THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

IN MASSACHUSETTS.

A paper read at a meeting of the Society, October 21, 1901.

BY EBENEZER BAILEY.

The best and truest history is not the relation of wars, the enumeration of battles and sieges, the acts of kings and emperors. It is the study of the social life of a people, an analysis of causes, as well as a statement of effects. As a modifier of social life, and as a moving force. in the history of nations, religion has been of vast importance, and nowhere has it been more powerful and so interlocked with all the other state building forces as in the history of Massachusetts during the first two centuries of its political life.

It was a desire to found a state where they could carry out ideas of a biblical government and a righteous community, which led the Puritans to Massachusetts Bay. They did not seek religious freedom, but they did seek to found a religious state. At the time of their arrival there were various settlers along the coast whose religious standards were varied, and, in some cases, were of very little account. These people were in a few months called to a common meeting place by the Puritan authorities, who proceeded to make known to them their future policy and method of government. A paper containing certain articles was given them to sign, "the purport of which was that the tenor of God's word was to be the basis upon which the law, civil and ecclesiastical, was to be administered." Banishment was the penalty for not signing. Four years later it was decided that "no men shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of

the same." It is not surprising that Mr. William Blackstone, who had settled within the limits of Boston, should say, "I came from England because I did not like the Lords Bishops, but I can't join with you because I would not be under the Lords Brethren,"-and he moved into the wilderness.

It was not long before many of the new settlers found that they could not endure the autocratic government of the magistrates, and there was a large emigration westward to the Connecticut. All but eleven families left Cam1695-37 bridge for Hartford between 1835 and 1837. There was also a migration from Roxbury, under the leadership of William Pynchon, to Springfield. This Pynchon wrote a book on the atonement, which was publicly burned in the market place in Boston.

Not only did the Puritan leaders believe in this autocratic kind of government on its religious side, but in a purely political way they were far from believing in democracy. Said John Cotton, "Democracy is no fit government, either for State or for Commonwealth; and John Winthrop wrote, "The best part is always the least, and of that part the wiser is always the lesser." Another thing was said by Winthrop, which probably reflected the sentiments of the magistrates and ministers. "The safety of the Commonwealth is the supreme law, and if, in the interests of that safety it should be found necessary to renounce the authority of Parliament, the colonists would be justified in doing so." He meant that government by Puritan church members was necessary to the safety of the Commonwealth.

Here, then, on Massachusetts soil, was a government set up, which not only recognized a state church, but the government was the church, and the rule of law and the standard of conduct was the Bible. The magistrates and the ministers were to enforce the word of God, and if no one had ever challenged their infallibility as to its interpretation, their ideal might have been realized without a struggle, but there grew up among the people and even among the ministers, a tendency to controversy on points of theology, and a habit of private interpretation of the Scriptures. This was really the one weakness of Protes

tantism as against Catholicism, and it was especially the weakness of Congregationalism. The Puritan leaders felt it to be a necessity to strengthen their weakest point.

The controversy with Anne Hutchinson, who maintained that most of the ministers and magistrates were under a covenant of works, while she and her followers were under a covenant of faith, brought the authorities to the point of persecution. The points around which the conflict raged were such fine theological ones as to seem almost ludicrous to us. Winthrop said that Mrs. Hutchinson "brought into New England two dangerous errors: first that the person of the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person; and, second that no sanctification can help to evidence to us our justification." At any rate she converted all the women and most of the men of the Boston church, to the great disgust of its pastor. The magistrates and the ministers succeeded in having her cast out of the church and banished from the colony.

Of the persecutions of the Quakers and of Roger Williams it need only be said that they were the logical result of the theory of government which had been set up. That is, a government in which heresy was destructive of authority. It was believed that if men of weak minds were allowed to interpret the Bible in a different way from the magistrates, they were overturning the foundations of government, which was founded on the correct interpretation of the word of God; and the safety of the government required their immediate suppression. The success of their little Commonwealth really required many of the harsh measures which were used.

The theory that we are right and everybody else is wrong is not, however, a practical working theory for public or private life. It may do to hold it, but it is disastrous to live up to it. Our Puritan ancestors were before long obliged to relax their restrictions on citizenship. Given an intelligent, self-reliant people, such as were the Puritans, men who were familiar with the stimulating literature of the English Bible, so favorable to independent thought, and no man-made system of theology could long hold them all in its bonds. So it happened that there were

in a generation or two many who did not wish to subscribe to all the tenets of the state church. At one time nearly four-fifths of the adult males in Massachusetts were disfranchised because they could not participate in the Lord's Supper. Why should men of good character and religious principle be denied political rights? It could not be allowed that men should vote who were not church members, but this must either be done or the doors to church membership must be thrown more widely open. They chose the latter alternative, and allowed all persons of good moral character, who had been baptized in infancy, to be considered members of the church, although they were not allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper. This was called the "Halfway Covenant," and did not come about without great opposition. With the accession of William III. to the English throne, and a new charter, political privileges were still further enlarged-no qualification of church membership being required for voting. A property qualification was substituted.

The "Halfway Covenant," the influence of the French and Indian wars, the increasing interest in trade and commerce, and a natural reaction from the intense spirit. ual exaltation of earlier times, brought about a general indifference and dullness of religious feeling in the churches. It was felt that a great spiritual awakening was needed; and, indeed, a great revival of religion occurred, spreading throughout the state about the year 1735. This was largely due to the influence and preaching of the great Jonathan Edwards, who laid the foundation of the Calvinistic theology of New England. About five years later the great Methodist preacher of England, George Whitefield, came to New England. He preached to crowds in Boston, Worcester and other towns. Unlike Wesley, he believed in Calvinism, and he had the sympathy of the New England churches. The following is an extract from his diary at the time of his visit to Worcester, in company with Gov. Belcher, in 1740:

"Wednesday, Oct. 15.-Perceived the Governor to be more affection. ate than ever. After morning prayer he took me by myself, kissed me, wept, and exhorted me to go on stirring up the ministers; 'for,' said

he, 'reformation must begin at the house of God.' As we were going to meeting, says he, 'Mr. Whitefield, do not spare me any more than the ministers, no, not the chief of them.' I preached in the open air to some thousands. The word fell with weight, indeed, it carried all before it. After sermon the Governor said to me, 'I pray God I may ap ply what has been said to my own heart. Pray, Mr. Whitefield, that I may hunger and thirst after righteousness.' Dinner being ended, with tears in his eyes, he kissed and took leave of me. Oh that we may meet in heaven! I have observed that I have had greater power than ordinary whenever the Governor has been at public worship. A sign, I hope, that the Most High intends effectively to bring him home and place him at his right hand. Preached at Leicester in the afternoon, with some, though not so much power as in the morning."

*

*

*

*

This great religious awakening in New England, while it stirred up and strengthened the orthodox in the churches, was the cause of a stricter line being drawn between the two theological parties, the Calvinists and the Arminians. Harvard college was becoming Arminian, while Yale was the stronghold of Calvinism, and these revivals of religion strengthened both parties. The forces were at work for a dissolution of church and state.

Political events were soon forcing the colonies into the Revolution, and theology was pushed for awhile to the background. At this time the majority in most of the churches and of the parishes were Calvinistic. In 1785 a portion of the church in Worcester wished to settle the Rev. Aaron Bancroft, who held Arminian or Unitarian views, but the parish refused. A new church and society was formed which settled Mr. Bancroft, but there were but two ministers in the county whom it was deemed safe to invite to the ordination, the Rev. Timothy Harrington of Lancaster, and Rev. Zabdiel Adams of Lunenburg.

It was about this time that the Rev. Thomas Goss of Bolton had the misfortune to become unsatisfactory to a majority of his church, and they proceeded to dismiss him without a council. This was not to the liking of the other ministers, as it was an unusual proceeding, and they called upon their churches to withhold fellowship from the Bolton church. The members of that church determined to find out whether their excommunication was effectual,