The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
The Hierarchy Goes Down Before the Throne
In order that the great Reformation should be a success, it was necessary that theocratic forms of government should not be permitted in the United States of America. America, in God’s providence, was to be a lighthouse for the world. The Reformation had brought to light the glorious truths of justification by faith; but the theater of its first operations soon became unwelcome ground for the gospel of a free conscience. To propagate in America that false theocratic theory, which was binding consciences in the Old World and had begun to do so in the New, would have been the second great calamity of the Christian era. It was time for the prison-house of the soul to be thrown open, and for the jailor of conscience to receive his discharge. The revolt of the laity in Massachusetts, as pointed out last week, strengthened the hand of the English king against the clerical power in the colonial government, and it must be confessed that the king’s hands needed strengthening; for weak as the colony was, she was so determined in her course that she even defied the king’s commissioners and the laws of the realm, and continued her audacious course for a number of years. The somewhat vacillating course of the king toward the Massachusetts Bay Colony was due to the fact that the necessity of preparing for his own troubles with the continental countries left little time or means for carrying out his purposes in New England. While King Charles was instructing Massachusetts to deal more gently with the Quakers, he was also having brought to his attention the fact that members of the established church of England were forbidden to worship in New England according to the dictates of their consciences, and also that freeborn Englishmen were denied the suffrage. He wrote to the colonial legislature, demanding that liberty of Episcopal worship be granted, that individual Episcopalians be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in the Congregational churches, and be afforded the baptism of their infants. The general court replied, recounting the causes of Congregational emigration to New England, asserting that Congregationalism was established there, and begging that “our orthodox brethren would bear with us.” Not liking the tone of this letter, the king appointed four commissioners to visit the colonies and regulate these affairs. In their instructions occur these words: “That such who desire to use the book of common prayer may be permitted so to doe without incurring any penalty, reproach, or disadvantage in his interests, . . . it being very scandalous that any man should be debarred the exercise of his religion, according to ye laws and customs of England, by those who by ye indulgence granted have liberty left to be of what profession in religion they please. . . . Differences of opinion doe not lessen charity to each other, since charity is fundamental in all religion.” The king’s commissioners were charged to be very careful not to give the impression that it was the king’s purpose to make any alteration in the church government, stating that his exception to their conduct was in the fact that they denied “liberty of conscience to each other.” An illustration of the impossibility of men acting justly and consistently when once wedded to the church-and-state doctrine, is seen in what the king’s commissioners reported to the English secretary of state: “Those whom they will not admit to the communion they compel to come to their sermons by forcing from them five shillings for every neglect: yet these men thought their own paying of one shilling for not coming to prayers in England was an insupportable tyranny.” In 1665 another demand was made upon them for freedom of Episcopal worship in Massachusetts. To this the general court replied, again setting forth their reasons for coming to America, and declaring that for the Episcopal worship to be set up in that colony “will disturb our peace in our present enjoyments; and we have commended to the ministry and people here the word of the Lord for their rule therein.” This was a practical refusal to yield to the demand of their king, and permit the worship of which he was the head to be recognized as a legitimate religion in one of his colonies. They were wedded to the church-and-state idea, and yet took the inconsistent position of denying to the real and only legitimate head of their state the headship of their religion. It really amounted to this, that if their king himself should come to New England, he would find the religion which he professed forbidden, and he himself a criminal for worshiping in harmony with its rituals. This condition of affairs could not, of course, long continue; and yet the king seems to have borne very patiently with his colonial rebuffs. The commissioners themselves were powerless to enforce their king’s demands, and the only satisfaction they had was in freeing their minds as to the unreasonableness of the colony’s position. In their reply to the general court occur these words: “His majesty does not impose the use of the common prayer book on any, but he understands that liberty of conscience comprehends every man’s conscience as well as any.” But while the king’s commissioners were saying this of him, he was industriously putting the Covenanters to death in Scotland, and was doing nothing to ease the afflictions of Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in Virginia. This world has not yet produced an individual who could uphold the theory of a united church and state, and at the same time act consistently and deal justly with all. In spite of the king’s ill success in bringing about a speedy correction of the conditions against which he complained, and in spite of the recurring revivals of intolerance toward those not of the established church, the leaven of a change toward a better condition was persistently working. The Baptists built a church in Boston. This exasperated the hierarchy, and a law was passed sentencing the sect to banishment; but the law was not enforced—the Baptists had come to stay and to “share with the Quakers the honor of securing liberty of conscience and of worship in Puritan Massachusetts.” While the general court took no action to indicate that dissenters were welcome, we hear no more of fines, imprisonments, and5whippings for exercising the rights of conscience. The king had empowered his commissioners to hear appeals from the decisions of the Massachusetts General Court. To this the clerical party were bitterly opposed. The general court maintained that the observance of their charter was inconsistent with appeals; and this was no doubt correct; for should an appeal be taken to the commissioners of the British government from a decision of the general court concerning the rights of those outside of the established church,—especially if it were in the case of a Church of England man against a Congregationalist,—the commissioners would be bound to be guided by the laws of England rather than by the laws of the colony. They said: “Should it take place [that the commissioners be permitted to hear the appeals from the general court], what would become of our civil government which hath binn, under God, the head of that liberty for our consciences for which the first adventurers bore all discouragements that encountered them in this wilderness?” The commissioners forced the issue by giving notice that on a certain day they would sit “to hear the case of Thomas Dean et al vs. The Gov. & Co. of Mass. Bay.” Immediately the general court declared that the hearing would not be permitted—and it was not. The commissioners had no troops with which to enforce their purposes, and there the matter rested for the time. Several years elapsed, and in the meantime King Philip’s war broke out. This was a disastrous affair for the colony, and the clergy taught that it was a judgment from God against the colony because of their “tenderness toward the Quakers.” In the year 1674 the English government began to turn its attention again toward affairs in Massachusetts. The king sent a special agent, Edward Randolph, who was received by the colonial government with scant courtesy. The letter which he brought from the king to the Massachusetts government was received in a very disrespectful manner by the governor, who stated to the king’s agent that the matters contained therein “did no way concern that government to take any notice thereof.” When the legislature met, however, they did consent to send agents to represent them in England, as the king had commanded them; but to these agents they gave such explicit instructions and such restricted powers that practically nothing was accomplished. In the autumn of 1677 one of these agents wrote to the governor that unless something were done, a breach was inevitable. In the spring of the following year the law officers of the kingdom gave a decision that the misdemeanors alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to void her patent. Later new agents were sent over to England. Their powers were at once rejected, the patent was declared void, and the government agent, Randolph, was sent to Boston to serve the writ of quo warranto; but he was also charged to declare for the king that if proper submission were made, the charter would be restored. The magistrates, realizing the results of persisting in such a policy, voted an address to the crown accepting the proffered terms; but the clergy opposed it. So in 1685 the royal charter of Massachusetts was revoked, the Puritan hierarchy ceased to be, and a royal governor was appointed. Among the first declarations of the king to the people of Massachusetts through the royal governor, Andross, was this one: “We do here will and require and command that liberty of conscience be allowed to all persons, and that such especially as shall be conformable to the rites of the Church of England be particularly countenanced and encouraged.” The governor proceeded at once to break down the opposition to the Church of England form of worship by demanding a house of worship in which the liturgy of that church could be carried out. This was denied him, and he took forcible possession of one. The triumph of the governor in this broke the force of the opposition, and an arrangement was made permitting Episcopal worship in the churches on Sunday afternoons. In 1687 there was published a proclamation of religious liberty which was designed by the king to remove Catholic disabilities. It was not received with any degree of enthusiasm in the colony, and when, in 1691, a new charter was granted to Massachusetts, by which the colony of Plymouth was merged into the larger colony, it was decreed that “forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed, in the worship of God, to all Christians (except papists).” Thus it is seen that neither king nor colony understood the true grounds of religious liberty. While they designated it “liberty of conscience,” it was nothing more than tolerance in religious practice. That the king withheld it from the “papists,” while granting it to all others, shows that he regarded the exercise of the rights of conscience merely as a privilege granted by him, which he had a right to withhold if he chose. The position taken by him in this, and the position taken by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in their opposition to him and his mode of worship, and to all forms of worship save their own, was no whit better than the doctrine of the papacy, which they opposed. Thus we have in Massachusetts for a time what was virtually two hierarchies opposing each other and hindering each other, and out of those oppositions and hindrances religious liberty was growing; but Massachusetts did not get rid of all her church-and-state trappings for many years—nor has she indeed done so even yet; for support of the church by public taxation was continued even to the year 1833, and there still remain on her statute-books laws requiring the observance of Sunday. We will consider in following articles the interesting history of the struggles for religious liberty in the colony and State of Virginia.
C. M. S.