Church and State in Early New England by J. O. CORLISS

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 28, 1908

Church and State in Early New England

By J. O. CORLISS

J. O. CORLISS

The dominant religious sentiment in Great Britain in the seventeenth century was fairly expressed by one Robert Baillie, a Scotch commissioner, when contemplating the growth, and increasing influence of the Puritans in Parliament. Said he: “Liberty of conscience, and toleration of all and any religion, is so prodigious an impiety that this religious Parliament can not but abhor the very meaning of it.”

This spirit of intolerance finally drove many of the minority in religious thought to seek refuge from persecution. This was found in the wilderness of America. But strange as it may seem, those pilgrims, who had become such through religious intolerance, sought to establish in their new home the same sort of government that had made them desolate wanderers from their native heath. They had not yet learned that to put religious beliefs under the direction of civil government must work hardship to those in the minority.

They believed that their sufferings in England had been due alone to the enforcement of an erroneous faith, and since their own views were certainly orthodox, no harm could possibly follow a legal demand for all to profess these, because such enforced uniformity would insure peace and harmony in the community.

The strong desire of these men was to found a religious commonwealth in their adopted land, which would in every way harmonize with their idea of the requirements of God’s law. To have any other form of government was sure, they thought, to bring upon them the frown of high Heaven. So their duty seemed clear to exclude every one from their midst who did not view religious regulations as they did.

The Puritan commonwealth of early Massachusetts was thoroughly ecclesiastical. This placed all civil power in the hands of the church, which was used wholly in behalf of the church, and for the exaltation of its ministers. The year 1631 saw a statute enacted that no man could be entitled to the freedom of the body politic unless he was a member of the church.—Massachusetts Records, 1, 87. More than this no one could be a voter who was not a communicant of the Congregational Church; for this body was in control of all affairs in the colony. So justice was dispensed in accordance with that church’s understanding of the Bible.

It needs no great power of discernment to comprehend what must have befallen those who dared to differ from that church in religious thought, or in any other line, for that matter. The trial of the Quaker, Wenlock Christison in 1661, well illustrates the point. Both the governor (John Endicott), and his deputy were present at the trial. The prisoner was told: “Unless you will renounce your religion, you shall surely die.” Refusing to change his religion, Christison asked: “By what law will you put me to death?” The answer was, “We have a law, and by our law you are to die.” “Have you power to make laws repugnant to the laws of England?” the governor was asked. Upon answering in the negative, Christison said, “I never heard nor read of any law that was in England to hang Quakers.” The governor replied, “There was a law to hang Jesuits.” Christison returned answer, “If you put me to death, it is not because I go under the name of a Jesuit, but of a Quaker. I appeal to the laws of my own nation.” The only response to this was that the prisoner was “in their hands, had broken their law, and they would try him.”—Sewell, pages 278, 279.

The passion of bigotry which could so coolly override every natural right of men, was certainly satanic. Yet the preachers of that day never wearied of exhorting the magistrates to destroy the enemies of the church. In an election sermon delivered by Mr. Shepherd of Charlestown, he said: “Men’s lusts are sweet to them, and they would not be disturbed or disquieted in their sin. Hence there be so many such as cry up toleration boundless and libertinism so as to order total and perpetual confinement of the sword of the civil magistrate unto its scabbard; a notion that is evidently destructive to this people, and to the public liberty, peace, and prosperity of any instituted churches under heaven.”—“Eye Salve,” page 21.

Such sentiments constantly maintained, could result in nothing less than savage laws against dissenting sects. One Ursula Cole was sentenced to pay five pounds (a sum now equivalent to one hundred dollars or more), or be whipped for saying that “she had as lief hear a cat mew” as to hear Mr. Shepherd preach.—Frothingham, in “History of Charlestown,” page 208. No one was permitted to join any church without first acquainting the magistrates and the elders of a majority of the churches within a certain district.—Massachusetts Records, 1, 168. Further, a law was enacted in 1679, forbidding the building of a meeting-house without leave from the freemen of the town, or the general court.—Massachusetts Records, 5, 213.

Death was the penalty for blasphemy, for denying God, or for reproaching the prevalent religion; that is to say, the faith of the dominant religious faction.—Massachusetts Records, 2, 98. Special punishments were reserved for Baptists, Quakers, and the like, consisting of imprisonment, branding, whipping, mutilation, banishment, and hanging. All this was the logical fruit of the following propositions: “All revelation is contained in the Bible. To interpret this understandingly, a technical training is necessary, which only the recognized clergy have had. No one, therefore, can define God’s will, but this trained ministry.” What a gross breach of law it would have been then for any one outside of the “regular” clergy to dare affirm that God could open his will to the “untrained” mind. But with the whip in their hand, the clergy of that day could easily hold themselves up as a superior race, and have no fear of their dignity being divided with another.

Similar has been the history of every age wherein the church has guided civil jurisprudence. Those who promote such methods see that their own claims are met, and so are satisfied, at the expense of others’ discomfort. But why should one man, or any set of men, undertake to manufacture a legal conscience for others whom God has endowed with the same mental powers, and natural rights, as he has those who seek to be dictators?—There can be but one reason, and that is an overweening desire to be recognized as first among their fellows, as did the clergy of Massachusetts Colony.

It is begging the question to say that those men were low down in the scale of being. The leading one in that régime, Increase Mather, was president of Harvard College, one of the leading seats of learning in cultured New England. Human nature doubtless is the same now as then. Given the same opportunity now as then, history surely would repeat itself. It is, therefore, better to cease from meddling with that which can bring only strife and contention.

Mountain View, Cal.