The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America
By C. M. S.
Religious Liberty Established in Virginia
The first Presbyterian petition to the Virginia Assembly for relief from conditions unsatisfactory to them was presented in the year 1774, but it has no bearing upon the struggle for religious liberty. It seems rather to infringe upon the principles of both civil and religious liberty; for in this petition, complaint is made against the unsatisfactory plan of supporting their ministers by voluntary contributions, and they ask that an act be passed enabling them “to take and hold lands and slaves” for the purpose of helping them to support their pastors. The complaint against having to support their pastors by voluntary contributions, is a bid for compulsory support, or for a share in the moneys raised by the established church. Where the value of true religious liberty is not sensed, there is no assurance that even the principles of civil liberty will be understood or respected. Thus the above-named petitioners could in the same breath ask for a law compelling other men to support their system of worship, and for another law that would authorize and empower that church organization to make merchandise of the bodies of men and women, that the support of their pastors might be assured. A true interpretation of the gospel of Christ, a true sense of the religious rights of man, would have precluded the possibility of that church or any church coming to any legislative body with such a petition as that mentioned above. At the same time that church condemned its own course in a pastoral letter issued by the Presbyterian Synod, closing with these words:— There is no example in history, in which civil liberty was destroyed, and the rights of conscience preserved entire.”—Records of the Presbyterian Church, page 408. In the year 1774 the Presbytery of Hanover presented to the General Assembly, or House of Burgesses, a petition protesting against certain objectionable features in the Toleration bill then before that body. There is a vast difference between the position taken by the Presbytery of Hanover, as set forth in this petition, and the position taken by the same body in 1776, as set forth in their memorial to the General Assembly. In 1774 they were still bound by their agreement with Governor Gooch, and so could not say anything against the doctrines or the course of the clergy of the established church. Their compromise with the established church prevented their taking a strong, consistent stand in favor of soul freedom. Therefore we find them saying, in their petition of 1774:— “We are also willing that all our clergymen should be required to take the oaths of allegiance, etc., usually taken by civil officers, and to declare their belief of the Holy Scriptures. Likewise, as is required in the said bill, we shall willingly have all our churches and stated places for public worship registered.” It is thus shown that they were still willing the state should exercise a certain supervision over their religious practises. Taking the oaths “usually taken by civil officers” made their ministers in a sense civil officers,—a mingling of the secular and the sacred nowhere countenanced in the gospel, but rather subversive of the principles of Christ’s kingdom. They had not yet learned to distinguish between what belonged to God and what belonged to Cæsar, and their comprehension of their own religious rights was therefore hazy and uncertain. But notwithstanding this lack of perception in the matter of religious liberty, this same petition does contain certain declarations and certain demands which show that the light of soul freedom was beginning to shine forth among the Presbyterians of Virginia. They were willing that their places of meeting be registered, yet they made bold to declare: “We can not, consistent with the duties of our office, wholly confine our ministrations to any place or number of places,” because they must “follow the example of our blessed Saviour, ‘who went about doing good,’ and the example of his apostles, who not only ‘taught in the temple, but in every house where they came.’” They were willing their ministers take the “oaths of allegiance,” yet they protested against a condition of things which would make it necessary for them, in obeying the laws of Christ, to disobey the laws of their country. They were willing to obey the law which made it obligatory upon them to keep their church doors open during services; but they protested against the suspicion of disloyalty which it implied. They declared it their right to hold meetings at night when it seemed advantageous so to do; and declared their intention of continuing to baptize servants with or without the consent of their masters upon satisfactory evidence of such servants’ true penitence and faith in Christ. They also demanded from the civil authorities the same protection for their ministers that was afforded the clergymen of the established church, the same right to freedom of speech and of writing, and also the right “to have and enjoy the full and free exercise of our religion, without molestation or danger of incurring any penalty whatsoever.” When the colonies had declared their independence of the mother country, the Presbyterians were no longer bound by the agreement made respecting their attitude toward the Church of England. Out from under the jurisdiction of that state, they were out from under the jurisdiction of the church which was its representative and agent. It was then that the Presbyterians began to assert the real and vital principles of religious liberty, as voiced in the memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover in 1776, which will be quoted later. In the meantime the Baptists had been industriously laboring for the spread of religious liberty principles, and had even come to hope that the “establishment,” as the state church had come to be termed, might be actually overthrown, and unrestricted liberty of conscience be enjoyed by all. To this end they circulated petitions vigorously among the people, and to aid in accomplishing this purpose, the Baptists of Virginia held a general council in May, 1775, at Manokin Town. Out of this meeting grew the petition to the Virginia Convention, praying that “the church establishment should be abolished, and religion be left to stand upon its own merits.” A committee of three was appointed to attend the convention and present the address of the Baptists. This address, which was adopted, and filed among the state papers of Virginia, contemplated two objects—the freedom of the colony from British rule, and the freedom of religion from all government trammels and direction.” In this address the Baptists asked that, in view of the impending struggle with England, their ministers be granted “the liberty of preaching to the troops at convenient times, without molestation or abuse.” This portion of the address elicited the following resolution, which was passed by the Convention:— Resolved, That it be an instruction to the commanding officers of the regiment or troops to be raised, that they permit dissenting clergymen to celebrate divine worship, and to preach to the soldiers, or exhort from time to time, as the various operations of the military service may permit, for the ease of such scrupulous consciences as may not choose to attend divine service as celebrated by the chaplain. “This,” says Dr. Hawks, “it is believed, was the first step made toward placing the clergy of all denominations upon an equal footing in Virginia,” and it is certain that it would not have been accomplished as easily as it was but for the impending struggle with the mother country, in which the leaders felt the need of the help of the dissenters. Then came the Revolution; but before the Declaration of Independence was signed at Philadelphia, the Virginia Convention adopted a “Declaration of Rights,” the sixteenth article of which, as reported by the committee, reads as follows:— That religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force nor violence, and, therefore, that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration in the exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, unpunished and unrestrained by the magistrates, unless, under the color of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards5each other. There was one friend of religious liberty in this convention who saw in that article of the Bill of Rights a phraseology that was inconsistent with true religious liberty. It was James Madison, a young man but recently graduated from college. When the bill came before the convention, he proposed an amendment to that article which would make it read as follows:— That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. Between the two there is a world of difference. The first would permit of an established church relegating to itself perquisites and privileges which are denied to other organizations, and merely tolerating other forms of faith and practise. The other puts all men upon an equality, religiously as well as civilly, and frees the souls of men from the chains of spiritual slavery. Historians have asked the question, “Where did the stripling [Madison] learn the distinction between religious freedom and religious toleration? It had not then begun to be recognized in treatises on religion and morals.” Dr. John C. Long says he learned it “from his Baptist neighbors, whose wrongs he had witnessed, and who persistently taught that the civil magistrate had nothing to do with matters of religion.” It is quite possible that the Baptist committee of three sent up to this convention for the very purpose of lobbying in favor of the true principles of religious liberty should be given a large share of the credit for the wording of article sixteen as finally passed. It was the Bill of Rights and this particular section of that bill in which the Baptists were specially interested, and we may be sure that if they did anything at all during the convention, it would have been in behalf of an amendment to that section. That they felt they had accomplished something is seen from the following reference to their work by Dr. Howell in his account of the General Association of the Baptists for 1776. He says:— Its commissioners to the State convention, Mr. Walker, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Roberts, reported, giving a full account of their mission, and the extraordinary success with which God had crowned their endeavors. They received the grateful thanks and earnest congratulations of all their brethren. The Baptists had the best of reasons for opposing that clause of article sixteen which alludes to the disturbance of “the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society.” Many of them had been arrested as disturbers of the peace because they had been preaching the gospel. They had always pleaded for liberty and equality, and mere toleration was opposed to both. Though they produced no historic document like the memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover, they pursued a consistent course throughout the struggle for soul freedom in Virginia, and unquestionably caused to be woven into that “Bill of Rights” principles which were finally incorporated into the Constitution of the United States and made it a lamp to lighten other nations along the road to religious liberty. “Chambers’ Library of Universal Knowledge,” Vol. IX, page 334, speaks thus of the great work accomplished in the passage of Article XVI of the Bill of Rights. “It marks an era in legislative history, and is believed to be the first provision ever embodied in any constitution or law for the security of absolute equality before the law to all religious opinions.” We would not take from Madison the honor due him in championing such a cause; but it is befitting that those who taught, and struggled, and suffered for weary years should have the credit due them for the work accomplished and the victories won.