CHAPTER I

[Transcriber’s Notes

A small number of obvious typos have been corrected. Except for this,

the spelling and punctuation of the book have not been changed.

Underscores are used for italic markup; the three words that end this

sentence _are in italics_.

The symbols ^{} are used to represent a superscript; for example "3

squared" would be printed as "3^{2}".

The footnotes have been renumbered from 1 to 988. Each footnote has

been placed at the end of the section in which it is flagged.]

NEW ENGLAND AND THE BAVARIAN ILLUMINATI

BY VERNON STAUFFER, A. M.

_Dean and Professor of New Testament and Church History

Hiram College_

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN THE

FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

NEW YORK

1918

COPYRIGHT, 1918

BY

VERNON STAUFFER

To

J. E., R. W., AND R. F.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 9

CHAPTER I

THE UNDERMINING OF PURITAN STANDARDS AND INSTITUTIONS

1. Rapid Disintegration of Puritanism after the Revolution 13

2. Ominous Discontent with the Standing Order 33

3. Alarms due to the Spread of Religious Radicalism and Scepticism 66

CHAPTER II

POLITICAL ENTANGLEMENTS AND HYSTERIA

1. The Situation prior to 1798 103

2. The Situation from 1798 to 1800 122

CHAPTER III

THE EUROPEAN ORDER OF THE ILLUMINATI

1. The Rise and the Disappearance of the Order 142

2. The Legend of the Order and its Literary Communication to

New England 186

CHAPTER IV

THE ILLUMINATI AGITATION IN NEW ENGLAND

1. Morse Precipitates the Controversy 229

2. Inconclusive Developments of Morse’s Second Formal

Deliverance 261

3. Morse Submits his Inept Documentary Evidence 287

4. Freemasonry’s Embarrassment and Protest 321

5. Attempts of Democrats to Fix the Countercharge of Illuminism

upon the Federalists 345

BIBLIOGRAPHY 361

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The obligations incurred in the preparation of the following study

are much too numerous and varied to admit of adequate notice. Special

mention must, however, be made of my indebtedness to the staffs of the

following libraries: The Boston Athenaeum, Congregational, Masonic

(Boston), American Antiquarian Society, Connecticut Historical Society,

New York Historical Society, Library of Congress, the public libraries

of the cities of Boston and New York, the library of Hiram College, and

the university libraries of Harvard, Yale, and Columbia. In addition to

the many courtesies received from these sources, I have had valuable

assistance from the following persons: Mr. Newton R. Parvin, grand

secretary of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, A. F. & A. M., Cedar Rapids,

Iowa, whose warm personal interest in my investigation has found

expression in the loan of many valuable volumes; Mr. Worthington C.

Ford, of the Massachusetts Historical Society, who besides opening

freely to me the unpublished treasures of the Society, has given me the

benefit of peculiarly stimulating suggestions; Mr. Walter C. Green,

librarian of Meadville Theological School, who has most generously met

all my drafts upon his patience and time; and Professor Guy Stanton

Ford, of the University of Minnesota, who has made it possible for

me to use his copy of Forestier’s _Les Illuminés de Bavière et la

Franc-Maçonnerie allemande_, without which in this war period, with

its partial stoppage of the inflow of European literature, my chapter

on “The European Order of the Illuminati” could scarcely have been

written.

My greatest debt is to Professor William Walker Rockwell, of Union

Theological Seminary, who from the day that he suggested the theme not

only has followed the progress of the work with unwearied interest, but

at many points has guided my efforts and helped me to avoid numerous

pitfalls. Whatever excellencies the study contains are due to Professor

Rockwell’s stimulating criticism; the faults are altogether chargeable

to me.

There remains to acknowledge my obligation and express my best thanks

to my colleagues, Professors Ralph Hinsdale Goodale, Lee Edwin Cannon,

and John Samuel Kenyon, and to Miss Bertha Peckham, Registrar of Hiram

College, who have greatly assisted me by correcting copy, reading

proof, and otherwise helping to see the work through the press. To my

wife a special obligation is due because of the benefits derived from

her critical insight and heartening sympathy throughout the performance

of the task.

V. S.

HIRAM, OHIO.

INTRODUCTION

Few if any periods in our national history have been marked by a

greater variety of clashing interests than the closing decade of

the eighteenth century. Owing in part to inexperience in grappling

with the problems of government, in part to widely belligerent

and irreconcilable elements among the people, in part to grave

international complications and concerns, and in part, confessedly,

to rumors and excitements for which, as events proved, no adequate

grounds existed, the lives of the people of New England were tossed

rudely about on rough currents and counter-currents of mingled hope and

anguish. To a dispassionate observer (if anywhere on the green earth

at the close of the eighteenth century such an individual might have

been found) it must have seemed as though the citizens of New England

were as so many bits of wood, bobbing up and down on waters excessively

choppy but otherwise motionless. The agitation, however, was not merely

superficial; issues and movements of the most profound significance

were pouring their impetuous torrents through channels freshly cut and

steadily deepened by new streams of human interest which the erection

of the national government, in particular, had started on their

tortuous ways.

The development of this thesis calls for an evaluation of the

more significant elements and forces which gave to the period the

characteristic temper of nervous excitability by which it was

stamped. The profound spirit of apprehension, amounting to positive

distress, with which for many a thoughtful religious patriot of New

England the eighteenth century closed, constitutes a phenomenon as

impressive as it is curious. To isolate that spirit, to analyze it,

to explain its genesis and its development, to take account of its

attachments and antipathies with respect to the special interest under

consideration,—this must be regarded as no inconsiderable portion of

the general task.

On the morning of May 9, 1798, in the pulpit of the New North Church

in Boston, and on the afternoon of the same day in his own pulpit

at Charlestown, the occasion being that of the national fast, the

Reverend Jedediah Morse[1] made a sensational pronouncement. He

first discussed with his hearers “the awful events” which the European

Illuminati had precipitated upon an already distracted world, and then

proceeded solemnly to affirm that the secret European association

had extended its operations to this side of the Atlantic and was now

actively engaged among the people of the United States, with a view to

the overthrow of their civil and religious institutions. In the eyes of

the distinguished clergyman, the matter was of such serious moment that

he felt moved to remark:

I hold it a duty, my brethren, which I owe to God, to the cause of

religion, to my country and to you, at this time, to declare to

you, thus honestly and faithfully, these truths. My only aim is to

awaken in you and myself a due attention, at this alarming period,

to our dearest interests. As a faithful watchman I would give you

warning of your present danger.[2]

Morse’s warning by no means fell upon deaf ears. The “due attention”

he claimed for the alarm which he that day sounded was promptly and

generally accorded. Soon ministers were preaching, newspaper editors

and contributors writing and clearheaded statesmen like Oliver

Wolcott, Timothy Pickering, John Adams, and even the great Washington,

inquiring, and voicing their serious concern over the secret presence

in America of those conspirators whose greatest single achievement,

a multitude had come to believe, was the enormities of the French

Revolution.

It is true that before two years had passed men generally began to

admit the baseless nature of the alarm that Morse had sounded. None

the less one may not dismiss the incident with the light and easy

judgment that it signified nothing more than the absurd fears of a New

England clergyman who, under the strain of deep political and religious

concern, and after a hasty reading of the latest volume of religious

and political horrors that had just arrived from Europe,[3] rushed

into his pulpit and gave utterance to preposterous statements which

his imagination for the moment led him to believe were justified. The

episode has considerably larger and more important bearings. No man

could possibly have awakened such wide-spread concern as the minister

of Charlestown succeeded in awakening if it had not been true that

significant concurrent and related circumstances gave both setting and

force to the alarm which with such stout conviction he sounded.

What previous influences and events had tended to predispose the

public mind favorably to Morse’s alarm? What was the peculiar

combination and cast of events which gave the notion of a conspiracy

against religion and government in Europe and in America a clear

semblance of truth? In what ways, and to what extent, did the alarm

affect the lives and the institutions of the people of New England?

Finally, what were the grounds, real or imaginary, upon which the

charge of an Illuminati conspiracy rested? To answering these questions

the following pages are devoted.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Reverend Jedediah Morse, born at Woodstock, Connecticut, August 23,

1761, died at New Haven, June 9, 1826, was a man of note. He was the

author of the first American geography and gazetteer. His connection

with the leading public men of his times, particularly with those of

the Federalist party, was both extensive and intimate. His travels

and correspondence in the interests of his numerous geographical

compositions in part promoted this acquaintance; but his outspoken and

unflinching support of the measures of government during the Federalist

regime did even more to enhance his influence. Morse was graduated from

Yale College in 1783 and settled at Charlestown as minister of the

Congregational church in that place in 1789. His wife was Elizabeth Ann

Breese, granddaughter of Samuel Finley, president of the College of New

Jersey. Quite apart from all other claims to public recognition, the

following inscription, to be found to this day on a tablet attached to

the front of the house in Charlestown wherein his distinguished son was

born, would have rendered the name of Jedediah Morse worthy of regard:

“Here was born 27th of April, 1791,

Samuel Finley Breese Morse.

Inventor of the Electric Telegraph.”

W. B. Sprague’s _Annals of the American Pulpit_, vol. ii, pp.

247–256, contains interesting data concerning Morse’s activities

and personality. Sprague also wrote _The Life of Jedidiah Morse, D.

D._, New York, 1874. (Morse’s surname appears in the sources both as

“Jedediah” and “Jedidiah”). Sawyer’s _Old Charlestown, etc._, p. 299,

has an engaging account of Morse’s loyalty to the muse of Federalism,

and of the painful, though not serious physical consequences, in which

in at least one instance this involved him. _Cf._ also _Memorabilia

in the Life of Jedediah Morse, D. D._, by his son, Sidney E. Morse. A

bibliography of thirty-two titles by Morse is appended to the sketch in

F. B. Dexter, _Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College_,

vol. iv, pp. 295–304.

[2] _A Sermon, Delivered at the New North Church in Boston, in the

morning, and in the afternoon at Charlestown, May 9th, 1798, being

the day recommended by John Adams, President of the United States of

America, for solemn humiliation, fasting and prayer. By Jedidiah Morse,

D. D., Minister of the Congregational Church in Charlestown_, Boston,

1798, p. 25.

[3] Robison, _Proofs of a Conspiracy against all the Religions and

Governments of Europe, carried on in the Secret Meetings of the Free

Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies_, Edinburgh, 1797.

CHAPTER I

THE UNDERMINING OF PURITAN STANDARDS AND INSTITUTIONS

1. RAPID DISINTEGRATION OF PURITANISM AFTER THE REVOLUTION

Back of the War of Independence was the less absorbing but scarcely

less harrowing contest of the French and Indian War. Thus for a

period of fully thirty years the people of New England had been

subjected to the rough and unsettling experiences of military life.

This consideration, taken in connection with the fact that a growing

declension from the standards of the Puritan fathers had been the

occasion of increasing comment and concern from the middle of the

seventeenth century on,[4] will make explicable the fact that the

average citizen of New England emerged from the Revolutionary struggle

with the edge of his conscience dulled. The secularizing spirit of the

post-Revolutionary period, when questions of national organization

and unity, of the rehabilitation of commerce and industry, and of

international relations and policies were foremost in the thought of

the day, left marks upon the human spirit over which stern and rigorous

adherents to the old order wept copiously and long. For one thing,

the lives of the men and women of New England were never again to be

as barren of diversified interests as they had been in the past. The

successful issue of the struggle for political independence had so

enlarged the mind of the common man that he of necessity entertained

considerations of private desire and of public policy which he formerly

would have rejected entirely. The avenue of retreat to the ancient

simplicity and seclusion was forever closed.

The soundness of this estimate of the rapid disintegration of

Puritanism will be apparent if the changing attitude of the people on

the subject of theatrical entertainments is considered.[5] As early as

the year 1750 the General Court of Massachusetts had found it necessary

to enact legislation to prevent stage-plays and other theatrical

entertainments.[6] That Puritan standards dominated the situation at

the time is evidenced both by the reasons advanced by the framers of

the law for its enactment and by the stringent penalties attached

to it. The justification of the measure was found in the economic

waste, the discouraging effect upon industry and frugality, and the

deleterious effect upon morality and religion which stage-plays were

believed to exercise. The penalties imposed called for a fine of twenty

pounds upon any owner of property who permitted his property to be

used for such purposes, while a fine of five pounds was to be assessed

upon any actor or spectator found in attendance upon or participating

in any such exercises where more than twenty persons were assembled

together.[7] How meekly the craving for pleasurable excitement bowed

its head in submission, there is no evidence to show; but it is

very clear that as the century drew toward its close the people of

Massachusetts began to manifest a decidedly intractable spirit with

respect to legislative control of their amusements and pleasures.

The days of the Revolution supplied thrills of their own, and the

colonists gave themselves in devotion to their great task-at-arms,

with little desire for the amenities of life. Accordingly, when

the Continental Congress, on October 16, 1778, passed a resolution

deprecating every species of public entertainment which would be likely

to divert the minds of the people from the considerations of public

defence and the safeguarding of their liberties,[8] there was nothing

singular about the episode, and we may believe readily that the people

of New England, fortified by their grim spirit of determination and

their long tradition of self-denial, in no sense fell short of the

general standard. But by the year 1790 the people living in and about

Boston had come to a very different state of mind. In that year by

petition to the General Court they sought to have the prohibitory act

of 1750 revoked.[9] The incident has importance because it registers

a determined effort to feed desires whose hunger-pains had grown

insistent.

The history of this particular effort to remove legislative

restrictions in the way of harmless amusements is illuminating. The

petition referred to received scant consideration at the hands of the

legislators of Massachusetts. The following year certain gentlemen

of Boston, to the number of thirty-nine, presented a memorial to the

selectmen of that city, requesting that a vote of the citizens be taken

on the questions of permitting the erection and use of a building for

theatrical entertainments, and the issuing of instructions to Boston’s

representatives in the legislature calling for the repeal of the

obnoxious law. Apparently the plebiscite was not taken; but the general

question was debated in town meeting. A committee was appointed to

prepare instructions. The committee reported favorably concerning the

proposed instructions to Boston’s representatives in the legislature,

and these representatives later undertook the task of bringing a

majority of the members of the General Court to the more liberal point

of view; not, however, with immediate success. Meanwhile, to the

scandal of Governor John Hancock, and doubtless many another advocate

of decency and order, theatrical entertainments, “under the Stile &

Appellation of Moral Lectures,”[10] flourished openly in Boston.[11]

It was during the progress of the debate in the legislature over the

proposed repeal of the law against theatrical entertainments that John

Gardiner, one of Boston’s representatives in that body, delivered

himself of sentiments touching what he styled “the illiberal, unmanly,

and despotic act” of 1750. His speech gave evidence of how fresh and

independent the judgments of some minds had come to be. Addressing the

presiding officer, Gardiner said:

Sir! I really and truly venerate; I would rather say, I sincerely

and almost enthusiastically admire the many great and splendid

virtues of our renowned puritan ancestors ... ; but still, Sir,

they were only men; and, like all other men, were fallible; liable

to frailties, to prejudices, and to error. Some errors, and some

unjust prejudices, they undoubtedly had. Would to God a veil

was drawn over all their absurd prejudices which, like spots in

the sun, tend in some small degree to bedarken and obscure the

otherwise truly-resplendent glories of their character. One of these

prejudices, in my opinion, was their inveterate opposition and

abhorrent aversion to the theatre.[12]

That Gardiner was the spokesman of a very considerable number of

citizens is demonstrated by the fact that on March 28, 1793, a bill

drawn to take the place of the older legislation against theatrical

amusements and granting specifically to the people of Boston the

right to erect a theatre and to have “stage plays performed under

certain regulations and restrictions,” was enacted by the legislature

of Massachusetts.[13] It is very evident that public sentiment had

veered round to a radically new and different view respecting the

place and function of the theatre. So much so, indeed, that some who

sought to shape the thought and determination of the times recommended

the establishment of the theatre as the only possible way of drawing

the desires and interests of the people away from grosser and more

injurious excitements toward which, it was believed, an alarming growth

of frivolity and lack of moral concern was rapidly sweeping the people

of New England.[14]

This alleged declension of morals may be more vitally viewed from the

standpoint of the subject of intemperance. Convivial habits were a

fixed part of the New England character, and the sin of drunkenness

was as old as the settlement of the country. The practice of brewing

was numbered among the employments of the first settlers.[15] Rum was

generally used by the people, and the commercial life of the colonies

was inextricably woven with its importation and exportation.[16] Cider

was the native New England beverage.[17] The importation of wine was

large from the first.[18] A general tendency in the direction of

increased habits of drinking was to be expected.[19]

The period of the Revolution made its own special contribution to the

gravity of the case. The soldiers of the Continental armies received

regular rations of liquor,[20] and at the expiration of the war carried

back to their respective communities the habits of intemperance which

in many cases their army life had strengthened. Rum was more and more

coming to be regarded as one of the necessities of life;[21] and with

the revival of industry and commerce after the war the business of

distilling mounted rapidly to amazing proportions.[22]

A growing uneasiness over the social and economic consequences

involved in the spread of alcoholism is apparent. Under the date of

July 29, 1789, the Reverend Jeremy Belknap, minister of the church

in Long Lane, Boston, is found writing thus to Dr. Benjamin Rush,

Philadelphia’s celebrated physician and early apostle of temperance

reform:

With respect to spirituous liquors I believe some good has been

done, but much more remains to be done. The distilleries here are

so ready a source of gain, that, till the _auri sacra fames_ shall

cease to be a ruling passion, I fear there will no end be put to

them. The demand from abroad I am told increases, particularly from

the north of Europe, & while the stills are kept going there will

be a large home consumption. In an excursion of about 80 miles into

the country a few weeks since, I met many loads of pot & pearl

ashes coming down, & on my return the teams which I met were loaded

with dry fish, hogsheads of salt, & barrels of rum. The thirst for

spirits in the back country is so ardent, that in the fall & winter

they will sell their wheat for this sort of pay, & then in the

spring and summer following go 40 or 50 miles after bread. However,

we do what we can by way of precept & example, & we do not intend

to be discouraged.[23]

The correspondence which the Reverend Bulkley Olcott, minister of the

church in Charlestown, New Hampshire, had with Belknap is of like

import.[24] He had tried to obtain accurate statistical information

from the Excise Master as to the quantity of spirituous liquors

consumed in his county, and had not succeeded. However, it is a

matter of his personal knowledge that many good estates have been

squandered through drinking, and much time, labor, and health, and many

lives destroyed in the same way. He recognizes that many concurring

circumstances come to the aid of spirituous liquors in working fatal

results; still the general abuse of drink is declared to be one of the

heaviest and most threatening evils under which the country groans.

The taverns of the day on all public occasions,[25] and frequently

in the ordinary course of their business, were filled with gambling,

carousing, drinking crowds. The extent to which the great occasions of

state were seized upon as opportunities for open and shameless drinking

had become a scandal. The custom of granting a certain allowance of

rum per day to laborers was honored in at least some sections of the

country.[26] Accidental deaths due to drunkenness, and cases of suicide

and insanity traceable to the same cause, were frequently reported.[27]

All classes of society, young and old, rich and poor, men and women,

fell victims to the great scourge. The colleges were not immune. At

Yale, wine and liquors were kept in the rooms of many of the students

and intemperance was one of the commonest of student faults.[28]

Clergymen, though generally restraining themselves from gross

indulgence, were accustomed to feel that the spirit of conviviality

and the discussion of the affairs of church and state went hand in

hand;[29] and now and then the bounds of propriety were overstepped.

Other unfavorable aspects of the situation may be found in the habits

of card-playing and gambling which everywhere prevailed, and in the

frequent allusions to instances of social vice and illegitimacy with

which the pages of the diary of such a careful observer as the Reverend

William Bentley were laden.[30]

The opinion that the social life of the period was desperately unsound

was accepted without question by many a so-called interpreter of the

times. The observations which President Timothy Dwight, of Yale, made

in his Century Sermon[31] expressed the views of many minds. Dating

“the first considerable change in the religious character of the people

of this country” with the beginning of the French and Indian War,[32]

he continued:

The officers and soldiers of the British armies, then employed

in this country, although probably as little corrupted as those

of most armies, were yet loose patterns of opinion and conduct,

and were unhappily copied by considerable numbers of our own

countrymen, united with them in military life. These, on their

return, spread the infection through those around them. Looser

habits of thinking began then to be adopted, and were followed,

as they always are, by looser conduct. The American war increased

these evils. Peace had not, at the commencement of this war,

restored the purity of life which existed before the preceding

war. To the depravation still remaining was added a long train of

immoral doctrines and practices, which spread into every corner

of the country. The profanation of the Sabbath, before unusual,

profaneness of language, drunkenness, gambling, and lewdness were

exceedingly increased; and, what is less commonly remarked, but is

perhaps not less mischievous than any of them, a light, vain method

of thinking concerning sacred things and a cold, contemptuous

indifference toward every moral and religious subject.[33]

But this sweeping judgment of Yale’s president, together with the

specific explanation of the situation which he offered, are to be

checked up by other and less pessimistic considerations. That there was

much pertaining to the customs and manners of the times to be deplored,

is not to be denied. On the other hand, that society in New England,

as the eighteenth century drew toward its close, was actually lapsing

from soundness and virtue to the extent that its fundamental views and

habits were being altered, is far from clear. Observers who spoke to

the contrary listened chiefly to the murmurs of the shallows and were

unresponsive to the deeps.

The fact is, new ideals and new forces were working upward in the

common life of the age. The new sense of freedom which the War of

Independence ushered in, the steadily growing prosperity of the people,

the development of social intimacies as the population of the country

increased, the intrusion and growing influence of foreign ideas and

customs, the steadily diminishing domination of the clergy—these all

tended to inaugurate a new order which clashed more or less violently

with the old. The memories of the old Puritan régime were still

sufficiently vivid to make every lapse from liberty into license appear

ominous in the extreme.

A general relaxing of social customs expressed itself in manifold ways

over all those areas where actual stagnation had not come to pass; but

this loosening was by no means characterized by deep-seated coarseness

or general immorality.[34] The people had begun to claim for themselves

some relaxation, and hence to amuse and satisfy themselves in the

light of their enlarged conceptions of the freedom and privileges

of life. On the whole, their enjoyments and amusements were such

as characterize a state of healthy-mindedness at a time of marked

transition.

In the main, the condition of the people was deplorable for what

they lacked in the way of incitements to pleasurable and helpful

social and cultural employments rather than because of what they

possessed.[35] When it is recalled how considerable was the dearth of

material for mental occupation; how undeveloped, for example, were

music and painting;[36] how the newspapers and magazines of the day

supplied little or nothing of a constructive or inspiring character;

how science was almost totally undeveloped,[37] libraries few in

number and destitute of stimulating material, the colleges for the

most part mooning the years away over insipid and useless abstractions

and dogmatic formulations, the wonder is that the rebound against

Puritanism, in this period of intense political excitement and the

growing secularization of thought, was not tenfold more violent and

subversive than it was.[38]

The impression communicated by this view is heightened when it is

recalled that the struggle for political independence not only had

affected profoundly the status of the people of New England with

respect to both their internal and their external relations; it had

also made substantial and significant modifications in the very

constitution of society itself. When the reorganization of affairs

after the Revolutionary struggle was over, it became increasingly

apparent that the control of the forces and institutions of society

in New England was in the hands of new leaders and arbiters. The

aristocracy of unquestioned conservatism which had all society under

its thumb before the Revolution, had been swept away generally in the

flood of that epochal event. Up from the small towns and villages

of the country to the great centers, to Boston particularly, came a

small army, made up largely of squires and gentry,[39] to establish a

new but less secure sovereignty, to assume control of the social and

political forces of the day, and, more or less unaware of the precise

significance of the turn of events, to measure its strength against

those new forces of democracy which in New England, as no place else

in the nation, were to find themselves compelled to fight a long and

stubborn battle to secure their emancipation.

Assuming without question the direction of affairs, this new

aristocracy, after the fashion of the old leaders who were gone,

addressed itself to the task of social, political, and religious

control.[40] Manifestly the situation was big with possibilities with

respect to the effect to be produced upon the thought and habits of the

people. There they dwelt in their spacious houses,[41] these modern

aristocrats and autocrats of fashion and custom, by no means rolling in

luxury and idleness, yet claiming and enjoying a degree of relaxation

and social pleasure vastly more lavish than that accorded to their

plebeian neighbors, occupying themselves with their parties, their

weddings and dances,[42] their refinements of dress[43] and behavior,

but with little or no disposition to abandon themselves to scandalous

conduct.

The constant challenge of the political necessities of the times,

it may be urged, was altogether too compelling to admit of any such

looseness. Still, one cannot scan the newspapers of the period, or

read the story of the social commerce of the times as it pieces itself

together out of the private records and correspondence of the day,

or listen even to the pulpit’s copious flood of denunciations,[44]

without a feeling of mingled admiration and astonishment that in an age

everywhere characterized by upheaval and ferment there was really as

little of shameless and wanton conduct in New England as the records of

the period reveal. It cannot but be viewed as a notable tribute to the

essential soundness and nobility of that type of moral and religious

culture which Puritanism had supplied from the first that the New

England character should be able to pass through a period of profound

social readjustment, of the discarding of old value judgments and the

adoption of new, such as came near the close of the eighteenth century,

and this without serious loss of moral power and prestige. Manifestly,

whatever hollowness and insincerity Puritanism may have developed in

other lands and times, it did not so cramp and fetter the human spirit

in New England as to render it incapable of self-guidance when the old

restraints and limitations were no more.[45]

Now that its controlling spirit of gravity and provincialism was being

replaced by a general temper of comparative light-heartedness and

open-mindedness, of unaffected enjoyment of the good things of life,

of the acceptance of standards far more natural than those of the

earlier day, the transition was accomplished with a relative absence of

accompanying instances of moral lapse and disaster nothing less than

remarkable. A considerable amount of the boisterousness and heat of

the day over which clerical Jeremiahs and others of like conservative

leanings ceased not to pour out their complaints,[46] is explicable on

the ground of the growing habit of the mass of the people to exercise

the rights of citizenship through direct participation in the affairs

of the day. For far more significant than any evidence of moral

blindness and perversity on the part of the people in general is the

fact that a great, crowding, hungry democracy was knocking at the gates

of the old aristocratic régime and insistently urging the consideration

of its rights.

FOOTNOTES:

[4] An early and yet typical example of this unfavorable view of the

moral and religious life of the people after the first generation of

the Puritans was gone, may be found in _The Result of 1679_,—a document

prepared by the Synod in response to directions from the Massachusetts

General Court, calling for answers to the following questions: “What

are the euills that haue provoked the Lord to bring his judgments on

New England? What is to be donn that so those euills may be reformed?”.

The following brief excerpt from _The Result_ supplies the point of

View: “Our Fathers neither sought for, nor thought of great things

for themselves, but did seek first the kingdom of God, and his

righteousness, and all these things were added to them. They came not

into the wilderness to see a man cloathed in soft raiment. But that we

have in too many respects, been forgetting the Errand upon which the

Lord sent us hither; all the world is witness: And therefore we may not

wonder that God hath changed the tenour of his Dispensations towards

us, turning to doe us hurt, and consuming us after that he hath done us

good. If we had continued to be as once we were, the Lord would have

continued to doe for us, as once he did.” The entire document, together

with much valuable explanatory comment, may be found in Walker, _Creeds

and Platforms of Congregationalism_, pp. 421–437. Backus, _History of

New England_, vol i, pp. 457–461, contains a group of similar laments.

[5] Snow, _A History of Boston_, p. 333.

[6] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, vol. ii, p.

696.

[7] _Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, of the Province of

Massachusetts Bay_, vol. iii, pp. 500 _et seq._ The Preamble of this

Act is highly interesting: “For preventing and avoiding the many and

great mischiefs which arise from publick stage-plays, interludes and

other theatrical entertainments, which not only occasion great and

unnecessary expenses, and discourage industry and frugality, but

likewise tend generally to increase immorality, impiety and a contempt

for religion,—Be it enacted”, _etc._

[8] Seilhamer, _History of the American Theatre_, vol. ii, pp. 51 _et

seq._; Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, vol. iv, ch. v: “The

Drama in Boston,” by William W. Clapp, pp. 358 _et seq._

[9] Seilhamer, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 13; Dunlap, _History of the

American Theatre_, vol. i, p. 244; Snow, _History of Boston_, pp. 333

_et seq._

[10] _Acts and Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts_, 1792–3, pp.

686 _et seq._

[11] The public discussion and legislative phase of the situation,

together with the disorders occasioned by the determination of the

supporters of the theatre to serve their enterprise at any cost,

are well covered by Clapp in the chapter already cited in Winsor’s

_Memorial History of Boston_. _Cf._ also Seilhamer, vol. iii, pp. 14

_et seq._; Dunlap, vol. i, pp. 242 _et seq._; Willard, _Memories of

Youth and Manhood_, vol. i, pp. 324, 325; Bentley, _Diary_, vol. i. pp

340, 379, 380, 414, 415, 418, _etc._

[12] _The Speech of John Gardiner, Esquire, Delivered in the House

of Representatives. On Thursday, the 26th of January, 1792_, Boston,

1792, p. 18. Another publication of the same year, _The Rights of the

Drama: or, An Inquiry into the Origin, Principles, and Consequences

of Theatrical Entertainments. By Philo Dramatis_ (pseud.), discussed

the subject in different vein, but with the same object in view.

In the final chapter on “The Outlines of a Theatre, it’s Necessary

Appendages, a Plan of Regulation, Calculation of Expenses, Profits,

&c.”, doubtless by way of turning the balance of public judgment in

favor of the establishment of a local theatre, the author suggests that

the following ends may be served: the development of native genius,

and thus the elevation of America to a high rank in the republic of

letters; the reservation of a certain portion of the revenues of the

theatre by the Commonwealth, for the care of the poor of Boston, or

of the state, and for the support of the University at Cambridge

(Harvard), thus easing the burden of taxation. The closing words of

this pamphlet, stripped of their bombast, are not unworthy to stand

with Gardiner’s: “Whenever I consider this subject, and contemplate the

formation of a Theatre, I cannot help feeling a kind of enthusiasm ...

I anticipate the time when the Garricks and Siddons of America shall

adorn the Stage, and melt the soul to pity. But here let me pause.—Let

the most rigid Stoic, or the greatest fanatic in religion, or the most

notorious dupe to prejudice, once hearken to the tale of the tragic

muse, whose office it is to soften, and to subdue the violent passions

of the mind, by painting the real misfortunes and distresses, which

accompany our journey through life; or attend to the laughable follies,

and vain inconsistencies, which daily mark the character of the human

species—the deformity of vice—the excellence of virtue—, and, from the

representation of the lively Comedy, ‘catch the manners living as they

rise,’ and then say, if he can, that lessons of instruction are unknown

to the Drama. If these have no effect, let him listen, with mute

attention, to the occasional symphonies, which burst from a thousand

strings, and accompany, and give life and animation to the Comic

scene—and then, if sunk below the brute creation, let him be fortified

against the impressions of sensibility. The stoicism of man must

surpass our comprehension, if the dramatic scene can be contemplated

without emotion; more especially when the representation of life and

manners is intended to correct and to enlarge the heart....”

[13] _Cf._ (Boston) _Independent Chronicle and Universal Advertiser_,

Thursday, March 28, 1793.

[14] _Pseud._: _Effects of the Stage on the Manners of a People: and

the Propriety of Encouraging and Establishing a Virtuous Theatre. By a

Bostonian_, Boston, 1792. The author is insipid enough; none the less

the pamphlet is by no means void of a certain practical-mindedness

and good sense as the author argues for the frank acceptance of the

theatre as an institution in the city’s life. The following constitute

his chief contentions: The theatre, in some form or other, is bound

to come, because of the fact that the people generally are interested

in the subject of amusement; the tastes and appetites of the people

already give painful evidence of serious debasement and corruption; the

acceptance of a “Virtuous Theatre” is the only possible expedient if

the people are to be saved from worse debauchment.

The view taken by the Reverend William Bentley, Salem’s well-known

minister, was less specious, though tinged with a mildly pessimistic

view of popular tastes. Under date of July 31, 1792, he wrote: “So much

talk has been in the Country about Theatrical entertainments that they

have become the pride even of the smallest children in our schools.

The fact puts in mind of the effect from the Rope flyers, who visited

N. England, after whose feats the children of seven were sliding down

the fences & wounding themselves in every quarter.” _Diary_, vol. i,

p. 384. Later, he wrote: “The Theatre opened for the first time [in

Salem] is now the subject. The enlightened who have not determined upon

its utter abolition have yet generally agreed that it is too early

introduced into our country.” _Ibid._, vol. ii, p. 81. _Cf. ibid._, pp.

258, _et seq._, 299, 322. It is clear that Bentley was apprehensive.

[15] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, vol. i, pp.

188, 195; Bishop, _History of American Manufactures_, vol. i, pp. 245

_et seq._

[16] _Ibid._, p. 250; vol. ii, pp. 501, 502. See also Clark, _History

of Manufactures in the United States_, p. 480.

[17] _Ibid._ Bishop notes the fact that in 1721 a small village of

forty houses, near Boston, made 3000 barrels of cider.

[18] _Ibid._, p. 269; Weeden, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 144, 148 _et seq._

[19] The impression that this decline toward a general state of

drunkenness set in early will appear from the following excerpt taken

from the Synod’s report on “The Necessity of Reformation”, presented

to the General Court of Massachusetts in 1679: “VIII. There is much

Intemperance. The heathenish and Idolatrous practice of Health-drinking

is become too general a Provocation. Dayes of Training, and other

publick Solemnityes, have been abused in this respect: and not only

English but Indians have been debauched, by those that call themselves

Christians, who have put their bottles to them, and made them drunk

also. This is a crying Sin, and the more aggravated in that the first

Planters of this Colony did (as in the Patent expressed) come into this

Land with a design to Convert the Heathen unto Christ.... There are

more Temptations and occasions unto _That Sin_, publickly allowed of,

than any necessity doth require; the proper end of Taverns, &c. being

to that end only, a far less number would suffice: But it is a common

practice for Town dwellers, yea and Church-members, to frequent publick

Houses, and there to misspend precious Time, unto the dishonour of

the Gospel, and the scandalizing of others, who are by such examples

induced to sin against God.” _Cf._ Walker, _Creeds and Platforms of

Congregationalism_, p. 430.

[20] Hatch, _The Administration of the American Revolutionary Army_,

pp. 89 _et seq._ The supplies of beer, cider, and rum furnished the

armies were not always held to be adequate. After the battle of

Brandywine, Congress ordered thirty hogsheads of rum distributed among

the soldiers as a tribute to their gallant conduct in that battle.

_Cf._ _One Hundred Years of Temperance_, New York, 1886, article by

Daniel Dorchester on “The Inception of the Temperance Reformation”, p.

113, for comments on the effects of the return of drunken soldiers to

the ranks of citizenship.

[21] Weeden, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 883, supplies the following

concerning the character of the coasting and river trade, which the

exigencies of the war greatly stimulated: “A cargo from Boston to Great

Barrington and Williamstown contained 11 hdds. and 6 tierces of rum, 3

bbls. of wine, 2 do. of brandy, 1/2 bale of cotton, and 1 small cask of

indigo. The proportion of ‘wet goods’ to the small quantity of cotton

and indigo is significant, and indicates the prevailing appetites”.

[22] In 1783 Massachusetts had no fewer than sixty-three distilleries.

In 1783 this state distilled 1,475,509 gallons of spirits from foreign,

and 11,490 gallons from domestic materials. From 1790 to 1800 in the

United States, 23,148,404 gallons of spirits were distilled from

molasses; of this 6,322,640 gallons were exported, leaving a quantity

for home consumption so large as to supply its own comment. Low grain

prices, together with the difficulty of gaining access to the molasses

markets, hastened a transition to grain distilling near the end of

the eighteenth century, with the result that in 1810 Mr. Gallatin,

Secretary of the Treasury, reported not less than 9,000,000 gallons of

spirits as having been distilled from grain and fruit in 1801. Bishop,

_History of American Manufactures_, vol. ii, pp. 30, 65, 83, 152;

Clark, _History of Manufactures in the United States_, p. 230.

[23] _Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society_, 6th ser.,

vol. iv, Belknap Papers, pt. iii, p. 440.

[24] _Ibid._, p. 508.

[25] _Diary of William Bentley_, vol. ii, p. 92: May 31, 1794: “The

observation of holydays at Election is an abuse in this part of the

Country. Not only at our return yesterday, did we observe crowds around

the new Tavern at the entrance of the Town, but even at this day, we

saw at Perkins’ on the neck, persons of all descriptions, dancing to a

fiddle, drinking, playing with pennies, &c. It is proper such excesses

should be checked.” _Cf._ also _ibid._, pp. 58, 363, 410, 444 _et seq._

_Cf._ also Earle, Alice Morse, _Stage-coach and Tavern Days_, New York,

1900.

[26] _Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society_, 6th Series,

vol. iv, Belknap Papers, pt. iii, p. 456. Jeremiah Libbey writes of

the situation at Portsmouth, [N. H.?]: “The common allowance of rum

to labourers here is half a pint per day, which has been the rule or

custom as long as I can remember. There are several persons in this

town that are endeavouring to abolish the custom by giving them more

wages in lieu of the _allowance_, as it is call’d; but the custom is

so rooted that it is very difficult to break it. The attachment is

so great, that in general if you were to offer double the price of

the allowance in money it would not be satisfactory to the labourers,

and altho’ that is the case & it is the ruin of them and familys in

many instances ... untill a substitute of beer or some other drink is

introduced in general, it will be difficult to get over it”.

[27] _Diary of William Bentley_, vol. i, pp. 167, 175, 217, 218, 244,

247, 248, 255, 256, 281 _et seq._

[28] _Autobiography and Correspondence of Lyman Beecher_, vol. i, p. 30.

[29] _Ibid._, p. 24. The description of the meeting of the

Consociation, pp. 214 _et seq._, is unusually vivid: “ ... the

preparation for our creature comforts in the sitting-room of Mr.

Heart’s house, besides food, was a broad sideboard, covered with

decanters and bottles, and sugar, and pitchers of water. There we

found all the various kinds of liquors then in vogue. The drinking

was apparently universal. This preparation was made by the society as

a matter of course. When the Consociation arrived, they always took

something to drink round; also before public services, and always on

their return. As they could not all drink at once, they were obliged to

stand and wait, as people do when they go to mill. There was a decanter

of spirits also on the dinnertable, to help digestion, and gentlemen

partook of it through the afternoon and evening as they felt the need,

some more and some less; and the sideboard, with the spillings of

water, and sugar, and liquor, looked and smelled like the bar of a very

active grog-shop. None of the Consociation were drunk; but that there

was not, at times, a considerable amount of exhilaration, I can not

affirm.” It was Beecher’s judgment that “the tide was swelling in the

drinking habits of society.—” _Ibid._, p. 215.

[30] _Ibid._, vol. i, pp. 133, 138, 163, 255, 256, 371; vol. ii. pp.

294, 328 _et seq._

[31] _A Discourse on Some Events of the Last Century, delivered in the

Brick Church in New Haven, on Wednesday, January 7, 1801. By Timothy

Dwight, President of Yale College_, New Haven, 1801. _Cf._ this

author’s _Travels in New England and New York_, vol. iv, pp. 353 _et

seq._

[32] Dwight’s _Century Sermon_, p. 18.

[33] _Ibid._, pp. 18 _et seq._

[34] The testimony of a European traveller should prove as edifying

as that of an intimate participant in the country’s life. In 1788,

Brissot de Warville visited America. He remarked the change which had

come over the people of New England, of Boston in particular. The old

“Presbyterian austerity, which interdicted all pleasures, even that

of walking; which forbade travelling on Sunday, which persecuted men

whose opinions were different from their own” was no longer to be

encountered. Yet no evidence of the corruption of morals presented

itself to the distinguished traveller. On the contrary, he remarked the

general wholesomeness and soundness of domestic life, and the general

poise and temperance of a people which, “since the ancient puritan

austerity has disappeared”, was able to play cards without yielding

to the gambling instinct and to enjoy its clubs and parties without

offending the spirit of courtesy and good-breeding. The glow upon

the soul of Brissot as he contemplates the prosperity and unaffected

simplicity of the people of Boston is evident as he writes: “With

what pleasure did I contemplate this town, which first shook off the

English yoke! which, for a long time, resisted all the seductions, all

the menaces, all the horrors of a civil war! How I delighted to wander

up and down that long street, whose simple houses of wood border the

magnificent channel of Boston, and whose full stores offer me all the

productions of the continent which I had quitted! How I enjoyed the

activity of the merchants, the artizans, and the sailors! It was not

the noisy vortex of Paris; it was not the unquiet, eager mien of my

countrymen; it was the simple, dignified air of men, who are conscious

of liberty, and who see in all men their brothers and their equals.

Everything in this street bears the marks of a town still in its

infancy, but which, even in its infancy, enjoys a great prosperity....

Boston is just rising from the devastations of war, and its commerce is

flourishing; its manufactures, productions, arts, and sciences, offer a

number of curious and interesting observations.” (Brissot De Warville,

_New Travels in the United States of America_, pp. 70–82.) Equally

laudatory comment respecting the state of society in Connecticut is

made by Brissot (pp. 108, 109).

John Bernard, the English comedian, who was in this country at the

close of the eighteenth century, found the state of society very much

like that which he had left in his own country. “They wore the same

clothes, spoke the same language, and seemed to glow with the same

affable and hospitable feelings. In walking along the mall I could

scarcely believe I had not been whisked over to St. James’s Park; and

in their houses the last modes of London were observable in nearly

every article of ornament or utility. Other parts of the state were,

however, very different.” (Bernard, _Retrospections of America,

1797–1811_, p. 29.) Bernard found in New England abundant evidences of

progress such as he had not been accustomed to in England, and splendid

stamina of character (p. 30). Nothing, apparently, suggested to him

that the people were not virile and sound.

[35] Bentley, _Diary_, vol. i, pp. 253 _et seq._, discusses at length

“the Puerile Sports usual in these parts of New England”. Weeden,

_Economic and Social History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 696, comments

on the dearth of public amusement. _Cf._ also _ibid._, p. 864. The

changed attitude of the public toward dancing, as reported by Weeden,

pp. 696 and 864, doubtless finds its explanation in the growing

consciousness that the resources in the way of entertainment deserve to

be increased. At the close of the century, however, dancing was still

frowned upon. Bentley, _Diary_, vol. ii, pp. 17, 232, 233, 296, 322,

363.

[36] Brissot, _New Travels in the United States of America_, p. 72:

“Music, which their teachers formerly prescribed as a diabolic art,

begins to make part of their education. In some houses you hear the

forte-piano. This art, it is true, is still in its infancy; but the

young novices who exercise it, are so gentle, so complaisant, and so

modest, that the proud perfection of art gives no pleasure equal to

what they afford.” _Cf._ also Bentley, _Diary_, vol. ii, pp. 247 _et

seq._, 292.

[37] Brissot, _New Travels in the United States of America_, pp. 86 _et

seq._ Brissot generously explains this fact upon the ground that in a

country so new, whose immediate concerns were so compelling, and where,

also, wealth is not centered in a few hands, the cultivation of the

arts and sciences is not to be expected. On the side of invention the

situation was far from being as bad as a reading of Brissot might seem

to imply. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, vol.

ii, pp. 847–858.

[38] Goddard, _Studies in New England Transcendentalism_, p. 18.

While the passage cited deals with an earlier situation, the general

observation made concerning the well-poised character of the New

England type of mind is as valid for the close of the eighteenth

century as for the corresponding period of the preceding century; and

the failure of New England to take a “plunge ... from the moral heights

of Puritanism” is all the more impressive in the later period in view

of the variety and character of the new incitements and impulses which

the people of New England generally felt in the period following the

Revolution.

[39] Conspicuous in this group was the new merchant class. In the wake

of the Revolution came an industrial and commercial revival which

profoundly affected the life of New England. While the period of the

Confederation, on account of its political disorganization and the

chaotic state of public finance and the currency, was characterized

by extreme economic depression, on the other hand, the adoption of

the Constitution communicated to the centers of industry and commerce

a feeling of optimism. The sense that a federal government had been

formed, equal to the task of guaranteeing to its citizens the rights

and privileges of trade, gave early evidence that the economic

impulses of the country had been quickened notably. Such evidence is

too abundant and too well known either to permit or to require full

statement here, but the following is suggestive: The fisheries of New

England, which had been nearly destroyed during the Revolution, had

so far revived by 1789 that a total of 480 vessels, representing a

tonnage of 27,000, were employed in the industry. At least 32,000 tons

of shipping were built in the United States, a very large part of this

in New England, in 1791. Before the war the largest amount built in any

one year was 26,544 tons. But the record of 1791 was modest. From 1789

to 1810, American shipping increased from 202,000 to 1,425,000 tons.

Because of the federal government’s proclamation of strict neutrality

with regard to the wars abroad, the carrying trade of the world came

largely into the hands of shipowners and seamen of the United States,

with the result that the dockyards and wharves of New England fairly

hummed with activity. The exports of 1793 amounted to $33,026,233.

By 1799 they had mounted to $78,665,522, of which $33,142,522 was

the growth, produce, or manufacture of the Union. Within a very few

years after the adoption of the Constitution, American merchants had

become the warehousers and distributors of merchandise to all parts

of the world. The wharves of New England were covered with goods from

Europe, the Orient, the West Indies, and from the looms, shops, and

distilleries of the nation. Directed by resourceful and far-sighted

men who had the instinct for commercial expansion, ships sailed from

New England ports for Batavia, Canton, Calcutta, St. Petersburg,

Port Louis. They carried with them coffee, fish, flour, provisions,

tobacco, rum, iron, cattle, horses; they brought back molasses, sugar,

wine, indigo, pepper, salt, muslins, calicoes, silks, hemp, duck. The

situation is dealt with in detail by Bishop, _History of American

Manufactures_, vol. ii, pp. 13–82; Clark, _History of Manufactures in

the United States_, pp. 227 _et seq._; Weeden, _Economic and Social

History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 816–857.

[40] Winsor, _The Memorial History of Boston_, vol. iii, pp. 191, 203;

Morse, _The Federalist Party in Massachusetts_, pp. 37, 38; _Harvard

Theological Review_, January, 1916, p. 104.

[41] Weeden, _Early Life in Rhode Island_, pp. 357 _et seq._, calls

attention to the spacious and elegant houses which were built at

Providence about 1790, and to the new group of merchants which the

expansion of trans-oceanic commerce called into existence there.

Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, pp. 821 _et

seq._, deals with the situation in a larger way.

[42] Parker, _History of the Second Church of Christ in Hartford_,

p. 172. The passage contains a vivid picture of the state of polite

society in an important Connecticut center. Love, _The Colonial

History of Hartford_, pp. 244 _et seq._, deals with the transformation

of social life with particular reference to the disintegration of

Puritanism.

[43] An outcry against the excesses of fashion began to make itself

heard. “An Old Farmer,” writing to the _Massachusetts Spy_, March 27,

1799, complains on account of the consequent drain upon the purses of

husbands and fathers: “I am a plain farmer, and therefore beg leave to

trouble you with a little plain language. By the dint of industry, and

application to agricultural concerns, I have, till lately, made out to

keep square with the world. But the late scarcity of money, together

with the extravagance of fashions have nearly ruined me.... I am by no

means tenacious of the _old way_, or of _old fashions_. I know that my

family must dress different from what I used to when I was young; yet

as I have the interest of husbands and fathers at heart, I wish there

might be some reformation in the present mode of female dress.... In

better times, six or seven yards of Calico would serve to make a gown;

but now fourteen yards are scarcely sufficient. I do not perceive that

women grow any larger now than formerly.... A few years since, my

daughters were not too proud to wear good calfskin shoes; two pair of

which would last them a year: But now none will suit them but morroco,

and these must be of the slenderest kind.... Young ladies used to be

contented with wearing nothing on their heads but what Nature gave

them.... But now they dare not appear in company, unless they have half

a bushel of gauze, and other stuff, stuck on their heads”. The letter

closes with a humorous account of the writer’s embarrassing experience

with the trains of the ladies’ dresses on the occasion of a recent

visit to church.

[44] Swift, Lindsay, _The Massachusetts Election Sermons_ (Publications

of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, vol. i, Transactions,

1892–1894), pp. 428 _et seq._

[45] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, vol. ii, pp.

864 _et seq._

[46] Scudder, _Recollections of Samuel Breck, with Passages from His

Note-Books_, pp. 178 _et seq._ Breck visited New England about 1791. He

was impressed with the looseness of life and gross lawlessness which

he saw. A fairer judgment appears on page 182: “The severe, gloomy

puritanical spirit that had governed New England since the days of the

Pilgrim forefathers was gradually giving way in the principal towns”,

_etc._

2. OMINOUS DISCONTENT WITH THE STANDING ORDER

The general impression of a revolt against morality and religion in

New England near the close of the eighteenth century was deepened

by the bitterness of spirit which marked the last stages of the

long struggle waged by dissenters to cut the bond between church

and state.[47] The Congregational Church was one of the fundamental

institutions of New England, and from the first the sword of the

magistrate had been invoked to enforce conformity to its worship and

polity. Strange enough seem the terms “Establishment” and “Standing

Order”[48] in the history of a people whose forefathers came to America

in quest of religious freedom. The freedom sought, however, was to be

construed as loyalty to a new order rather than as the embodiment of

tolerance. Thus it happened that for two whole centuries the battle on

behalf of the rights of dissent had to be waged in New England.[49]

To have this struggle construed by the aggrieved representatives of

the Establishment as the crowning expression of what they had come to

regard as the deep-seated and widespread irreligion of the age, was

not the least of the bitter taunts which dissenters had to bear.

(a) _Massachusetts_

In Massachusetts the eighteenth century dawned with some faint

promise of a kindlier day. The Charter of 1691 granted full liberty

of conscience to all Christians except Roman Catholics.[50] The

practical effects of this apparently sweeping reform were largely

nullified, however, when in the following year the General Court made

it obligatory for each town to have a minister for whose support all

its inhabitants should be taxed.[51] With the removal of all bonds upon

conscience and of all religious restrictions upon the right of suffrage

on the one hand, but with the principle of enforced support of the

institutions of religion on the other, the hallowed union of church

and state in Massachusetts obviously stood in no immediate danger. The

slight modifications speedily made in the law of 1692 did not touch the

principle of taxation in the interests of religious worship.[52]

A measure of relief came to the Episcopalians in 1727,[53] and to the

Quakers and Baptists in 1728,[54] in the form of exemption laws. In

the case of the Baptists the exemption granted was not absolute, but

only for a limited period of years. With the expiration of this period

the struggle for relief of necessity had to be renewed.[55] The rights

of dissent had begun to receive some recognition, but the limitations

embodied in the foregoing legislation bore convincing testimony of a

grudging temper of mind which would yield no ground without strong

pressure.

The spirit of excitement and controversy which characterized the

revival of religion of the third and fourth decades of the eighteenth

century (_i. e._, the Great Awakening) led to new complications and

difficulties. Stirred by the revival, itinerant preachers, some of them

of little learning and of less tact, invaded parishes of their clerical

brethren without their consent, and presumed to censure the ministers

and congregations that had not yielded to the emotional impulses of the

revival.[56] A clash of parties followed, producing new antipathies and

cleavages. Many who were in sympathy with the revival withdrew from

orthodox congregations to organize new churches, nominally Baptist,

with a view to obtaining exemption from the obligation to support

the state church. To meet this evasion in 1752 the General Court of

Massachusetts passed an act which provided

That no person for the future shall be so esteemed an A(n)nabaptist

as to have his poll or polls and estate exempted from paying a

proportionable part of the taxes that shall be raised in the

town or place where he or they belong, but such whose names shall

be contained in the lists taken by the assessors, as in said act

provided, or such as shall produce a certificate, under the hands

of the minister and of two principal members of such church,

setting forth that they conscientiously believe such person or

persons to be of their perswasion, and that he or they usually and

frequently attend the publick worship in such church on Lord’s

days.[57]

A further provision of the act denied to Baptist ministers and their

parishioners the right of furnishing the required certificates unless

three other Baptist churches previously should have certified that the

persons granting the certificates were regarded as members of that

body.[58] To make the situation more galling, if that were possible,

certificates so obtained had to be lodged annually with the town clerk

before the time to pay the rates arrived.

From every point of view this legislation was objectionable to

the Baptists. Their protest was instant and vigorous.[59] It was

decided to send one of their number as agent to England, to carry

their case before the government of the mother country.[60] A sharp

remonstrance, so plain in its language that its signers came very

near being taken into custody, was drawn up and presented to the

General Court at Boston.[61] But great as was the sense of injustice

under which the Baptists smarted, the operations of the act appear

to have been most severe in the case of those who had drawn off from

the orthodox churches on account of the disturbances created by the

Great Awakening. The position of these Separatists[62] was peculiarly

vulnerable. Baptist leaders found themselves embarrassed when called

upon to certify to the Baptist affiliations of the Separatists; such a

distasteful judgment of the motives and scruples of others was to be

avoided wherever possible.[63] On the other hand, if the Separatists

sought to set up churches and establish ministers of their own, they

were confronted by the fact that a second Congregational church could

not be formed in a parish without legislative permission, and the

orthodox party usually showed itself capable of forestalling all such

sanction on the part of the state. It was left, therefore, to the

Separatists either for conscience’ sake to bear the double burden of

taxation,[64] or to seek a permanent religious home in one of the

recognized dissenting bodies.[65]

Five years later, when the exemption law of 1752 expired and with it

the exemption laws that previously had been passed for the relief of

the Quakers, a new law was enacted governing both sects.[66] Henceforth

a Baptist who desired exemption must have his name upon a list to be

presented annually to the assessor and signed by the minister and three

principal members of the Baptist congregation to which the applicant

belonged, with the accompanying certification that the applicant was

recognized as a conscientious and faithful Baptist. Quakers were

placed under the same regulations. For thirteen years this law was in

operation, with manifold instances of distress resulting, particularly

in the case of Baptists.[67] Through difficulty in obtaining the

certificates, goods were seized, expensive and otherwise irritating

court trials were held, and not a few victims, either because of

poverty or on account of conscientious scruples, found their way to

prison. In some instances, despite the fact that the certificates were

duly obtained and presented, they were waved aside and the payment of

the tax required or the process of distraint invoked.[68] It is little

wonder that the feeling in the minds and hearts of New England Baptists

that there was a spirit of iniquity back of the oppressive measures

of the Standing Order, came to have all the significance of a settled

conviction.[69]

Further modifications in the exemption laws, made in 1770, were so

slight, leaving as they did the certificate principle practically

untouched,[70] that Baptist opposition was aroused even more deeply

and the determination struck deeper root to push the battle for

religious freedom to a decision. The times also were propitious. The

near approach of the Revolutionary struggle focused attention upon the

subject of tyranny and caused acts of oppression, whether civil or

ecclesiastical in character, to stand out in a new relief before the

eye of the public. That dissenters were quick to see the bearing of

political events will appear from the following pithy comments in the

address which the Committee of Grievances[71] drew up late in 1774 and

presented to the Provincial Congress of Massachusetts:

It seems that the two main rights which all America are contending

for at this time, are,—Not to be taxed where they are not

represented, and—To have their causes tried by unbiased judges. And

the Baptist churches in this province as heartily unite with their

countrymen in this cause, as any denomination in the land; and

are as ready to exert all their abilities to defend it. Yet only

because they have thought it to be their duty to claim an equal

title to these rights with their neighbors, they have repeatedly

been accused of evil attempts against the general welfare of the

colony; therefore, we have thought it expedient to lay a brief

statement of the case before this assembly.... Great complaints

have been made about a tax which the British parliament laid upon

paper; but you require a paper tax of us annually. That which has

made the greatest noise, is the tax of three pence a pound upon

tea; but your law of last June laid a tax of the same sum every

year upon the Baptists in each parish, as they would expect to

defend themselves against a greater one.... All America is alarmed

at the tea tax; though, if they please, they can avoid it by

not buying tea; but we have no such liberty. We must either pay

the little tax, or else your people appear even in this time of

extremity determined to lay the great one upon us. But these lines

are to let you know, that we are determined not to pay either of

them; not only upon your principle of not being taxed where we are

not represented, but also because we dare not render homage to any

earthly power, which I and many of my brethren are fully convinced

belongs only to God. We can not give the certificates you require,

without implicitly allowing to men that authority which we believe

in our conscience belongs only to God. Here, therefore, we claim

charter rights, liberty of conscience.[72]

As the event proved, the Revolutionary period brought little

legislative relief to dissenters in Massachusetts. Wherever the

distractions of the war did not interrupt the ordinary course of

ecclesiastical affairs, the state church continued to assert its

time-honored prerogatives. The new constitution of the commonwealth

which was adopted in 1780 gave conclusive proof that the Standing Order

still had the situation well in hand. That instrument contained a

bill of rights which reaffirmed the authority of the legislature to

authorize and require the various towns and parishes “to make suitable

provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public

worship of God”;[73] affirmed also that the legislature had authority

to enjoin attendance upon public worship; that towns and parishes were

to have the right to elect their ministers and make contracts with them

for their support; and that moneys, in the form of rates paid by the

people in the support of public worship, were to be applied according

to the preference of the rate-payer, “provided, there be any [minister]

on whose instructions he attends”; otherwise the minister selected by

the town or parish was to receive the benefit of the tax.[74] There is

no difficulty in discerning here the outlines of the old ideal of a

state church. The day of deliverance for dissent was not yet.[75]

What did take place during the Revolutionary period to promote the

cause of religious freedom and to hasten the day of its triumph was the

publication of various pamphlets and treatises devoted to the cause

of toleration or championing the closely allied cause of democracy in

church and state.[76] Several of these[77] were from the pen of the

indomitable Isaac Backus, whose unwearied advocacy of the rights of

the individual conscience was exceeded by none. The likeness of the

struggle which dissenters were making for freedom of conscience to

that which the colonists were making for civil liberty was a favorite

notion of this doughty penman; and such an argument presented when the

imaginations of his countrymen were stirred by the political situation,

could not fail of its appeal. Three years before the war broke out, in

his _Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty_, Backus had drawn for

the benefit of the public a sharp distinction between the spheres of

ecclesiastical and civil governments. The former was armed only with

_light_ and _truth_, and was commissioned to “pull down the strongholds

of iniquity,” to gather into Christ’s church those who were willing to

be governed by His teachings, and to exclude those who would not be so

governed; while the latter “is armed with _the sword to guard the peace

and to punish those who violate the same_.”[78] In his _Government

and Liberty Described, and Ecclesiastical Tyranny Exposed_, published

in 1778, he attacked the notion of men “assuming a power to govern

religion, instead of being governed by it,” and asserted that the

essence of true religion is a voluntary obedience to God.[79] Here was

strong meat for a people for whom the word freedom was rapidly coming

to have an enlarged signification.

The most convincing exposition of the democratic tendencies of the

age came from another quarter, and in a sense belonged to the past.

Spurred by the fact that at the beginning of the century a resolute

effort had been made, both in Massachusetts and Connecticut, to obtain

more compact and rigid ecclesiastical control,[80] the Reverend John

Wise, of Ipswich, Massachusetts, in 1710 had issued a satirical tract

entitled, _The Churches’ Quarrel Espoused_, and later, in 1717, a

more serious production entitled, _A Vindication of the Government

of the New England Churches_. In 1772 a new edition of these tracts,

published by subscription, came from the Boston press.[81] The enduring

quality of the task Wise had performed is shown by the fact that, while

these two slight volumes had been conceived as a protest against the

encroachments of ecclesiastical tyranny in the first two decades of the

century, they now, a half-century later, served equally well to voice

the deep passions and impulses of a people who for the moment were

engrossed in the concerns of civil government.[82] Wise rejected the

ideals of monarchy and aristocracy for the church, and took his stand

upon the proposition that democracy alone stands the test of reason and

revelation.[83] Of all systems, democracy alone cherishes the precious

interests of man’s original liberty and equality. It alone serves

effectually to restrain the disposition to prey and embezzle, and to

keep the administration of government firmly fixed upon the main

point, “the peculiar good and benefit of the whole.” “It is as plain as

daylight, there are no species of government like a democracy to attain

this end.”[84]

Such literary assaults upon the usurpations of government, upon the

violation of individual rights, and upon obstructions erected in

the path of democracy, were frontal. As has been said, they were

also happily timed. The oppressed would have to content themselves a

little longer with a type of toleration which seemed but the shadow

of genuine freedom; but the broad dissemination of such principles as

those proclaimed by Backus and Wise had had the effect of altering

appreciably the spirit of the times.

The close of the struggle for political freedom gave early proof

that the cause of religious toleration had passed into a new stage.

Dissent had grown in numbers and influence.[85] Distant voices, too,

were being heard. Virginia’s noble example in adopting the _Act

Establishing Religious Freedom_ had given a practical demonstration

of the complete severance of church and state. The impression created

by this determination of the issue of religious freedom on the

broadest possible basis had been profound throughout the country.

When the Constitution of the United States was before the people of

Massachusetts for ratification, in the fall and winter of 1787–88,

they found in it a single provision concerning religion. Article VI

provided: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification

to any office or public trust in the United States.” So far had the

eyes of dissenters in Massachusetts been opened to dangers lurking in

legislative measures that a large proportion of the Baptist delegates

in the state constitutional convention voted against the adoption of

the instrument.[86] Besides, their hearts were set on some broad and

yet specific guarantee of religious freedom under which their liberties

would be safe. The First Amendment to the Constitution, which Congress

proposed in 1789, seemed to fulfil their desire. It provided that

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” With the adoption of this law

by the majority of the states, the principle of full liberty of mind,

conscience, and worship, had been written finally into the law of the

land.

Yet this pronouncement of the national government could not bring to a

full end the long struggle which had been waged. Only the sphere of the

federal government was involved, and individual states were still free

to deal with the institutions of religion and the rights of individuals

as they might feel disposed, as long as the national welfare was not

involved.[87] What actually happened in Massachusetts is well expressed

by Isaac Backus: “The amendment about liberty of conscience is kept

out of sight.”[88] The goods of Baptists continued to be levied upon

to meet the ministerial tax.[89] Dissensions continued to arise in

parishes over the settlement and support of ministers, dissenting

minorities usually contesting the right of the majority to saddle upon

them clergymen for whose ministrations they had no desire.[90] The

annoyances and disabilities that dissenters and disaffected members of

the Establishment suffered were clearly not so numerous nor so severe

as they had been in the past;[91] none the less they were able to keep

alive the impression that nothing but a spirit of bigotry and obdurate

tyranny could explain the prolonged attitude and policy of the Standing

Order.[92]

(b) _Connecticut_

Before directing attention to the effect which this weakening of the

forces of ecclesiastical domination had upon the minds of the leaders

of the Establishment, it will be necessary to review briefly the course

which affairs took in Connecticut.[93]

Despite the fact that the founding of Connecticut had directly resulted

from the ecclesiasticism of Massachusetts, the forces of ecclesiastical

tyranny proved to be more strongly entrenched in Connecticut than in

the parent state.[94] This was due in part to the homogeneity of the

population,[95] but more largely to the degree of oversight of the

religious life of the people, unusual even for Puritan New England,

which the General Court of Connecticut exercised from the first.[96] In

this connection it is to be observed that the impulses that lay back of

the oppression of dissenters in Connecticut were not the same as those

that shaped the situation in Massachusetts. The founders of Connecticut

were out of sympathy with the theocratic ideal that prevailed in the

mother colony; they frowned upon the harsh measures of repression which

the authorities of Massachusetts adopted.[97] They held before them the

ideal of a state wherein the maintenance of religion and the exercise

of individual freedom should not be incompatible.

Yet as the event proved, the hand of religious tyranny fell heavily

upon their posterity.[98] This happened, not because they were

disposed to exercise harsher repressive measures than their fathers in

curbing dissent, but because, in their extraordinary devotion to the

churches of their own order, in their extreme care and watchfulness to

strengthen them and to safeguard the whole range of their interests,

they came into open conflict with the interests of dissenting

bodies.[99] As early as 1669 the Congregational church was formally

adopted as the state church.[100] From that day forward an intimate

and intense paternalism characterized the attitude of the civil

government toward the Establishment. Its most serious and permanent,

as well as its lighter and occasional concerns, all were provided for

with equal constancy. Contingencies of every description were either

prudently anticipated or, arising suddenly, received the immediate and

painstaking attention of the magistrates.[101]

The following list, though far from complete, will serve to illustrate

this point. Without the consent of the General Court, churches could

not be organized,[102] nor bonds be severed between pastors and their

flocks.[103] The formation of new parishes and the fixing of their

limits,[104] the calling of new ministers,[105] the determination

of the time at which arrearages in ministers’ salaries must be paid

fully,[106] the fixing of the location of new houses of worship,[107]

the disposition of cases of discipline appealed from the decisions of

local church courts,[108] the settlement of the question as to who

were to be permitted to receive the Lord’s Supper,[109] the proffer

of counsel concerning the behavior offended members were expected to

manifest toward pastors for whom they entertained no affection nor

respect[110]—these all were regarded as part of the proper business of

the General Court.

The dangers inherent in such a system are not difficult to divine.

The churches themselves upon which such paternal legislative care was

imposed generally found their affairs taken out of their hands. Civil

authority disciplined them and their members, and made independent

ecclesiastical rule little more than a fiction. Again, the committal

of the political government to a particular type of religious polity

and worship aroused antagonisms in the minds of men who hated the

palest shadow of the principle that the religion of a prince or

government must be the religion of the people. However tolerant toward

non-conformity such a state may show itself to be—and none will

deny that Connecticut rose to comparatively high levels of justice

in this regard[111]—the favoritism of government puts dissent at a

disadvantage; and when narrow and intolerant men are at the helm of

state, disadvantage passes rapidly into positive deprivation and

injury. Once more, so close an alliance between politics and religion

as the Standing Order in Connecticut represented, invites similar

combinations on the part of men, some of whom have political and

some religious objects to serve, and who, therefore, in the presence

of a common foe gladly make common cause. All of which we shall see

illustrated later.

Another general aspect of the situation in Connecticut concerns the

development of synodical government within the Congregational church.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, out of a sense of the

decay of religion in New England, as evidenced by the loosening of

discipline and the weakening of ministerial influence,[112] the

clergy of Massachusetts attempted to buttress church government

and ministerial authority through the “Proposals of 1705.” These

provided for the grouping of ministers in Associations which were to

function in the following ways: pastors were to adopt their advice

in all difficult cases; ministerial candidates were to be examined

and licensed by them; pastorless, or “bereaved” churches were to be

urged to apply to them for candidates; they were also to exercise

a general oversight of religion, and to inquire into charges made

against the character, conduct, or faith of any of their members. The

“Proposals” also made provision for Standing Councils to be made up

of delegates from these Ministerial Associations and lay members of

the churches. These Standing Councils were “to consult, advise, and

determine all affairs that shall be proper matter for the consideration

of an ecclesiastical council within their respective limits.” Their

judgments were to be accepted as final and obedience was to be enforced

on penalty of forfeiting church-fellowship.[113] This bold step in the

direction of bringing the churches of Massachusetts under more rigorous

ecclesiastical control was not destined to succeed. Liberalizing

elements stirred up powerful opposition, the legislature failed to give

to the “Proposals” its support, and the movement fell through.[114]

A very different situation developed in Connecticut. The yearning for

the strengthening of church government in the interests of a general

improvement of religion was if anything stronger in that commonwealth;

and a propitious hour for the inauguration of such a movement came

when, in 1707, the most influential minister of the colony, Gurdon

Saltonstall, of New London, was raised to the governor’s chair. The

following May the General Court issued the call for the famous Saybrook

Synod.[115] Ministers and messengers of the churches were to assemble

in their respective county towns, “on the last Monday in June next ...

to consider and agree upon those methods and rules for the management

of ecclesiastical discipline which by them shall be judged agreeable

and conformable to the word of God.”[116] By these county councils

ministers and delegates were to be chosen to meet at Saybrook, at the

commencement of the “infant college” (_i. e._, Yale), there “to compare

the results of the ministers of the several counties, and out of them

and from them to draw a form of ecclesiastical discipline which by two

or more persons delegated by them shall be offered to this Court ... to

be considered of and confirmed by them.”[117]

The directions of the General Court were complied with. The doctrinal

results of the Saybrook Synod are no part of our concern; but this is

not so with regard to its ecclesiastical formulations. The principles

contained in the “Proposals of 1705” were accepted and worked out in

more complete detail. Churches were to be grouped in Consociations,

one or more in each county as the churches might determine. Cases of

discipline too difficult of management in local congregations were to

be heard and determined by these Consociations. Refusal to answer to

the summons of a Consociation, or to submit to its decision, incurred

excommunication, whether a church or a pastor might be the guilty

party. All matters relating to the installation, ordination, and

dismissal of ministers were to be submitted by the churches to these

Consociations. In like manner the ministers of the various counties

were to be grouped together in Associations to consult concerning

the affairs of the church, provide ministerial licensure, examine

complaints, and make recommendations to the legislature concerning the

settlement of pastors with “bereaved” churches.[118]

The result of the deliberations of the Saybrook Synod was laid duly

before the sessions of the General Court, in October, 1708, and

formally adopted by that body in the following terms:

This Assembly do declare their great approbation of such a

happy agreement, and do ordain that all the churches within

this government that are or shall be thus united in doctrine,

worship, and discipline, be, and for the future shall be owned and

acknowledged established by law. Provided always, that nothing

herein shall be intended and construed to hinder or prevent any

society or church that is or shall be allowed by the laws of this

government, who soberly differ or dissent from the united churches

hereby established, from exercising worship and discipline in their

own way, according to their consciences.[119]

This reëstablishment of the Congregational church in Connecticut

determined the course of events, as far as the religious interests of

the commonwealth were concerned, for a hundred years to come. By this

it is not meant that the ecclesiastical system which was thus worked

out and imposed upon the churches of the colony continued to operate

in full force for that period; the Saybrook Platform was abrogated in

1784. But the Congregational church in Connecticut, by the act of 1708,

“attained the height of its security and power,”[120] and, as one of

the chief consequences of the act, ministerial domination was accorded

a recognition and support, the tradition of which outlived by at least

a quarter of a century the system by which it had been so firmly

established.

Thus to the paternalism of the state the authority and sense of

importance of the clergy had been added. These principles established,

it was to be expected that the religious history of Connecticut during

the eighteenth century would reveal the following characteristics

and tendencies: a disposition on the part of the state to treat the

clergy of the Establishment as the pillars of conservative thought

and custom; and a disposition on the part of the clergy to exercise a

controlling hand over all the religious activities of the people, as

well as to react violently against all radical impulses and movements

which appeared to endanger centralization of government, whether

ecclesiastical or political. Certainly these were the tendencies,

expressed in the attitude of mind and the activities of the Standing

Order, with which the forces of non-conformity and democracy had to

contend throughout the whole of the century.

We may now turn to take a brief survey of the more important events

in the course of this conflict. The concluding statement of the act

whereby the Connecticut General Court adopted the recommendations of

the Saybrook Synod,[121] gave evidence of a tender regard for the

consciences and rights of dissenters which subsequent occurrences far

from justified. The fact is, the act of reëstablishment did not stand

alone. Earlier in the same year (1708) the General Court had written

into the law of the colony another statute whose provisions were in

no way affected by the later act. For the worthy object of granting

liberty of worship to sober dissenters, a liberty which they were to

be permitted to enjoy “without let, or hindrance or molestation,” it

was provided that dissenting congregations were to qualify (_i. e._,

obtain license) under the law.[122] It was likewise provided that this

permission to qualify should in no way operate to the prejudice of the

rights and privileges of the churches of the Establishment, or “to the

excusing any person from paying any such minister or town dues, as are

now, or shall hereafter be due from them.”[123] This double burden of

obtaining license and supporting the state church was not to be borne

easily. An agitation to obtain relief promptly began.[124]

After two decades of effort the Episcopalians were the first to meet

with any measure of success. Henceforth their rate money was to be

spent in the support of their own ministers and they were no longer to

be required to help build meeting-houses for the state church.[125] Two

years later, relief was granted to Baptists and Quakers. The exemption

laws passed in their behalf, however, made necessary the presentation

of certificates vouching for the claims of the holders that they were

conscientious supporters of the principles and faithful attendants upon

the worship of one or the other of these bodies.[126]

The introduction of the custom of requiring certificates encountered

the same sense of injustice and bitter resentment that dissenters in

Massachusetts manifested. Besides, the exemption laws just referred

to failed to operate in a uniform and equitable manner. Episcopalians

and Baptists, particularly, found frequent occasion to complain of the

miscarriage of this legislation and to groan under the double burden of

taxation from which they had obtained no actual relief.[127]

But as in Massachusetts, so in Connecticut, the greatest hardships

befell the Separatists who went out from the fold of the orthodox

church. Unable to achieve within the Establishment that reformation

of doctrine, polity, and spiritual life which they deemed requisite,

they associated themselves together in churches committed to their own

convictions. Opposition confronted them at every turn. Obstructions

were thrown in the way of their efforts to obtain legal permission to

constitute their churches; the civil power persisted in treating them

as law-breakers and incorrigibles; their ministers were drastically

dealt with by Consociations which regarded them as wicked men filled

with the spirit of insubordination.[128] A group of laws as severe and

intolerant as any the statute books of Connecticut ever contained were

enacted in 1742–43 to curb and if possible to eradicate the Separatist

defection.[129] Ordained ministers were forbidden to preach outside

the bounds of their parishes unless expressly invited so to do.[130]

Ministerial Associations were restrained from licensing candidates to

preach outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Association granting

licensure.[131] Ministers of the Establishment were empowered to lodge

certificates with society clerks, attesting that men had entered

their parishes and preached therein without first having received

permission. No provision for ascertaining the facts in such cases

was contemplated by the law. Justices of the peace were forbidden to

sign a warrant authorizing the collection of a minister’s rates until

they were assured that no such certificate had been lodged against the

clergyman involved.[132] Heavy bonds were to be imposed upon ministers

from outside the colony who might venture to preach within its limits

without invitation, with the added provision that such men were to

be treated as vagrants and bundled out of the colony as speedily as

possible.[133] Ministers who had not been graduated from Yale or

Harvard, or some other Protestant college or university, were debarred

from all benefits of ministerial support as provided by law.[134]

The climax of the high-handed measures of the supporters of the

Establishment was doubtless reached in this legislation. A retrograde

movement in the cause of religious toleration set in,[135] the direct

effects of which were not quickly overcome. Henceforth dissenters were

to be annoyed and hampered as they had not been before. The necessity

of appearing in person before the General Court when seeking exemption

from ecclesiastical burdens,[136] the embarrassments and hardships that

dissenting ministers suffered in their efforts to supply religious

counsel to their people,[137] the growing aversion of the General

Court to granting permission to unorthodox and dissenting groups to

organize,[138] all serve to indicate the strength of the reaction that

had set in.

The impressions produced by this excess were even more significant than

the direct results, deplorable as the latter were.[139] In the middle

of the eighteenth century the Standing Order in Connecticut had gained

for themselves an unenviable record for bigotry and persecution from

which the events of the latter half of the century by no means cleared

them.

For a quarter of a century following the enactment of the legislative

measures just considered, no advance step, general in its nature, was

taken. Here and there a little larger measure of freedom was doled

out to this or that aggrieved dissenting minister or church; but the

situation as a whole was not materially changed. “Restriction was

the rule, freedom the exception, and government the absolute and

irresponsible dispenser of both.”[140] Finally, in 1778 some evidence

that a change in sentiment was under way appeared in the fact that

Separatists were exempted from taxes to support the state church.

Six years later, in 1784, more satisfactory proof was forthcoming.

That year, by the passing of an act entitled, “An Act for Securing

the Rights of Conscience in Matters of Religion, to Christians of

Every Denomination in this State,”[141] the General Court tacitly

abrogated the Saybrook Platform and set the institutions of religion in

Connecticut upon a new base. The act declared

That no Persons in this State, professing the Christian Religion,

who soberly and conscientiously dissent from the Worship and

Ministry by Law established in the Society wherein they dwell, and

attend public Worship by themselves shall incur any Penalty for not

attending the Worship and Ministry so established, on the Lord’s

Day, or on account of their meeting together by themselves on said

Day, for public Worship in a Way agreeable to their consciences.

It was further declared that Christians of every Protestant

denomination, “whether Episcopal Church, of those Congregationalists

called Separates, or of the people called Baptists, or Quakers, or

any other Denomination who shall have formed themselves in distinct

Churches or Congregations,” and who helped to maintain their worship,

were to be exempted from the support of any other church than their

own. Further, all such dissenting congregations were to enjoy the same

power and privileges in the support of their ministry, and in the

building and repairing of their houses of worship, as those churches

which were established by law. Such persons as did not belong to any of

these dissenting bodies were to be taxed for the support of the state

church.[142]

The spirit of toleration had traveled far; but that the struggle for

complete religious freedom was yet by no means won will immediately

appear from the following restrictions: (1) Protestants only were

contemplated as beneficiaries under the act; (2) the principle of

taxation for the support of the state church was retained; (3) the

obligation to support some form of Christian worship was required;

(4) the benefits of that provision of the act which guaranteed to

dissenters exemption from ecclesiastical taxation were to be available

only on the condition that a certificate, signed by an officer of a

dissenting congregation, should be deposited with the clerk of the

state church near which the dissenter lived.

A formidable number of the objectionable features of the older

legislation were thus retained. The state church was still in

existence. Taxation for the support of religion was still the law of

the commonwealth. Dissenters were still compelled to put themselves to

the trouble and humiliation of obtaining the detested certificates.

Besides, the ghost of religious persecution was not yet laid. Goods

and chattels of the religiously indifferent, or of conscientious

dissenters, continued to be seized and sold by officers of the

law, to discharge unsatisfied levies made for the support of the

Establishment.[143]

The principle of requiring certificates proved to be the chief bone of

contention between the Standing Order and dissenters as the century

drew to its close. The rapid growth of dissenting bodies in the period

following the Revolution, aided as they were by a zeal for proselyting

on the part of their leaders and by a set of the public mind decidedly

favorable to their propaganda because of their democratic leanings,

was met by corresponding anxiety and sternness on the part of the

supporters of the Establishment. Confusing, as they habitually did,

the interests of the state church with the cause of religion, the

representatives of the Standing Order led themselves to believe that

a contagion of irreligion was spreading alarmingly, and therefore

restrictive religious legislation was in order.[144] In line with this

conviction, in May, 1791, the legislature enacted a law requiring

dissenters to have their certificates signed by at least one, and

preferably two, civil officers, instead of as provided in the act of

1784. This law proved peculiarly distasteful to dissenters.[145] A

powerful opposition developed; and the authorities, made aware of the

fact that they had over-reached themselves, six months later withdrew

the obnoxious act, substituting for it another which permitted each

dissenter to write and sign his own certificate, but requiring him,

as before, to file it with the clerk of the state church near which

he lived.[146] The momentary wrath of dissenters was thus mollified;

however, the retention of the certificate principle continued to gall

and to excite them. A disagreeable discussion dragged itself along,

marked by acrimony, pettiness, and personal attacks on both sides; by a

consolidation of the forces and interests of dissenters and Republicans

on the one hand, and a growing sense of injured innocence and of

concern for the fate of religion on the part of the Standing Order.[147]

(c) _Summary_

By way of summary, a few general comments, based upon the situation in

Massachusetts and Connecticut jointly considered, are now in order.

Looking back upon the activities of the Standing Order after the lapse

of something more than a century, we see that they were zealously

contending for an ideal which had won their whole allegiance—a body

politic safeguarded and made secure by a state church. To prevent

deterioration of the state and its people the bulwark of a religion

established by law seemed imperative.[148] The interests involved were

far too serious to put them at the mercy of a voluntary support of the

institutions of religion.[149] Moreover, an established church seemed

to this group of men no necessary enemy of non-conformity. The degree

of toleration possible under an establishment of religion was deemed

sufficient actually to favor the growth of sects, and at the same time

to make the sway of orthodoxy secure.[150]

How, then, were men of such opinions to interpret the ever-growing

agitation for a larger measure of toleration, accompanied as it

was by an ever-growing resentment toward the political influence

and activities of the Standing Order, as anything other than a

covert attack upon religion itself? These bitter complainings over

the religious measures adopted by government, these flauntings of

authority through stubborn refusal or passive resistance to the payment

of ecclesiastical rates, these unrelenting efforts to dispossess

the clergy of the Establishment of their traditional honors and

emoluments—what were they all but so many proofs of the impiety of the

age and an abominable conspiracy to drive pure religion from the land?

As the representatives of the Standing Order saw the situation, the

church was obviously in grave danger and to steady the tottering ark of

the Lord was the most imperative duty of the hour.

On the other hand, in the light of the growing liberality of the times,

it was impossible for the forces of dissent to be patient with such

men. They were men of the past, callously unresponsive to the spirit of

the new age. They were an embittered minority, exerting themselves to

keep a struggling and confident majority a little longer under their

thumb. They were mischievous meddlers in the affairs of others, using

religion as a cloak to hide their social and political self-seeking.

As for the cry, “The church is in danger!”, that was to be regarded as

the most signal proof of the hypocrisy of those who raised it.[151]

FOOTNOTES:

[47] Lauer, _Church and State in New England_ (Johns Hopkins University

Studies in History and Political Science. Tenth Series), pp. 95 _et

seq._

[48] The term “Standing Order” was generally employed in the speech and

literature of the period, and had reference to the alliance between the

party of the Establishment and the party of the government.

[49] The scope of inquiry prescribed by the special object of this

dissertation renders both unnecessary and unprofitable the tracing

of this struggle in detail. Valuable special studies in this field

are available. Among these the following are to be commended as

of exceptional usefulness: Burrage, _A History of the Baptists in

New England_; Greene, _The Development of Religious Liberty in

Connecticut_; Reed, _Church and State in Massachusetts, 1691–1740_;

Cobb, _The Rise of Religious Liberty in America_; Ford, _New England’s

Struggle for Religious Liberty_. Lauer’s excellent treatise has already

been cited. Of contemporaneous treatments, Backus, _A History of New

England, with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians

called Baptists_, though deficient in literary merit, is doubtless the

most trustworthy and replete. The citations made from the latter work

refer, unless otherwise indicated, to the edition of 1871 (2 vols.).

[50] _The Charter Granted by Their Majesties King William and Queen

Mary, to the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England_,

Boston in New England, 1726, p. 9. The principle of church membership

as a qualification for voting was set aside for a property

qualification.

[51] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. i, pp. 446 _et seq._ _Cf._

Reed, _Church and State in Massachusetts_, 1691–1740, pp. 23 _et seq._

[52] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. i, p. 448.

[53] _Charters and “Acts and Laws” of the Province of

Massachusetts-Bay, With Appended Acts and Laws_, Boston, 1726–1735,

p. 383. The law provided that “all persons who profess themselves to

be of the Church of England”, and who were so situated that “there is

a Person in Orders according to the Rules of the Church of England

setled [_sic_], and abiding among them and performing Divine Service

within Five Miles of the Habitation, or usual Residence of any Person

professing himself as aforesaid of the Church of England”, might have

his rate-money reserved for the support of the Episcopal church.

[54] _Charters and “Acts and Laws” of the Province of Mass._, _etc._,

p. 423. The five-mile limitation formed a part of this legislation,

also.

[55] Burrage, _History of the Baptists in New England_, p. 105.

[56] Palfrey, _A Compendious History of New England_, vol. iv, pp. 94,

95.

[57] _Acts and Resolves, Public and Private, etc._, vol. iii, p. 645.

[58] _Ibid._

[59] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 140.

[60] _Ibid._

[61] _Ibid._

[62] Separatists or Separates were the names by which those were

commonly designated who withdrew from the orthodox churches on account

of the controversies occasioned by the Great Awakening. See Blake, S.

Leroy, _The Separates or Strict Congregationalists of New England_,

Boston, 1902, pp. 17 _et seq._

[63] Hovey, _A Memoir of the Life and Times of the Rev. Isaac Backus_,

p. 171.

[64] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 96 _et seq._ Backus

himself suffered imprisonment under this act. See _ibid._, p. 109.

[65] Greene, _The Development of Religious Liberty in Connecticut_, pp.

235 _et seq._ The process of absorption referred to had much to do with

the breaking up of the Separatist movement. Few of these congregations

continued to exist until the struggle for religious freedom was fully

won. Other contributory causes in the breaking up of the movement were

the poverty of the members of these congregations, the difficulties

they experienced in securing pastoral care, and the dissensions that

arose among them in the exercise of their boasted rights of private

judgment, public exhortation, and the interpretation of the Scriptures.

[66] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 140 _et seq._

[67] Backus, _op. cit._, p. 141.

[68] _Ibid._

[69] _Cf._ _Minutes of the Warren Association for 1769_, quoted by

Burrage, _History of the Baptists in New England_, pp. 108 _et seq._

_Cf._ the following, taken from a statement and appeal to Baptists,

in the _Boston Evening Post_, Aug. 20, 1770: “To the Baptists in the

Province of Massachusetts Bay, who are, or have been, oppressed in any

way on a religious account. It would be needless to tell you that you

have long felt the effects of the laws by which the religion of the

government in which you live is established. Your purses have felt the

burden of ministerial rates; and when these would not satisfy your

enemies, your property hath been taken from you and sold for less than

half its value.... You will therefore readily hear and attend when you

are desired to collect your cases of suffering, and have them well

attested; such as, the taxes you have paid to build meeting-houses, to

settle ministers and support them, with all the time, money and labor

you have lost in waiting on courts, feeing lawyers, &c.; and bring or

send such cases to the Baptist Association to be held at Bellingham;

when measures will be resolutely adopted for obtaining redress from

another quarter than that to which repeated application hath been made

unsuccessfully. Nay, complaints, however just and grievous, hath been

treated with indifference, and scarcely, if at all credited”. (Quoted by

Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 155.)

[70] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 156 _et seq._

[71] This standing committee of the Warren Association is itself a

token of the strengthened purpose of the Baptists.

[72] The address is given in full in Hovey, _A Memoir of the Life and

Times of Isaac Backus_, pp. 218–221. It drew a kindly response from the

Provincial Congress, signed by John Hancock as president, pleading the

inability of the Congress to give redress and advising the aggrieved

parties to submit their case to the General Court of Massachusetts at

its next session. This step was taken in September, 1775; but beyond

the fact that a bill, drawn to give redress, was once read in the

sessions of the Assembly, nothing came at the matter. “Such”, remarks

Backus, “is the disposition of mankind”. (_Cf._ Backus, _History of New

England_, vol. ii, pp. 202 _et seq._ _Cf._ Burrage, _History of the

Baptists in New England_, pp. 113 _et seq._)

[73] _The Laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Passed from the

Year 1780, to the End of the Year 1800_, vol. i, pp. 19, 20.

[74] _Ibid._

[75] Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, pp. 228 _et seq._, for

cases of persecution under the operation of the bill of rights.

[76] The contribution made by the newspapers must not be overlooked

in this connection. From about 1770 on there may be traced a growing

disposition on the part of dissenters to air their grievances in the

public journals. Supporters of the Establishment were not slow to

respond.

[77] In addition to the two specifically referred to, Backus published

the following: _Policy, as well as Honesty, Forbids the Use of Secular

Force in Religious Affairs_, Boston, 1779; _Truth is Great, and Will

Prevail_, Boston, 1781; _A Door Opened for Equal Christian Liberty,

etc._, Boston, 1783.

[78] Backus, _op. cit._, p. 13.

[79] Quoted from Backus, _History of New England_, vol. ii, p. 223.

[80] Walker, _History of the Congregational Churches in the United

States_, pp. 206–209.

[81] _Cf._ _A Vindication of the Government of the New-England

Churches, etc._, Boston, 1772. The first edition of 500 copies was

quickly subscribed for, and a second was published the same year.

[82] An edition of Wise’s tracts was published as late as 1860, by the

Congregational Board of Publication. From that edition the citations

are drawn. The following from the “Introductory Notice” is of interest:

“ ... some of the most glittering sentences of the immortal Declaration

of Independence are almost literal quotations from this essay of

John Wise [_i. e._, _Vindication of the Government of New-England

Churches_]. And it is a significant fact, that in 1772, only four years

before the declaration was made, a large edition of both those tracts

was published by subscription in one duodecimo volume. The presumption

which this fact alone suggests, that it was used as a political

text-book in the great struggle for freedom then opening, is fully

confirmed by the list of subscribers’ names printed at the end, with

the number of copies annexed.” Page xx _et seq._

[83] _Ibid._, pp. 48–50, 54, 56.

[84] Wise, _op. cit._, p. 56.