ensign. A note was immediately sent from the church, informing the company of the church’s disapproval of the choice, because the said Platts was at the time not a communicant of the church. (“History of Newbury,” page 80.)

Again, a new captain had been chosen for the Hingham militia. Such a stir was made over this independent move that the magistrate decided to hold the matter in abeyance until the general court could meet. In the meantime, the pastor, Mr. Peter Hubbert, excommunicated the man chosen captain, thus making him ineligible to any office whatever. Not being satisfied with these proceedings, Governor Winthrop reopened the whole question, at the next session of the legislature, when the church had him brought to trial for exceeding his jurisdiction as a magistrate. (“Winthrop,” 2, pages 222, 223, 227.)

The Roman Church never exceeded such audacity in the very darkest of the Dark Ages. How could it do so? Was not this the extreme limit to which any church could possibly go? About this same time, when Bradford was governor of Plymouth colony, an attempt was made by a Mr. William Vassal to secure suffrage for all classes without a religious qualification, since that colony was supposed to be more liberally disposed than Massachusetts. In writing of this to Winthrop, Winslow, assistant to Governor Bradford, described the many wretched expedients adopted by him and the governor to prevent the matter coming to a vote. He justified their course in this by saying that the measure would have given “free tolerance of religion” to all well-behaved men, except to Turks, Jews, Papists, and a few others. He then adds that he and the governor showed the sad consequences that would follow, but for all that the matter was ordered to a vote, which the governor would not permit. (“Hutchinson, Collection,” 1, 174.)

With the church for backing, Bradford, as governor, could do such a thing; but when the church and state are separate, no governor could exercise such arbitrary authority. This is but an example of how the church then made a tool of the state to do its bidding. The church went even further than this. It forced Governor Endicott to ship men across the ocean, and away from friends, without a trial by their peers, simply because their religious views differed from those of the dominant faction. And yet while the clergy would not permit the children of these heterodox people the benefits of the church, it freely taxed the parents for the support of the church. The arbitrariness of that system of government is well set forth in what Endicott told the Browns when he shipped them to England. He said

that their adherence to their Episcopal orders tended to “mutiny,” therefore “New England’s Jonas,” Marvin’s edition, pages 13-15.)

The Cambridge platform, in fact, gave the clergy full power of life and death over the community, by making the duty of the laity to be “obeying their elders and submitting themselves unto them in the Lord.” By this also the magistrate was enjoined to punish “idolatry, blasphemy, heresy,” and to coerce any church becoming “schismatical.” (“Cambridge Platform,” chapter 10, section 7.) It is plain that no one could be convicted of any of these things without the witness of the church, and so every one on trial received sentence according to the testimony and decision of the church.

The milk of human kindness changes into the curd of religious intolerance the moment the church and state embark in the same line of work. It was so in early New England; it will be so again, just as soon as the demands of National Reformers are met, to place “all Christian laws, institutions and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” It is useless to say that men are more considerate of each other’s religious beliefs now than in the early dawn of this country, when men still lived in the shadow of the persecution which drove them from their native land.

To show that men are made of the same stuff now as then, we have only to quote from speeches recently made. Here is one: Oct. 13, 1907, at Witherspoon Hall, Philadelphia, the Rev. Robert M. Paterson is stenographically reported to have said to an audience composed largely of clergymen; “If I had my way about it, I would have an executioner called in to deal with all heretics and blasphemers. Burning at the stake would be too good for those who revile religion, and take the Lord’s name in vain. The growth of heresy is such to-day that nothing but measures such as this can stop it.”

These words were not the idle vaporings of some young enthusiast with no ballast aboard, but were the deliberate expression of a well-seasoned man of seventy-five years. This but reveals the religious bigotry of one who, in every other relation in life outside of the church may, so far as we know, appear as kind and gentle as the Saviour of the world, who said: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47. But the blighting influence upon this clergyman’s religious life is his belief that the state should enforce his exact faith upon all, whether they will or not, and thus constitute him the judge of the world. Because of Christ’s attitude toward the world as revealed in the words quoted, the Saviour of men was condemned to die through the demands of the church, carried into effect by the civil government. Let the state beware of taking the first step toward legislating in behalf of any religious form or custom.

Mountain View, Cal.