The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
Virginia’s Struggle for Soul Freedom Begins
THERE were three parties who carried on the struggle for religious liberty in Virginia. They were, first, the Quakers—who suffered, unresisting; second, the Baptists—who suffered, and protested vigorously against the suffering and the principles which involved it; and third, the Presbyterians—who suffered less than the others, because of a private arrangement with the governor. Another reason for this was the fact that Presbyterianism had never yet taken its stand against the doctrine of a union of church and state, and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland was a state church. The Virginia Presbyterianism made no striking protests against the injustice of religious persecution until three years before the Revolution. The Episcopal Church, or Church of England, was the established church of Virginia, and there was little choice between its treatment of dissenters and the treatment which they received in Massachusetts. It was the purpose of the leaders in that church-state to exclude all dissenters from the colony unless they were willing to conform to the state religion. The revolution in England, in 1688, brought about the passage of the Act of Toleration, but Virginia did not propose that the provisions of that Act should apply within its jurisdiction. The general court of Virginia, in 1689, construed that act to suit their own purposes, withholding its benefits from all dissenters until force of circumstances compelled them to yield to the growing demand for liberty of conscience. Settlements of Scotch-Irish Presbyterians were established in the western portion of Virginia as early as 1738. The desire of the Virginia government to have settlements of the whites between4the eastern settlements and the Indians, made it possible for these Presbyterians through the synod of Philadelphia to obtain from Governor Gooch of Virginia an agreement by whose terms they were to benefit under the Act of Toleration. The governor was willing to permit them, in those remote counties, to enjoy freedom of worship because he knew that in case of an Indian outbreak the Presbyterians would form a first wall of defense for the colony, and bear the brunt of the suffering. The Baptists settled in the southeast parts of the State as early as 1714; but they enjoyed no such immunity as did the Presbyterians, for the government could not use them as a buffer between itself and danger. Neither could the Quakers be so used. Both were unwelcome; both were imprisoned; both were sent out of the State on account of their religion and that alone. The Quakers’ nonresistance, and the established church’s bitter persecution of them, gave the people an object-lesson in the cruelties and injustices of a state religion. They saw its true character in its treatment of that people. And while the sufferings of the Baptists furnished the same object-lesson of the cruelty of such a régime, the Baptists also continually set before the people the principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ upon the question of soul liberty. To these two denominations must be given the chief credit for paving the way for, and winning, the glorious victory which was gained in Virginia over the foes of a free conscience. Those two denominations entered the New World with a clean record upon that matter, their history never having been stained with the blood of mankind on account of differences of religious belief and practise. The example which the Quakers set in mutely suffering had its effect in convincing many of the unrighteousness of persecution for conscience’ sake, and to others the arguments of the Baptists went home with strong conviction. This leaven began to work as soon as these people began to be oppressed, otherwise it would seem that religious liberty in Virginia had been completely forestalled; for it was enacted as early as 1643 that “all ministers should be conformable to the orders and constitution of the Church of England, and that no others be permitted to teach or preach, publicly or privately.” It was also expressly provided that the governor and council should take care that all nonconformists departed from the colony “with all conveniency.” Under such regulations it would seem impossible for any sect to gain a foothold in Virginia. Not allowed to teach or preach publicly, not allowed to remain in the colony—certainly every avenue for bringing in the doctrine of religious liberty in that State was closed. The only method to pursue was that which was pursued,—for the proscribed sects to go in in spite of the unrighteous law, and show its iniquity in the work which it would do upon them. When the fires of persecution became too fierce, they withdrew, but only to return to the contest with renewed vigor. In 1642 three Congregational ministers from Massachusetts attempted to brave the law; but, like the Presbyterians, they were not standing on the broad platform of absolute religious liberty for all (their church being the state church of Massachusetts), and their attempt to propagate their faith, in opposition to the rigid law of the Virginia church-state, ended quickly in failure, and in their return to Massachusetts. The following year Governor Berkeley’s attempt to convert all in the colony to the doctrines of the established church by means of whippings and brandings with hot irons, resulted in the withdrawal of the Baptists and Quakers to North Carolina. But other Baptists came, and other Quakers came; and the struggle went on. Ten years after the passage of the Act of Toleration, the first license was granted to a Presbyterian minister, Francis Makemie, to preach in Virginia. Mr. Makemie seems to have understood the law, and the necessary requirements under it, and pressed the issue upon the Virginia government. This license, or certificate, was the first certificate of qualification for a dissenting minister granted in Virginia, and bears date of Oct. 15, 1699. Mr. Makemie made application for, and was granted, the right to preach in two houses owned by himself, one at Pocomoke and the other at Ononcock. At this time the law required the registration of all places where dissenters worshiped, and the government did its best to keep down the number. In order to receive a certificate of qualification from the government, the applicant must subscribe to the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, with the exception of the thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, and thirty-sixth, and that clause of the twentieth which gave to the established church authority to decide for others religious controversies, and to dictate rites and ceremonies. The applicant and the members of his church must also pay a pro rata portion of the expenses of supporting the ministers of the established church. This the Presbyterians and a branch of the Baptists did; but the “Separate Baptists,” whose influence was strongest against the continuance of the church-and-state system, refused to enter into any such agreement. Another prerequisite to receiving the certificate of qualification was an agreement “never by word or deed to seek to injure the said [established] church.” Having signed such an agreement, the signer was, of course, estopped from saying anything whatever against the belief or practise of that church. It is to the honor of the “Separate Baptists” that they refused to make any such agreement, and chose rather to suffer the consequences of their refusal rather than to throw away their right to follow the example of their Saviour in such matters. Many of the Baptists who were arrested during those times in Virginia were arrested for “speaking against the canons of the Church of England,” or for “reviling the bishops and clergy.” The Baptists held that it was their right to speak against any doctrines which they believed to be wrong, and to rebuke iniquity in high places as well as in low. That they had good occasion for rebuking the clergy of the established church of Virginia is shown by the records of the time. Dr. Hawks, in his “History of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia,” page 35, speaks thus of the clergy of the established church:— They could babble in a pulpit, roar in a tavern, exact from their parishioners, and rather by their dissoluteness destroy than feed the flock.
Bishop Meade, in “Old Parishes and Families of Virginia,” says of this class:— Many of them had been addicted to the race-field, the card-table, the theater—nay, more, to drunken revel.
The bishop of London himself said in reference to the recruits for the ministry of the Virginia colony:— Of those who are sent from hence, a great part are the Scotch or Irish, who can get no employment at home, and enter into the service more out of necessity than choice. Some others are willing to go abroad to retrieve either lost fortune or lost character.
How like is this to the lament of a South American Catholic bishop (published some months ago in these columns) regarding the loose morals of his priests. If there were no other proof that the union of church and state is contrary to the design of the Author of the gospel, the character of a large portion of the priests of such an establishment would be proof enough. The Virginia Assembly itself was compelled to take cognizance of these conditions in the year 1776, when the following law was passed:— Be it further enacted by this General Assembly, and by the authority thereof, that such ministers as shall become notoriously scandalous, by drunkenness, swearing, fornication, or other heinous and crying sins, and shall thereof be lawfully convicted, shall, for every such their heinous crime and wickedness,” etc.—Hening’s Statutes, Vol. II, page 384.5
In contradistinction to these stood the Baptist, Quaker, and Presbyterian ministers, exemplary in their lives, and thus winning the confidence of the people; and inasmuch as the Baptists were outspoken against the conditions and against the principles which made the conditions possible, they began to increase rapidly in spite of every method of oppression devised against them. One writer says of them:— While yielding a ready obedience to the civil authorities in all civil affairs, in matters of religion they recognized no Lord but Christ. They were truly apostolic in refusing to obey man rather than God.
Dr. Semple, in his “History of Virginia Baptists,” makes reference to the conditions prevailing at the time in the following words:— The great success and rapid increase of the Baptists in Virginia must be ascribed primarily to the power of God working with them. Yet it can not be denied but that there were subordinate and co-operating causes; one of which, and the main one, was the loose and immoral deportment of the established clergy, by which the people were left almost destitute of even the shadow of true religion. ’Tis true they had some outward forms of worship, but the essential principles of Christianity were not only not understood among them, but by many never heard of. Some of the cardinal precepts of morality were disregarded, and actions plainly forbidden by the New Testament were often proclaimed by the clergy as harmless and innocent, or, at worst, foibles of but little account. . . . It was not uncommon for the rectors of parishes to be men of the lowest morals. The Baptist preachers were, in almost every respect, the reverse of the established clergy.
These conditions were bound to have their effect upon those who were truly thoughtful and truly religious; and as the Baptists especially increased, the promulgation of their views regarding church and state relations also increased and the influence of the establishment began to decline. Thus the very conditions which the established church was responsible for helped to accomplish its ruin. Then, too, in the year 1773 came a crushing blow to the established clergy. They entered into a contest with the people over their salaries, and lost. Patrick Henry figured prominently in that contest, making a powerful speech (his maiden speech) in opposition to their claims. From this time on their power began to wane. Concerning this victory Chas. F. James, in “Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia,” says:— The Lord was marshaling his hosts for the liberation of this fair land from the dominion and curse of a priestly hierarchy, and the souls of men from bondage to human law and custom.
The next article will treat of the petitions and memorials of the Baptists and Presbyterians for their religious rights in Virginia, and the manner in which these petitions and memorials were received by the lawmakers.