Had to Belong to the Church to Be a Citizen
By J. O. C.
Early Struggles for Religious Freedom in Our Country
Colonists United Church and State — Banished Dissenters — Is the Danger of Persecution All Past? The New England Pilgrims established their government under a charter from the English crown. Remaining in fear of the episcopal system under which they had been so rigorously treated in their native land, they fully determined that in their newly adopted Paradise, no place should be found for such hated measures. Having caught, however, but a veiled glimpse of conscience liberty, they saw its bearings only as related to themselves. Their supposed aim at religious peace was therefore so imperfectly understood that they bound closely together in civil compact the church and the commonwealth, in a centered effort to guard their own special interests; hence an attack on one meant an assault on the other. Had to Belong to the Church to Be a Citizen
The result was that no one could become a freeman of their colony unless he became a member of their church, and church-membership was forfeited by a single breath of doctrinal diversity. The church and the state becoming thus identical, it naturally followed that all legislation and jurisdiction was10planted in the power of those whose religious views were eminently orthodox. Under this condition of things, a young minister, Roger Williams by name, appeared on the scene. He, like the New England Puritans, was a pronounced Separatist, and for this reason, like themselves, had been obliged to leave England in the hope of securing religious peace. His keen perception at once detected the fatal flaw in the instrument of government adopted by the Pilgrims, and he immediately began an attempt to correct it by declaring that civil law had, by right, no jurisdiction over the conscience. His action so aroused the religious instincts of the governing body, that steps were at once taken to silence the voice of criticism, by driving Mr. Williams from the country. It was decided to deport him to England; and upon his being ordered to embark for that country, he fled to the forest in bitter winter weather, where he might have perished but for the kindly assistance rendered by a friendly tribe of Indians, who gave him a residence near them at the place where the city of Providence is now located. The point at issue in this relation, and one over which there has been much dispute, is, Was the action against Roger Williams in the nature of religious persecution, or was it simply a civil process in the interest of civic unity? The contention of the Puritans and their defenders has been that the operation against Mr. Williams was not for his religious belief, but for his attitude toward their charter of commonwealth, which, it was claimed, involved their colony with the English government. But the fact that the rules of the church controlled the operation of their government charter, and that the pressure brought against him was by the action of the church element, must cause one to draw the conclusion that his religious ideas of church and state separation were the real though unacknowledged reason for his banishment. It was the fear of the English monarchs of that day that freedom of religious opinion would undermine their civil authority, and their hatred was therefore turned toward the Puritans so fiercely as eventually to drive them to America. Yet, as soon as these persecuted ones found themselves in the position of rulers, they in turn took the same view of government, and interpreted their charter accordingly. To them, religious dissent and political sedition were of the same order. Their little commonwealth had been built up under great difficulties, through positive differences of reformed opinions, and they therefore feared that its solidarity would be endangered by too much freedom of thought, especially if openly expressed; hence their conduct toward Roger Williams, and the Antinomians under the leadership of Anne Hutchinson. Shall We Go Back to the “Divine Right”?
The lesson to be learned from this history of our government beginnings is, how to prevent its repetition, from any or every standpoint of logic. Should present movements in behalf of a near alliance between religious thought and governmental regulations succeed, conditions similar to those existing in earlier times, but as much worse in effect as they would be more widespread, would be sure to follow. Besides, should America again enter upon such a régime, she would put herself back in the role of government by divine right, thus securing the prerogative of choosing the form of religion her subjects might exercise. But in taking this position, she would also arrogate to herself the honor of Heaven’s vicegerent; for since liberty of religious thought is a direct gift from God and is in no wise dependent on human government grants, any civil power undertaking to regulate any form of religious doctrine or observance not in conflict with the equal rights of others, blasphemously usurps the attributes of the most high God, the Author of life and its prerogatives. On general lines, no one of unbiased intelligence will attempt to contradict this conclusion. But when religious ambition for civil rule steps in, nearly every principle of human rights is ignored, while deep-laid plans are set up by which to realize overweening aspirations. Ostensibly the ground for such movements is that the church may have better facilities for fulfilling its heaven-born mission; in other words, that it may more directly unite the forces of earth in behalf of setting up God’s kingdom among men. But it must be clear, to any logical mind, that for the civil power to unite with the church in its heaven-called work, would require that the civil officials who would be set to enforce the regulations for such an enterprise must affiliate themselves with the church to carry out its decrees. In that case, what would necessarily be the fate of those who could not conscientiously harmonize with the demands of such a church-controlled government, and had the courage to say so? If it were desired to procure an indictment against such, the process would be as easy as in the days of Puritan New England to do so on the plea of resistance to civil law, rather than upon that of religious opinions; for to oppose the religious sentiment of the country would be, as in the history of Roger Williams, to oppose the law upholding it. It is hardly necessary to add that all such would be obliged to flee the country, or suffer persecution for independence of thought. Will Our Civilization Save Us?
In reply to this, it may be said that civilization has passed the point of intolerance that would permit it to enter upon such a régime. How is it that people who urge such claims do not learn of the religious trend of the day? Do they not know that the lines are already set for this very work? If not, let them read the published design of Protestant church federation, by which twenty million people are represented as desiring to grasp the reigns of government in behalf of church betterment. Why do they not learn of the work done by National Reformers and Sunday leaguers for government sustention of church forms, especially for Sunday observance? Let these movements succeed, and nothing will prevent natural bigotry from asserting its power to bring again the conditions that followed the rise to sovereignty of the Pilgrim Fathers. It is well to provide against this repetition of events, by an intelligent resistance of these movements before it is too late to apply the remedy.
J. O. C.