The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
Conscience Outlawed in Virginia
THE early history of Virginia proves again the proposition that wherever religion and the state are united, conscience is crucified, and the true worship of God is winnowed from the chaff by the hot breath of persecution. The first Virginia charter, issued by King James I, in the year 1606, specifically sets forth the religious character of the Virginia expedition. To that charter there was added the provision “that the said presidents, councils, and the ministers should provide that the Word and science of God be preached, planted, and used, not only in the said colonies, but also as much as might be among the savages bordering among them, according to the rites and doctrine of the Church of England.” In the second charter, issued in 1609, the same provision was made for the establishment of the Church of England in that colony, and it also contained a provision designed to exclude from the colony those outside the fold of that church. The company was licensed to take to Virginia “all persons wishing to go thither, who would take the oath of supremacy.” They must swear allegiance to the Church of England before the company would embark them. While this ruled out all conscientious dissenters5it opened the door to a multitude of unscrupulous persons who would have as much voice in the government, as much influence in molding sentiment toward the dissenters, as would the kindliest and most conscientious members of the establishment. It was but natural that such conscienceless individuals, desiring to stand well with the theocratic government, should assist in carrying into effect the harsh measures of the church-and-state régime, or even to help in framing such measures. At the same time history testifies that these persons “displayed their condition in all kinds of looseness.” Another of the anomalies of the situation was illustrated in the fact that while sturdy Christian dissenters were not permitted by the king’s charter to enter the colony, yet the government attempted to make Virginia a place of exile for the criminals of England, and did succeed in sending over fifty of “such rogues as are dangerous to the common people.” Concerning this policy Stith says, “It hath laid the finest countries in America under just scandall of being a mere hell upon earth.” This policy seems to have had a reflex influence upon the Virginia ministry itself, and many a great “scandall” was created by the clergymen of the established church, so that it became necessary to enact legislation specifically covering transgressions of the clergy. The purpose named in the first charter—the conversion of the Indians—was greatly retarded by such conditions. A letter written at the time by a member of the colony to the bishop of London complains of the general conduct of the colonists in these words: “Through the licentious lives of many of them the Christian religion is like still to be dishonored, and the name of God blasphemed among the heathen, who are near them and oft among them, and consequently their conversion hindered.” — “Virginia’s Cure.” To remedy this condition,—which was conspicuously the result of church-and-state union,—Governor Dale proclaimed his “Lawes Divine, Moral, and Martial.” If religious legislation could make men moral and religious, the fact ought to have been demonstrated in Virginia on that occasion; for it is difficult to imagine more rigorous “lawes” than those of Governor Dale’s rigid code. The following is the substance of some of them:— 1. To speak impiously of the Trinity or one of the divine persons, or against the known articles of Christian faith, was punishable with death. 2. The penalty of death avenged the “blaspheming God’s holy name.” 3. To curse or “banne”—for the first offense some severe punishment; for the second a “bodkin should be thrust through the tongue;” if the culprit was incorrigible, he should suffer death. 4. To say or do anything “to the derision or despite of God’s holy Word,” or in disrespect of any minister, exposed the offender to be “openly whipped three times, and to ask public forgiveness in the assembly of the congregation, three several Saboth daies.” 5. Non-attendance on religious services entailed a penalty, for the first offense, of the stoppage of allowance; for the second, whipping; for the third, the galleys for six months. 6. For Sabbath-breaking the first offense brought the stoppage of allowance; the second, whipping; the third, death. 7. Whoever came into the colony must at once repair to the minister for examination in the faith. If it transpired that he was unsound, he was to be instructed. Refusal to go to the minister for examination entailed a whipping. On a second refusal the culprit was to be whipped twice, and compelled to “acknowledge his fault on Saboth day in the assembly of the congregation;” for a third refusal he should be “whipt every day until he makes acknowledgment.” These laws, in which the functions of church and state were so irreverently jumbled, signally failed in the work of producing a paradise of peace and morality, or in saving the souls of the hypocrites and the heathen. The fierce execution of these laws by Governor Dale’s successor, Governor Argal, resulted in their repeal by the company in London. The repeal of the laws, however, did not in any sense disestablish the church. The instructions to the new government directed the officials “to take into their special regard the service of Almighty God and the observance of his divine laws; and that the people should be trained up in true religion and virtue . . . to the order and administration of divine service, according to the form and discipline of the church of England, . . . and to cause that the ministers should be duly respected and maintained.” —Anderson, “Colonial Church.” Members of the established church, dissenters, and members of no church, were required to submit to taxation for the support of the state religion, and among the earliest measures of the first assembly whose acts have been preserved (that of 1623) was a law to the effect that “there should be in every plantation, where the people are to meet, for the worship of God, a house or room sequestered for that purpose, and not to be for any temporal use whatever.” It was further provided that “there should be a uniformity in our church as near as may be to the canons in England, both in substance and in circumstance and that all persons yield readie obedience under pain of censure.” Penalties were provided for failure to comply with these religious laws. For instance, he who absented himself one Sunday from church was fined five pounds of tobacco. In 1629 the assembly passed a law ordering that “all ministers conforme themselves to the canons of the Church of England.” Through this and other similar enactments the lot of clergymen who did not belong to the established church was made extremely uncomfortable. When Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, came to Virginia on his way to establish the Maryland Colony, the governor and council insisted that if he should make even a temporary sojourn in Virginia, he “must take the oath of supremacy.” As that would mean a renunciation of his faith, he refused to do this, and so was compelled to quit the colony. For a time Virginia was quite tolerant of the Puritans; but in 1639 there came a decided change. The Church of England archbishops, Bancroft and Laud, vehemently protested against allowing Puritans to settle in Virginia, and King Charles finally issued a proclamation forbidding their emigration to that colony. The colonial assembly in 1642, in harmony with the example of the archbishops and king, began to enact legislation designed to strengthen the establishment against all its opponents. These new laws made obligatory a rigid performance of the liturgy of the Church of England, disfranchised Romanists, and provided that any Catholic priest entering the colony must depart within five days. Three Puritan ministers who had come down from Massachusetts in answer to a call for ministerial help, soon found conditions so intolerant there that they were compelled to leave, Governor Berkeley taking the position that “to tolerate Puritanism was to resist the king.” Another minister also, a Mr. Durand, was banished by the governor, and the Puritan services were suppressed. Members of the established church even went so far as to attribute the Indian massacre of 1644 to divine displeasure because certain members of the colony had harbored the Puritans. Others attributed the massacre to divine displeasure because of the persecution of the Puritans. Thus was demonstrated again the ridiculous inconsistency of church-and-state union,—the established church of Virginia persecuting members of the established church of Massachusetts, and both claiming to be the body of Christ on earth, sole custodians of his truth, recipients of his blessings, and dispensers of salvation. The bitter experiences of the Baptists, Quakers, and Presbyterians will be considered in another article.