of 1688, there was in England a progressive movement toward liberal
thought. It was at first a crude unconscious movement in the direction
of toleration, which is a necessary condition for the development of
free thinking. When we have arrived at a truly cordial toleration of
opinions, allowing to all free play to stand or fall, just as hypotheses
in science are suffered to stand or fall, then is men's thought for the
first time really untrammelled. Whatever, therefore, tended toward
toleration of diverse forms of creed or worship was a step in the path
that led to free thinking; and whatever tended to democratize the church
and relieve it from state control was a step toward toleration. The
revolt of Henry VIII. at first but realized what the _prœmunire_
statutes of Edward I. and Edward III. had threatened. But by breaking up
the religious orders, expelling abbots from Parliament, and making the
headship of the church a subject of fierce dispute, it contributed
immensely to weaken and relax the bonds of conservatism, and it afforded
a rare opportunity for the thoughts of laymen and small preachers to
assert themselves. Thus the Lollardism which had been partially
suppressed for more than a century now reared its head again defiantly,
and, after learning lessons in democracy from Calvin, came forth as
Puritanism, clad in full panoply for one of the world's most fateful
contests.
In the course of Elizabeth's reign we find this Puritanism taking three
different shapes. There were the moderate reformers, whose wish was
simply to trim and prune the tree of Episcopacy; and secondly, those who
were afterward known as "root and branch" men, whose name is descriptive
enough. Instead of pruning they would uproot the tree and cast it away.
To these Presbyterians the royal supremacy was no more than the papal a
part of the living growth of Christ's church; it was but stubble fit for
burning. Kings looked with horror upon such views, which threatened
political danger no less than ecclesiastical. "A Scottish presbytery,"
cried James I., "agreeth as well with a monarchy as God and the Devil.
Then Jack and Tom and Will and Dick shall meet, and at their pleasures
censure me and my council and all our proceedings." The case could not
have been more pithily stated, yet even Presbyterianism stopped short of
full-fledged democracy. For Jack and his friends, by means of synods and
general assemblies, could create a governing body with power of
enforcing conformity upon unwilling congregations. In protest against
this somewhat oligarchical method, Puritanism assumed its third form,
that of Independency. The beginnings of Independency are to be sought
among the Brownists of Elizabeth's reign, though their day of glory
first came with the Civil War. In the theory of the Independents, as
fully developed, any group of persons wishing to worship God in common
might come together and organize themselves into a Congregational
church, existing by as good a warrant as any other church, and entirely
free from the control of any bishop, or synod, or council. No outside
power could prescribe its creed or interfere with its ceremonial. Each
church became, therefore, a little self-governing republic, as
completely autonomous as an ancient Greek city, and the union of such
churches was based solely upon the spirit of spontaneous Christian
fellowship. Such was the theory of Independency.
In these successive stages of Protestantism we may see the preliminary
steps toward general toleration and toward liberal thought. In each
stage the strength of the coercive power that could be exercised over
men's opinions and expressions of opinion was sensibly diminished. From
the coercive power of the universal Church, which had once been able to
direct a crusade against the Albigenses, it was a long step downward to
the coercive power of Queen Elizabeth, whose will to suppress Puritanism
was perpetually held in check by motives of public policy. It was a yet
further step downward from the coercive power of a sovereign to that of
a synod, and thence again to that of a congregation. So striking is the
progress that one who knew nothing of history might easily mistake the
theory of Independency as providing practically for something like
complete toleration. History tells us that this was far from being the
case. Heresy, or dissent from the commonly accepted orthodoxy, has been
no more tolerated in Independent churches than elsewhere; and even in
the absence of serious differences in dogma, persecution has been
visited upon divergences from the customary ritual, as for example in
the treatment long accorded to Baptists. In their militant days, neither
Presbyterianism nor Independency ever professed to be tolerant. The
gravest reproach they could imagine was to be charged with encouraging
free thinking. The eminent Scottish divine Rutherford gave expression to
the prevailing sentiment when he declared, "We regard toleration of all
religions as not far removed from blasphemy." Nevertheless, the movement
which gave rise to Presbyterianism and to Independency was sure to
advance to the announcement of the principle of universal toleration.
That movement was itself the expression of a vast amount of free
thinking, and it was not to stop short of recognizing the claims of
free thought. The century that witnessed the beginnings of an
English-speaking America saw also the genuine principles of toleration
laid down by Roger Williams and William Penn, and demonstrated with
resistless wealth of learning and logic by Milton and Locke.
In an account of the origins of liberal thought in America this English
development is all-important, but it does not cover the whole field.
America's inheritance from Europe comes chiefly, but not entirely, from
the British islands. In the early days of the Protestant Reformation,
there were European countries in which religious toleration had advanced
practically much further than in England. The England of Henry VIII. as
compared with the Netherlands was in a crude and backward condition. The
contrast might be likened to that between rural life with its narrow
mental horizon and the varied cosmopolitan life of the city. England
politically was a land of unrivalled promise, but she was not quite
abreast with the most advanced culture of the time. Her government was
mainly in the hands of country gentlemen, who lacked some valuable
elements of experience that were possessed by the burghers of commercial
Antwerp and Ghent. A careful survey of the Middle Ages shows plainly an
abiding antagonism between commerce and the ecclesiastical spirit. A
general connection between the predominance of international trade and
the secularization of public life is distinctly traceable. On the map of
mediæval Europe one may point out peculiar spots where the Papacy never
gained complete sway. In some of these, as in Bohemia and southern Gaul,
the resistance was due to Manichæan heresies brought in from the Eastern
Empire, giving rise to a kind of mediæval Puritanism; in these we do not
find a spirit of liberal thought developed, but rather an anti-Catholic
fanaticism. The other peculiar spots lie in the great pathway of
commerce between the Levant and the northern seas. In the free cities of
northern Italy and southern Germany, in the Hansa towns, and in the
Netherlands, priestcraft had less sway than elsewhere, and the general
tone of thought was more liberal and modern. No city came so completely
under the secularizing influences of maritime commerce as Venice; and it
is significant that the Papacy, at the very pinnacle of its power and
arrogance in the thirteenth century, utterly failed in its attempt to
force the Inquisition upon that republic of merchants.
In similar wise, we find the commercial Netherlands in the sixteenth
century exhibiting practically such toleration in matters of religion as
the British islands attained only much later, and after prolonged and
distressing struggle. From the time of Edward III. commercial
intercourse with the great Dutch and Flemish cities was one of the most
potent civilizing influences at work in England. It was a liberalizing
influence in religion and in politics, and must be named among the
causes which made the eastern counties preëminent for heresy. In later
days, when the Dutch provinces had saved their Protestantism and
recovered political freedom, they adopted a policy of toleration so
broad as to seem to most contemporaries very eccentric. Their noble
country was stigmatized as "the common harbour of all heresies" and a
"cage of unclean birds." How it harboured heretics escaping from England
is something that no American is ever likely to forget.
If, after this glance at European conditions, we cross the Atlantic and
observe the group of twelve colonies that were planted during the
seventeenth century, we find that five of them were especially notable
for pursuing from the outset a policy of toleration,--a policy
favourable to liberal thought. These five, naming them in order of
seniority, were New Netherland, Maryland, Rhode Island, and
Pennsylvania, with Delaware. In New Netherland the Dutch simply
maintained their traditional secularized policy. On the hospitable
island of Manhattan all the varieties of European religion met on terms
of equality,--Lutherans and Catholics, Quakers[19] and Puritans,
Moravians and Jews. After the English conquest this liberal policy was
continued by the bigoted Duke of York, for reasons similar to those
which made toleration a necessity in the province of the liberal and
sagacious Calverts. The Catholic proprietors of Maryland wished to make
their province a desirable home for Catholics who were inclined to leave
England, and the only possible way of accomplishing this, without
interference from the British government, was to pursue a policy broad
enough to include Catholics along with all other kinds of Christians in
its benefits. A similar necessity confronted Charles II. and James II.
In order to secure as much protection as possible for Catholics without
interference from Parliament, it was necessary to pursue a policy broad
enough to include Quakers along with Catholics. For such reasons James
refrained from disturbing the liberal Dutch policy in New York. For
such reasons both Stuart kings supported the schemes of William Penn, in
whose proprietary colonies of Pennsylvania and Delaware the principles
of toleration were carried out, on the whole, more completely than
anywhere else in English-speaking America. It is interesting in this
connection to observe that the mother of William Penn was a Dutch lady,
though perhaps it is possible to make too much of such a fact. The
Quakers, who formed the strength of the colony, represented a phase of
Puritanism more liberal than Independency. As contrasted with
Independency, Quakerism was a notable advance in the direction of
Individualism; it had outgrown the set of notions according to which a
civic community ought to consist of a united body of believers.
Pennsylvania, therefore, and its appendage Delaware, profited by the
late date at which they were founded; they represented a more advanced
stage of opinion than the colonies which started in the time of James I.
Their proprietary government remained undisturbed until the Declaration
of Independence, and in 1776 these two states were the only ones in
which all Christians, whether Protestant or Catholic, stood socially and
politically on an equal footing. For after the accession of William and
Mary had made the Episcopal Church supreme in New York and Maryland,
the Catholic inhabitants of those colonies were disfranchised and made
the subject of various oppressive enactments. Even the laws of Rhode
Island, as first printed, early in the eighteenth century, expressly
prohibit Roman Catholics from voting. The date of this statute is not
accurately known, but it was certainly between 1688 and 1705,[20] and
may be due to the strong antagonism aroused by the conduct of James II.
and his Jacobites. However that may be, the statute was not repealed
until 1784.
The disfranchisement of Catholics was contrary to the spirit of the
Rhode Island charter and to the views of Roger Williams, who certainly
understood the rational grounds for religious toleration better than any
other man of his time, save perhaps Milton and Vane. He represents the
Protestant principle of the sacred right of private judgment carried out
with unflinching logical consistency. In him the transition from
Independency to Individualism is completed. The contrast between the two
is illustrated in the controversy between Williams and Cotton which was
called forth by the publication in 1644 of Williams's book entitled "The
Bloudy Tenent of Persecution." John Cotton was a typical Independent,
and by no means a man of persecuting temperament, but his view of the
matter is extremely one-sided. He admits that it is wrong for error to
persecute truth, but he holds it to be the sacred duty of truth to
persecute error! Williams, on the other hand, sees that truth stands in
no need of violent or artificial support, and that error contains within
itself the seeds of death. He feels, too, that when I venture to
persecute what I call error in others, I virtually assume my own
infallibility. Thus not until pure Individualism is reached is the
fundamental fallacy of Catholicism escaped. In order to protect this
sacred Individualism, Williams would have a complete separation between
church and state. Under no pretext whatever should the civil government
interfere with religious matters. There should be no more statutes
against heresy or heretics, no enforced attendance upon public worship,
no support of churches by taxation. Roger Williams not only proclaimed
such doctrines, but he lived up to them. He never took pains to conceal
his dislike of Quaker doctrines; in his seventy-third year he once rowed
himself in a boat the whole length of Narragansett Bay, in order to
conduct a dispute against three valiant Quaker champions; yet, in spite
of vehement pressure from the neighbouring colonies, he resolutely
refused to allow the civil power of Rhode Island to be used against
Quakers. Massachusetts in fury threatened to cut off the trade of the
weaker colony, but nothing could intimidate Williams into what he termed
"exercising a civil power over men's consciences." Among the public men
of the seventeenth century Roger Williams deserves a preëminent place;
he was the first to conceive thoroughly and carry out consistently, in
the face of strong opposition, a theory of religious liberty broad
enough to win assent and approval from advanced thinkers of the present
day.
The separation of church from state, which was effected with such
remarkable success in the founding of Rhode Island, did not become
general in the United States until after the winning of independence. On
this issue the eighteenth century had its memorable struggle, in which
the protagonist was Virginia, and the victory was achieved under the
leadership of Jefferson and Madison. The early policy of Virginia was to
drive out dissentients, or subject them to civil disabilities; and of
the Puritans who went thither for a while the greater part left the
colony, many of them retreating into tolerant Maryland. After 1660, for
three generations the Episcopal folk had it all their own way. But
about 1720 began the wholesale immigration of Presbyterians and
Lutherans into the Shenandoah Valley, and after the middle of the
century trouble began when the tide-water Cavaliers tried to impose
taxes upon these people for the support of the Established Church. The
most numerous and powerful opponents of this narrow policy were the
Presbyterians; and inasmuch as these had come, not from Scotland where
their own church was established, but from Ireland where it was
persecuted, their experience had led them to approve the separation of
church from state. Their political notions were also strongly
democratic, and with the aid of their votes Jefferson's party not only
abolished primogeniture and entail and other old English customs, but
also carried the disestablishment of the Episcopal Church in Virginia.
Madison's Religious Freedom Act of 1785, which not only effected this,
but likewise did away with all religious tests, is a very important
event in the history of the United States. The statute, which declared
that "opinion in matters of religion shall in no wise diminish, enlarge,
or affect civil capacities," attracted attention far and wide; it was
translated into several European languages, and published with admiring
comments; and in the course of the next forty years it was imitated by
one state after another, until all over the land religious freedom came
to be _almost_ as complete as legislation could make it. The qualifying
adverb is still needed; for, by the constitutions of Pennsylvania and
Tennessee, no man can hold office unless he believes in God and a future
state of rewards and punishments; in Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, the
two Carolinas, and Maryland, belief in God is required; and in Arkansas
and Maryland a man who does not believe in God and a future state of
retribution is deemed incompetent as a witness or juror.[21] Such
curiosities of law-making--survivals from a lower state, like the caudal
vertebra in man and the higher apes--are common enough in history.
The various stages here mentioned in the progress toward religious
toleration, and toward the separation of church and state, are important
symptoms of the progress of liberal thought. Of course Madison's
Religious Freedom Act could not have been proposed by an Endicott, or
sustained by a community that would not endure the presence of Baptists
or Quakers. The sketch here given shows an enormous advance in liberal
thought in the course of two centuries and a half. But such a survey is
far from telling us the whole story. A further inquiry into causal
agencies is needed, and the best field for it is furnished by that
theocratic Puritanism which cast out Roger Williams,--the Puritanism of
the four confederated New England colonies, and especially of
Massachusetts. No one can deny that in Massachusetts, during the
nineteenth century, liberal thought has advanced further and has
permeated the community more thoroughly than in any other state of the
American Union. For at least three generations the intellectual ferment
upon which liberal thought in the United States has thriven has come
chiefly from Massachusetts. Yet among our colonies which attained social
maturity during the seventeenth century there was none which made such
emphatic exhibitions of intolerance and bigotry as Massachusetts. She
was as clearly and avowedly founded upon an illiberal principle as Rhode
Island was founded upon a principle of liberality. The Endicott type of
mind is the very antipodes of the Roger Williams type; yet it was in the
land of Endicott, and in a congenial soil, that Theodore Parker lately
flourished. Whence came so great a change? The answer will remind us
that there are two sources from which liberal thought is nourished. The
one is the secularized Gallio spirit that deems it folly to interpose
obstacles in the way of the natural working of reason and common sense;
the other is the intense devotion to spiritual ideals which, in spite of
all inherited encumbrances of bigotry and superstition, never casts off
its allegiance to reason as the final arbiter. The former spirit is of
vast use in the world, although its tendency is to deaden into mere
worldliness as typified in a Franklin; the latter spirit may commit many
an error, but its drift is toward light and stimulus and exaltation of
life as typified in an Emerson. In the darkest days of New England
Puritanism the paramount allegiance to reason was never lost sight of;
and out of this fact came the triumph of free thinking, although no such
result was ever intended.