Church and state in Massachusetts from 1740 to 1833; a chapter in the history of the development of individual freedom

Front matter

PRINCETON, N. J.

PURCHASED BY THE MRS. ROBERT LENOX KENNEDY CHURCH HISTORY FUND.

Meyer, Jacob Conrad.

Contents

“TIIl The Anglican Church in Massachusetts before TES AUOVOIULION 20. con We cene SoG ae seat lees 69

IV Revolution and Reorganization in Massachusetts. 90 V_ Religion, Law, and Politics from 1789 to 1815.... 183

VI Schism in the Congregational Church. Unitari- Pins Tersge PTINICAM ANS s..\. ews annie aaa ee 160

Preface

“Liberty is the delicate fruit of a mature civilization.... At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities,...’’ LorD ACTON.

This study is an attempt to trace the development of individual freedom in a limited area for a given period. The investigation is, in a sense, a product of the World War. During that struggle the government of the United States, in common with the other governments that were involved in the struggle, limited the field of individual freedom. This trenching upon the freedom of the individual seemed to many thoughtful persons to be a sign that old landmarks were being removed. A fear was expressed that the United States, while engaged in a struggle against military autocracy, might be led to adopting the methods of that autocracy.

There had been a time in America when the state asserted the right to coerce men in their religious activities. Whether men were religiously inclined or not they were compelled to attend the religious worship. The majority coerced the minority. How was the American ideal of a free church developed and popularized? Who was responsible for the change from an established church to a free church? These questions led to the investigation which resulted in this study. Massachusetts was chosen because it seemed to offer the materials for such a study. It was the last state to accept the American ideal of a free church. Miss Susan M. Reed had written a monograph on the church and state relations in Massachusetts from 1690 to 1740; the period during which toleration was introduced. The later period from 1740 to 1833 had not fared so well at the hands of historians. To me the later period seemed the more important because it was during that period that the fight for a free church was made.

Much of the literature on the subject is controversial. My aim has been to be just to all individuals and groups concerned. I can not hope to have attained perfection in this respect. It would probably be fitting to dedicate this investigation to the conservatives who were determined to retain vii

PREFACE the good which they saw in their institutions, and to the liberals who strove for a higher ideal, to make their commonwealth second to none in the matter of religious freedom. In both groups there were many sincere persons who built as well as they knew how.

My thanks are due to many teachers and fellow-students in four universities —Indiana State, Chicago, Harvard, and Western Reserve. Librarians and archivists also played their part in the search for the materials. It seems best not to mention all of these by name, but a few deserve special mention. Professor Marcus W. Jernegan of the University of Chicago and Professor Samuel Eliot Morison of Harvard University offered many valuable suggestions. In the preparation of the manuscript for the press I encroached upon the time, patience, and experience of Professor Henry E. Bourne of Western Reserve University. For any errors of fact or of form of expression my wife, Esther Steiner, shares the responsibility with me.

My thanks are also due to Western Reserve University for making it possible that the monograph should appear as a university publication under the Francis G. Butler fund.

JACOB C. MEYER.

Western Reserve University, May 20, 1930.

viii

Chapter I Introduction

At the time when the Pilgrims came to Cape Cod every country of Western Europe had some form of an established church. The monarchs of that time regarded religion and public worship as affairs of the state. Whatever authority had been lost by the pope in this respect had been seized by the rulers of the national states. Those few subjects who claimed the right to follow the dictates of conscience in matters pertaining to religion and worship were looked upon as dangerous to the political and social order. They were the extreme radicals of their time. The principle adopted in the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 made the religion of the ruling prince the religion of the state. That principle was not materially modified in the Peace of Westphaliain 1648. The Pilgrims were Separatists; they had left the established church in England; they firmly believed that the individual should be given more freedom in religious matters than was permitted in England at that time. On the other hand, they were not fully in accord with the views of the Anabaptists who believed in the complete separation of church and state... Their famous pastor, John Robinson, brought out this fact in his argument against his friend, John Smith, who contended

“That the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion or matters of conscience to force and compel men to this or that form of 1 For the beliefs of the Anabaptists see Egli, Die Ziiricher Wiedertaufer zur Reformationszeit; Neff, Gedenkschrift zum 400 Jahrigen Jubilaum der Mennoniten oder Taufgesinnten, 1525-1925.

religion or doctrine; but to leave Christian religion free to every man’s conscience and to handle only civil transgressions . si

Robinson maintained that magistrates

“have no power against the laws, doctrines and religion of Christ: but for the same, if their power be of God they may use it lawfully and against the contrary.’

Obviously the crux of the matter is what is for and what is against “the laws, doctrines and religion of Christ.” If it be granted that the ecclesiastical authorities in England had the right to determine the line of demarcation, they could easily defend their action by which they drove the Pilgrims into exile.

The Puritans who founded the Bay Colony in Massachusetts were not opposed to an established church. They wanted to reform or purify the Anglican church, but were not opposed to its polity. They could consistently make the purified church the established church? of their colony. They came to seek liberty for themselves rather than to found an asylum for all the oppressed.

The different theories of the relation between ecclesiastical and civil affairs at that time may be illustrated by referring to four religious groups. The Anglicans believed in the established church as it was; the Puritans believed in an established church,

2 Burgess, John Robinson, 152-154 and chapters xiii, xv, and xviii; Hubbard, History of New England, 93-97; Smith, Religious Education in Massachusetts, 2-8. The premise that the power of magistrates is of God is taken from the New Testament, Romans xiii.

8 The established church in Massachusetts was the Congregational church. The other denominations were dissenters. The use of the word ‘“‘orthodox’”’ led to controversy. The Anglicans maintained that in legal documents it meant their church, whereas the Congregationalists maintained it meant the established church.

but they thought the Anglican church needed some reforms; the Separatists thought the Anglican church was like a vessel in which the process of decay had ) gone so far that it was better to rear a new structure, although they were not agreed on the details of the new structure; the Anabaptists demanded complete freedom of conscience which could be attained only by the separation of church and state. As has been indicated, the Pilgrims were Separatists who were less radical than the Anabaptists.*

The purpose of this chapter is to outline the interrelations of religion and politics in Massachusetts from the time of the first settlements by European peoples until the middle of the eighteenth century. An understanding of that development is essential to the student of the period after 1750.

Because of their belief, the Pilgrims were unable to win the approval of King James I to establish a colony in his realm. Prominent members of the Virginia Company did, however, assure them that the king would tolerate them, even though he did not officially sanction their scheme. They finally decided to make the venture on the basis of that assurance. By way of consolation, Bradford wrote:

“ther would be no great certainty in furder confirmation . . . for if after wards ther should be a purpose or desire to wrong them, though they had a seale as broad as a house flore, it would not serve the turne;....’®

4 Any person who demanded an extension of religious liberty in Massachusetts was likely to be called an Anabaptist. To call a person an Anabaptist was about the equivalent of calling one a Bolshevik now. See Neff, 65. Anabaptists were persecuted by Protestants as well as Catholics. The idea of a free church was politically and religiously heretical. are "

5 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, 50-58.

Having no official approval for their colony, the Pilgrims were in Plymouth on their good behavior. Since there were many influential people in the mother country who were opposed to the Pilgrim experiment in radicalism, the indefinite status of the colony was the cause of no little anxiety on the part of the leaders in Plymouth. Some of the opponents of the colony, as members of the company of London adventurers, seem to have been responsible for “blocking the way for Robinson,” the pastor of the Pilgrims in Holland. At all events Robinson was never permitted to go to the Pilgrim colony. The adventurers sent John Lyford, who was characterized by the agent for the Pilgrims as “none of the most eminent and rare,” to act as the pastor of the colony. Then, to add insult to injury, these opponents listened to the charges brought by disgruntled settlers who accused the Pilgrims of irregularities—heresies, diversities in religion, lack of tolerance for those who were not Separatists, want of sacraments, and neglect of family duties.®

The purpose of these accusations, on the part of Lyford at least, is best expressed in his own language in a letter to London. He wrote:

“ve Leyden company (Mr. Robinson and ye rest) must still be kepte back, or els all will be spoyled.*; 73...’

His plan was to check the migration of Separatists and to encourage Puritans and Anglicans to go to

6 Ibid., 169 ff. and 182 ff.; Burgess, John Robinson, ch. xxiv. It is interesting to note that the Pilgrims, who were probably the most tolerant people in the king’s realm, were blamed for intolerance. Lyford did not remain in the colony very long because of the mutual lack of confidence between him and the leaders of the colony.

7 Burgess, 278; Bradford, 186.

Plymouth in numbers sufficiently large to assimilate the little band of Pilgrims. Although he and his supporters were able to keep Robinson from coming to the colony, their plan in general was frustrated. It taxed the ability of Bradford and his associates to meet the charges. They were blamed for intolerance and for too much toleration at the same time, for not observing the sacraments, when the only reason for not observing them was the fact that their pastor was not permitted to come to the colony. Bradford wrote:

“the more is our wrong, that our pastor is kept from us by these mens means, and then reproach us for it when they have done.’’8

In spite of the efforts of their opponents, the Pilerims refused to accept an established church for at least one generation after they came to Plymouth.® Replying to their accusers in 1625, the authorities stated their philosophy in the following beautiful passage:

“The French may erre, we may erre, and other churches may erre, and doubtless doe in many circumstances. That honour therfore belongs only to the infallible word of God, and pure Testamente of Christ, to be propounded and followed as the only rule and pattern for direction herein to all churches and Christians. And it is too great arrogancie for any man, or church to thinke that he or they have so sounded the word of God to the bottome, as precislie to sett down the church discipline, without error in substance or circumstance, as that no other without blame

8 Burgess, 275; Bradford, 175, 186, 193-194. Bradford saw through Lyford’s plan to ‘‘have such a number provided as might oversway them (the Pilgrims) hear.’’

® Green, The Voluntary Maintenance of Ministers etc.

may digress or differ in anything from the same.,’’!°

It was the pressure brought to bear upon the leaders in Plymouth by the authorities in the neighboring colonies, together with the coming of the Quakers, that finally drove the second generation to the adoption of a more rigid ecclesiastical system. The other members!! of the New England Confederation of 16438 were in favor of uniformity in religion. The example of Rhode Island, with its conglomerate population, made these other members all the more zealous in their efforts to keep themselves unspotted from what they considered the evils of religious liberty. The leaders in Plymouth reluctantly accepted an established church when the only alternative seemed to be ostracism by the other members of the Confederacy. The second generation was unwilling or unable to maintain the advanced position which had been taken and held by their progenitors. Whether they could have maintained it is not for the historian to determine. At all events, by 1691 the legal relations between church and state were practically the same in Plymouth as in the Bay Colony.!”

11The other three members were New Haven, Connecticut, and Massachusetts Bay. Rhode Island was not acceptable because of its freedom in religious affairs.

122 The Compact, Charter and Lawes of New Plymouth (Brigham edition), 99-104, 113-114, 122-128, 180, 142-148, 152-153, 157-158, 160, 187, 190, 206, 219, 247ff.; Records of the Colony of New Plymouth (Shurtleff edition), V, 59, 98; Elliott, New England History, I, 1138; Wertenbaker, The First Americans, 102-108. The Quakers came about 1657. It was at that time that the laws against them began to appear on the records. In 1660 a law was enacted which provided for fines for overseers of any ‘‘Squadron’’ who neglected ‘‘to take notice of and present a true list of such as are defective in bringing their armes to the meeting house on the Lord’s day.’’ In 1661 several men, including a marshal, were appointed to attend a Quaker meeting ‘‘to use their best endeavours by argument and discourse to con-

The plans for the support of worship in the Bay Colony were only partially completed when the colonists left the mother country. The method which was later quite generally adopted was the result of practical experience. In 1638 the General Court ordered a tax to be levied on those who did not contribute voluntarily for the support of the minister of the Gospel. This marked the beginning of what might be called a mixed system — partly voluntary and partly compulsory.!* Six years later the commissioners of the United Colonies, which formed the New England Confederation, advised the several colonies to adopt a general tax for the support of worship. The delegates from Plymouth desired further consideration in the matter. In 1647 the Bay Colony enacted a law which empowered the towns to lay a tax for the purpose of providing residences for their ministers. This again was to be enforced only upon those who did not contribute voluntarily. During the next decade the General Court authorized the county courts to compel all the towns within their several jurisdictions to provide for the support of their ministers of the Gospel. In 1660 the same courts were ordered to purge the churches within their several vince and hinder them; .. .’’ When Dartmouth, Swansey and Eastham refused to levy “thé tak “f6r2eHen@6st@i:war they were threatened with a fine. In 1671, 1672 arid*t685 Dartmouth neglected to collect the tax for the support of a religious teacher. In 1685 it was ‘Ordered that Dartmouth pay this yeare twenty pounds to be raysed according to law for the encouragement of som to preach the word of God among them: . .”’

13 Winthrop, History of New England from 1630 to 1649, I, 288. In 1637 ‘‘There was a motion made also by the governor, that, whereas there was difference among the churches about the maintenance of their ministers, it might be agreed what way was most agreeable to the rule of the gospel; but the elders did not like to deal in that, lest it should be said, that this assembly was gathered for their private advantage.’’

jurisdictions of unorthodox teaching. By that time the civil power was employed to compel the inhabitants to support their ministers, to build habitations for them, and to supervise the religious instruction.!*

Before the adoption of the Half-Way Covenant in 1662 the rite of baptism was reserved for those whose parents were members in full standing in the church. In order to become a member a candidate was re-. quired to relate, in public, his experience in regeneration. ‘Those who were already members voted on the admission of new members. Since only church members could vote, even in political affairs, admission into the church meant, among other things, qualifying for the suffrage in political affairs. The Synod of 1662 decided that children of unregenerate parents might receive baptism. In the next generation, — therefore, more of the adult males were potential voters. This fact in itself would probably have wrought a marked change in religious and political matters because there were many who had been opposed to some phases of the establishment who, previously, had had no voice in such matters. Moreover, the restored Stuarts began to interfere in the church and state relations in the colony. Charles II and James II intended to get recognition, and possibly primacy, for the Anglican church in the colony. The opening wedge came when, during the Andros regime, liberty of conscience was demanded for all Anglicans.?®

14 Bay Colony Records, I, 68, 73, 82, 216, 240-241; IT, 217; IV (i), 199, 286, 417; Watertown Records I, 1-2; Acts of the Commissioners of the United Colonies of New England, in Plymouth Colony Records, I, 19-20; Green, The Voluntary Maintenance of Ministers etc.

15 On the Half-Way Covenant see Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America, 487-489; Dunning, Congregationalism in America, 180- 181; Dexter, Congregationalism, 468-472; Clark, Congregational

From the beginning the compulsory system of taxation for the support of worship raised considerable opposition. Roger Williams, Matthew Fuller, and a Mr. Briscoe thought it was a dangerous encroachment on the rights of the individual. Both Winthrop and Cotton seem to have accepted it with reluctance and were embarrassed when called upon to defend it. Cotton asserted that there was

“‘a vast difference between men’s inventions and God’s Institutions: We fled from men’s inventions, to which we else should have been compelled; we compel none to men’s inventions.”

This argument, like that of Robinson,'® took for granted that its author had “sounded the word of God to the bottome,” so that he could draw the line between ‘‘men’s inventions and God’s Institutions.” It is the stock argument against individual freedom in religion.17

Churches in Massachusetts, 69-83; Massachusetts Colonial Records, IV (ii), 164-166; Tracy, The Great Awakening, 4-5; Walker, History of Congregational Churches, 156-160, 170-182; and Mode, Bibliographical Guide for American Church History, 82-84.

On Stuart policy see Hutchinson, History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, II, 11; Reed, Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691-1740, 20; Massachusetts Archives, XI, 40; Wertenbaker, The First Americans, 105ff.; Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, 8rd Series, VII, 147-148; 5th Series, IX, 150; Bishop, History of Elections in the American Colonies, 57. Bishop points out that the authorities in England demanded the repeal of the law which made membership in the Congregational church a qualification for suffrage. The law was repealed, but the new qualifications which were provided kept the suffrage limited to the same people as the old qualifications.

16 See above, page one.

17 Williams, Bloudy Tenet; Green, The Voluntary Maintenance of Ministers etc.; Winthrop, II, 112; Hubbard, General History of New England, 347, 412; Smith, Religious Education in Massachusetts, 17; Backus, Letter to a Gentleman in the Massachusetts General Assembly. Winthrop reports that Briscoe and others were grieved because, although they were not members of the church, they were

Although the accession of William and Mary indefinitely postponed the Stuart scheme of primacy for the Anglican church, it made some changes in the colony inevitable. William demanded a greater degree of toleration than had been permitted by the Puritan authorities. The Reverend Increase Mather, the agent for the colony, secured a new charter which provided for toleration of all Christians except Papists. Church membership was no longer to be a qualification for voting in civil affairs. Baptists, Quakers, and Episcopalians later contended that the charter placed them on the same plane politically and religiously as the members of the established Congregational church. In practice, however, the Congregationalists, following the suggestion of Mather, who did not believe in liberty of conscience, maintained their primacy.!® In view of the fact that they could muster a majority of the voters in the province, they could enact such legislation as was necessary for the support of their form of worship. In 1692 it was provided by law that every town must maintain an “able, learned and orthodox” minister who was to be chosen by the voters of the town and supported by means of a tax levied on all taxpayers.!® The law was amended the following year to give the church members the right to choose the minister. The voters still kept the right to ratify the choice of the taxed for it. He was fined ten pounds and one of his publishers forty shillings for publishing his arguments. In the Plymouth colony Matthew Fuller was fined for saying the compulsory tax was a “Divillish Law.’’

18 Hutchinson, II, 17; American Society for Church History, Papers, V, 75; Backus, History of the Baptists, I, 532-533; Wertenbaker, The First Americans, 91; Smith, Religious Education in Massachusetts, 18.

#9 Province Laws, I, 62-638, church members.2° A further amendment in 1696 provided for cases which might arise when the voters in the town and the church members could not agree on a minister. In such cases ecclesiastical councils composed of ‘“‘elders and messengers of three or five neighboring churches” were given final authority.7! These laws practically gave to the church members the control of religious instruction in the towns. Boston was specifically excluded from the effects of the legislation because it never had had a tax supported church.

By 1700 the established Congregational church had practically regained all that it had lost in the new charter. King William was so much occupied with European affairs that the Baptists, Quakers, and Episcopalians in the province were left to fight their own battles for religious equality. In this fight the Quakers took the lead. Being in the majority in Dartmouth and Tiverton, they managed the town and church affairs in them according to their own more liberal views. The Congregationalists were unwilling to permit such irregularities in the few towns where “divers of the inhabitants were (are) Quakers, and others irreligious persons averse and opposite to the publick worship of God.”’ Toclose this breach, alaw enacted in 1702 authorized the county courts to enforce the laws for the support of worship.?? Before

20 Tbid., I, 102-108; Hurd, History of Middlesex County, II, 336-337, 846. The latter reference gives instances where the church gave up its privilege to the town.

21 Province Laws, I, 216-217.

22 Province Laws, I, 505; II, 479; Reed, Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691-1740, 31; Backus, History of the Baptists, I, 464. The quotation is taken from the preamble of the law of 1702. Reed quotes it, ‘‘Quakers, and other irreligious persons,’’ and the petition of the Episcopalians gives it, ‘‘Quakers & other Irreligious Persons.”’

this the enforcement had been left to the towns. Under this law the Congregationalists were enabled, theoretically at least, to maintain a tax supported church of their type in every town, even if a majority of the voters of the town were opposed to it, provided the majority of the voters in the county were in favor of such action. The members of the dissenting denominations were permitted to worship after their own manner, as provided in the charter, but they could not avoid paying for the support of the Congregational churches in their respective towns. The Bishop of London protested to the Crown when he was informed of this law. The Quakers, by maintaining their attitude of passive resistance, drove the General Court to further action.22 In 1715 it ordered the county courts “to put the laws in execution,” ostensibly “‘to prevent the growth of atheism, irreligion and prophaness,” but manifestly to coerce the Quaker towns, When the action of the county courts proved ineffective, the General Court assumed the authority to send ministers to such towns as failed to provide “learned and orthodox” teachers of religion, paying them out of the funds of the province. The delinquent towns were then assessed for the amount spent by the General Court for the teachers of religion. This assessment was included in the regular province tax. This was an admission that the towns and counties could no longer be trusted to make proper provision for teachers of religion. The scheme for a religious establishment, therefore, led

23 Province Laws, I, 505-506, 508-509; Backus, I, 464; The law of 1702 provided for the collection of the ministerial rates but not for the money needed for the expenses of building meeting houses. Provision was made for such expenses in the law of 1718. (Province Laws, II, 99).

to the centralization of the government in the province.*4

The resisting power of the Quakers seems to have grown concomitantly with the centralization of the provincial government. When the General Court assessed the two most obstinate towns, Dartmouth and Tiverton, one hundred pounds and seventy-two pounds, eleven shillings, respectively, the selectmen, in accordance with their instructions from the town meeting, defied the provincial government by refusing to make the levy. The assessors were imprisoned by the provincial authorities; whereupon the town proceeded to vote indemnification for the period of their incarceration and to appeal to the Crown in behalf of the prisoners. The Crown ordered their release and the remission of the tax in 1724. The established Congregational church never fully recovered from the effects of that action by the Crown.”®

The Quakers, who had made the first breach in the seemingly impregnable position of the Congregational church, were reénforced by the Baptists and the Episcopalians. Jealousies among these dissenters prevented a union of their forces, but their simultaneous attacks had practically the same effect as if they had codperated.?® From 1724 to 1833 the Coneregational church made a masterly retreat, until the other denominations in the commonwealth were on

24 Province Laws, II, 26-27, 243.

2 Acts of the Privy Council, 1720-1745, 58, 59, 121; Reed, 31-32, 116, 122, 126; Jones, Quakers in the American Colonies, 155; Province Laws, II, 296; Foote, Annals of King’s Chapel, I, 442-448; Backus, I, 500ff.

22 Foote, I, 444-446; Christian Disciple, 1820 (new series) II, 258; Lord Acton, History of Freedom, 1, 59. The Christian Disciple was a Unitarian publication. The writer in it ascribed the gradual ‘Jiberation from ecclesiastical domination,’’ at least in part, to the opponents of the Congregational church.

an equal footing with it. The tracing and appraising of the forces that brought about this change, especially for the period from the middle of the eighteenth century to 1833, is the object of this study. It is a chapter in the history of the development of individual freedom.

After it had been demonstrated that the Quakers could not be compelled to pay the religious taxes, the next step was for the authorities of the province to define the term “Quaker” in such a manner as to give the least opportunity for tax evasion by those who might for reasons, other than conscientious scruples against an established church, attempt to evade them. Although the Episcopalians were anxious to gain exemption from the taxes, they could not consistently claim conscientious scruples against an established church. They did, however, have many friends in the mother country who could bring pressure to bear upon the authorities there. { In 1727 they were granted a measure of relief by law.27 An Episcopalian who lived within five miles of a church of his own type and who usually attended the worship was granted the privilege of having the money which he paid for religious taxes made available for the support of his own religious teacher. All such parishoners were also granted exemption from the taxes levied for the purpose of building meeting houses for the Congregational church. The law was to be in force for five years and did not affect the Boston area.

In 1728 a law passed for the benefit of Quakers and Baptists granted them exemption from the poll tax for the support of ministers of the Gospel if they had conscientious scruples against an established church and if they lived within five miles of a meeting house of their own denomination, in which they usually attended the worship. The justices of the peace were authorized to name certain members of these denominations to furnish lists of the names of all their members in the several towns.?8 The property of such Quakers and Baptists was exempted from ministerial taxes by an amendment to the law in 1729.29 Two years later the Quakers were granted exemption from the taxes levied for the purpose of building meeting houses for the Congregationalists. At that time the five mile limitation was removed for them.2® In 17385 the Baptists were granted the same privileges, with a specific stipulation that the exemptions were not to be effective in newly chartered towns until they were incorporated*!—in other words, until the Congregational meeting house had been completed and the minister installed. Since, in order to take advantage of the charter privileges in a new town, the original settlers were always required to build a meeting house and settle a minister, the General Court no doubt decided that it would be an injustice to give privileges to any who could evade the obligations. As we shall see, this restriction of priv-