Infant baptism—half-way covenant—laws to support religion—charter from
Charles II.—first meeting of Assembly—Mr. Clarke—difficulties about
boundaries—charges against Rhode-Island, concerning Catholics and
Quakers.
It may be useful to look, for a moment, at the difficulties which arose,
about this time, in the other colonies, respecting infant baptism. This
rite had been hitherto administered to those children, whose immediate
parents were both members of a church. But as the country increased,
many persons, who were not members of a church, had children, for whom,
nevertheless, they desired baptism. The question accordingly arose,
whether the children of such parents could properly be admitted to
baptism. It was, on the one hand, a departure from the principle, that
as faith is required in the Scriptures as a prerequisite to baptism, and
as the infant could not exercise faith, it must consequently be baptized
on the ground of its parents’ faith. It seemed hard, on the other hand,
that if there was any virtue in infant baptism, the innocent child
should be deprived of it, because its parents were not pious. The
question began to be publicly agitated. The magistrates of Connecticut,
about the year 1656, sent several queries on the subject to the
magistrates of Massachusetts.[319] A meeting of ministers was held in
Boston, June 4, 1657, at which the “half-way covenant,” as it was
called, was adopted. “It provided, that all persons of sober life and
correct sentiments, without being examined as to a change of heart,
might profess religion, or become members of the church, and have their
children baptized, though they did not come to the Lord’s table.”[320]
This disastrous departure from the Scriptures, and from the former
practice of the churches, was not unanimously adopted. Many ministers
and churches were opposed to it. A synod was held, in Boston, in
September, 1662, including all the ministers in Massachusetts. This body
ratified the decision of the council of 1657. But parties were
immediately formed, for and against the synod. The Rev. Charles
Chauncey, President of Harvard College, and the Rev. Increase Mather,
wrote against the decision, while others wrote on the opposite side. The
country was thrown into a ferment. A division took place in the First
Church in Boston, and the Old South Church was formed in May, 1669, by a
minority of the First Church, the majority of whose members opposed the
decision of the synod, while the seceding minority approved it. The
General Court took up the subject, and at its session, in May, 1670,
pronounced the formation of the new church to be irreligious, illegal
and disorderly. But public opinion set in favor of the half-way
covenant. At the next election, the members who had opposed the new
church were left out, and others, of different opinions, elected. The
Court then passed a vote in favor of the new church, and the cause of
innovation and corruption of the purity of the churches triumphed.[321]
This result generally ensues, when questions pertaining to religion are
decided at the polls.
The half-way covenant was, at first, opposed by many churches, but it
afterwards extensively prevailed, and “wherever,” says Dr. Hawes, “it
did prevail, the consequences were eminently unhappy. Great numbers came
forward to own the covenant, as it was called, and had their children
baptized; but very few joined the church, in full communion, or partook
of the sacrament. Satisfied with being half-way in the church, and
enjoying a part of its privileges, they settled down in a state of dull
and heartless formality, and felt little or no concern respecting their
present condition, or future prospects.”[322]
But all men were not content to be half-way in the church. About the
year 1700, Mr. Stoddard, a distinguished minister of Northampton, came
to the conclusion, that the Lord’s Supper is a converting ordinance, and
that all persons ought to come to this ordinance. Thus all the barriers
which separate the church from the world were thrown down, and the
consequences were deplorable. Multitudes of unconverted persons rushed
into the churches, anxious for the privileges of church members, for
political purposes. The church at Northampton is a signal instance of
the effects of the system. The great President Edwards, after he had
been pastor for several years, endeavored to introduce the old practice
of discipline, and to require piety as a qualification for membership.
But the worldly feeling in his parish was too strong, and
notwithstanding his colossal reputation, and his faithful and successful
labors, he was expelled from his pastoral office, in a most ungrateful
and unkind manner.
We may mention, here, another cause of injury to the purity and
permanent prosperity of the churches. The support of the ministry, by
taxes, levied on all the inhabitants, operated oppressively on the
members of other denominations, created much distress to individuals,
and produced a wide-spread dissatisfaction in the community. As the
right of a voice in the election of a minister was justly claimed by
those who were obliged to pay taxes for his support, the character of
the minister depended, of course, on that of a majority of the voters in
a parish. The consequence has been, that in many instances, when the
majority have become opposed to the doctrines of the existing church,
the minister has been expelled, another of opposite sentiments has been
chosen, the meeting-house has been seized, and funds, contributed by
pious men of former generations, for the support of the ministry, have
been applied to the maintenance of men to whom those contributors would
have refused to listen. This is the natural effect of the system, and
those who uphold it have no right to complain. The American principle,
that representation accompanies taxation, is just. If men are taxed by
law to support a minister, they have a right to a voice in his election,
and they will, of course, choose a minister whose principles accord, as
nearly as possible, with their own. Reflecting and pious men, generally,
are now, it is believed, thoroughly convinced, that the principles of
Roger Williams furnish the only secure basis for the peace and
prosperity of a church. It is hoped that the laws of Massachusetts will,
ere long, be conformed to these principles, and religion be committed to
the protection of God and of the liberal and pure-hearted disciples of
the Redeemer.[323]
This subject has detained us from our main theme, though it is
appropriate to a work which we design to be an exposition of the nature
and effects both of the principles of religious liberty and of the
opposite doctrines.
Mr. Clarke continued his faithful labors in England, and on the 8th of
July, 1663, he obtained from Charles II. a charter, which continues,
till the present day, to be the fundamental law of the State.[324] It
commits the government of the colony to a Governor, Deputy Governor, and
ten Assistants, to be elected annually, and a House of Deputies,
consisting of six from Newport, four from each of the towns of
Providence, Portsmouth and Warwick, and two from each of the other
towns. It defines the boundaries of the colony, about which disputes
existed for many years. It contains this most important provision, in
which the principles on which the colony was founded are embodied: “No
person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise
molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
differences in opinion, in matters of religion, who do not actually
disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every
person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter,
freely and fully have and enjoy his own and their judgments and
consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract
of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and
quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness,
nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others.”[325]
This noble declaration is in accordance with the address of the
petitioners to his Majesty, in which they “freely declared, that it is
much on their hearts (if they be permitted) to hold forth a lively
experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
maintained, and that among, our English subjects, with a full liberty in
religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon
Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to
sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations
to true loyalty.”
This charter was received with great joy. It was brought from Boston, by
Capt. George Baxter, and was read publicly at Newport, November 24,
1663. The records say, that “the said letters, with his Majesty’s royal
stamp, and the broad seal, with much beseeming gravity, were held up on
high, and presented to the perfect view of the people.”
Thanks were voted to the King, to the Earl of Clarendon, and to Mr.
Clarke, together with a resolution to pay all his expenses, and to
present him with a hundred pounds. Thanks were also voted to Capt.
Baxter, with a present of thirty pounds, besides his expenses from
Boston.[326]
The first Assembly under the new charter was held March 1, 1663–4. Mr.
Benedict Arnold was created by the charter the first Governor, and among
the Assistants was Mr. Williams.
The Assembly now assumed a peremptory tone towards the disturbers of the
public peace at Pawtuxet and Warwick, and towards intruders at
Narraganset.
Mr. Williams was appointed to transcribe the charter.[327]
At the session, in May, 1664, Mr. Williams was again an Assistant. At
this session, the seal of the colony was fixed, an anchor, with the word
Hope over it, and the words Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.
Mr. Williams was this year appointed one of a committee to review the
laws, and one of another committee to fix the eastern line of the state.
At this session, a committee was appointed to audit Mr. Clarke’s
accounts. The sum of £343 15_s._ 6_d._, was found to be due to him. Mr.
Clarke returned from England, in June, 1664, after an absence, in the
service of the colony, of twelve years. He was afterwards elected Deputy
Governor three years successively. He was an able and good man, whom the
State of Rhode-Island ought to remember with respect and gratitude, as
one of her chief benefactors. He died April 20, 1676. The money due to
him from the colony was never paid, during his life, though the Assembly
frequently urged the towns to pay it, and Mr. Williams used his
influence to accomplish this act of public justice.[328] Mr. Clarke, in
his will, left a considerable estate, to be appropriated to “the relief
of the poor, or bringing up children unto learning.”
An account of the difficulties with Massachusetts, Connecticut and
Plymouth, respecting boundaries, belongs rather to a history of
Rhode-Island, than to this work. They continued for several years.
Commissioners were appointed by the King, in 1664, to settle the
disputes respecting the Narraganset country, which was claimed by
Connecticut, and by individuals, who had purchased lands there. But the
matter was not settled for many years. The boundaries fixed by the
charter were at length ascertained and acknowledged.[329]
Two topics deserve notice here, because they affect the character of
Roger Williams, and of Rhode-Island. We allude to the charges, that in
1663–4, Roman Catholics were excluded from the rights of citizens, and
that in 1665, oppressive laws were enacted against the Quakers.
The first of these charges is made by Chalmers,[330] whose situation, as
chief clerk in the Plantation Office, in England, gave him access to
original documents. He asserts, that at the meeting of the General
Assembly, March 1, 1663–4, it was enacted, “that no freeman shall be
imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or condemned, but by the
judgment of his peers, or the law of the colony; that no tax shall be
imposed or required of the colonists, but by the act of the General
Assembly; that all men [professing Christianity] of competent estates,
and of civil conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil
magistrates, though of different judgments in religious affairs, [Roman
Catholics only excepted] shall be admitted freemen, or may choose, or be
chosen, colonial officers.”[331]
Such an act would, indeed, have been an anomaly in the legislation of
Rhode-Island, and it has been alleged as an evidence of inconsistency in
Roger Williams and the colony. The subject has, therefore, been examined
with great care. The Hon. Samuel Eddy, for many years the Secretary of
State in Rhode-Island, declares:[332] “I have formerly examined the
records of the State, from its first settlement, with a view to
historical information, and lately from 1663 to 1719, with a particular
view to this law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of
freemen, and can find nothing that has any reference to it, nor any
thing that gives any preference or privileges to men of one set of
religious opinions over those of another, until the revision of 1745.”
This testimony might, alone, be sufficient to disprove the allegation,
though it is possible, that such an act might be passed, and not be
recorded. But it is not probable, and when the uniform policy of the
colony from the beginning, and other circumstances, are considered, it
becomes morally certain, that no such act ever received the sanction of
the Legislature of Rhode-Island.
That entire liberty was professed and maintained, from the commencement
of the colony, is certain. It was one of the fundamental regulations in
the respective towns, and when they were united, under the first
charter, it was expressly enacted, that, while the civil laws should be
obeyed, “all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one
in the name of his God.”[333]
The second charter declared, that “no person within the said colony, at
any time hereafter, shall be anywise molested, punished or disquieted,
or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of
religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said
colony.”
It is utterly incredible, that the Assembly, while they were passing
votes of thanks to the King for the charter, would enact a law in
violation of his positive declaration in the instrument itself, and at
variance with their previous policy and with all their institutions. An
exclusion of Catholics, moreover, would not only have violated the
charter, and thus offended the King, but the legislators of Rhode-Island
had sufficient knowledge of Charles, to be aware, that nothing would be
less acceptable to him than a law against the Catholics, for whom he
endeavored to obtain toleration in England.
It may be added, that there were no Catholics in Rhode-Island, so late
as 1695, according to Cotton Mather.[334] Mr. Eddy well remarks: “Why a
law should be made to exclude from the privileges of freemen, those who
were not inhabitants, by those who believed all to be equally entitled
to their religious opinions, is difficult to conceive.”
At the next session, in May, 1664, the Assembly enacted, that, “at
present this General Assembly judgeth it their duty to signify his
Majesty’s gracious pleasure vouchsafed in these words to us, verbatim,
(viz.)”—quoting the declaration from the charter which is cited above.
At the session in May, 1665, in answer to certain propositions of the
King’s Commissioners, in which the King requires, that all the citizens
shall enjoy equal civil and religious rights, without regard to their
opinions, the Assembly say: “This Assembly do, with all gladness of
heart, and humbleness of mind, acknowledge the great goodness of God and
favor of his Majesty in that respect, declaring, that as it hath been a
principle set forth and maintained in this colony, _from the very
beginning thereof_, so it is much on their hearts to preserve the same
liberty to all persons within this colony forever, as to the worship of
God therein, taking care for the preservation of the civil government,
to the doing of justice and preserving each other’s privileges from
wrong and violence to others.”
Mr. Eddy accounts for the existence of the spurious words in the copy of
the laws from which Mr. Chalmers quoted, by supposing, that they were
inserted, without authority, at some period subsequent to 1719, by a
revising committee, who might be desirous to please the government in
England. Mr. Eddy says, in conclusion: “Thus you have positive and
indubitable evidence, that the law excluding Roman Catholics from the
privileges of freemen was not passed in 1663–4, but that they were by
law, at this time, and long after, entitled to all the privileges of
other citizens; and satisfactory evidence that these privileges were
continued by law until 1719, when, or in one of the subsequent
revisions, the words _professing Christianity_, and _Roman Catholics
only excepted_, were inserted by the revising committee.”
If, however, such an act had been passed, it would not necessarily
impeach the character of Mr. Williams. He was an Assistant, only, in the
Legislature of 1663–4, and could not be responsible for its acts. His
own principles are on record. He contended for liberty of conscience to
all men without any restriction. In his “Hireling Ministry none of
Christ’s,” printed in 1652—only eleven years before—he says: “All these
consciences, (yea, the very conscience of Papists, Jews, &c. as I have
proved at large in my answer to Mr. Cotton’s washings) ought freely and
impartially to be permitted their several respective worships, their
ministers of worships, and what way of maintaining them they please.”
We proceed, now, to the other charge. It is contained in an article, in
1 His. Col. v. pp. 216–220, signed Francis Brinley, whose statement is
repeated in Holmes’ American Annals, vol. i. p. 341. Mr. Brinley says:
“1665. The government and council of Rhode-Island, &c. passed an order
for outlawing the people called Quakers, because they would not bear
arms, and to seize their estates; but the people in general rose up
against these severe orders, and would not suffer it.”
We are again indebted to Mr. Eddy for the means of correcting a mistake.
He says (2 His. Col. vii. p. 97,) that the account of Mr. Brinley “is
incorrect and partial.” There was a difficulty, in which the Quakers, it
seems, felt themselves aggrieved, but it was not the result of any acts
aimed directly at them. The origin of it, as Mr. Eddy thinks, was this:
The commissioners of the King required, in his name, “that all
householders, inhabiting this colony, take the oath of allegiance.” The
Assembly, in reply, stated, that it had been the uniform practice of the
colony, in pursuance of their great principles of religious liberty, to
allow those who objected to take an oath, to make an engagement, under
the penalty for false swearing. An engagement was accordingly drawn up,
in which the individual promised to bear true allegiance to the King and
his successors, and to yield “due obedience unto the laws established
from time to time.” The Quakers, it appears, objected to this part of
the engagement, because it bound them to pay obedience to the militia
laws. The Assembly had enacted, that those who did not take the
engagement, should not be permitted to “vote for public officers or
deputies, or enjoy any privilege of freemen.” Those persons,
consequently, who refused to take the engagement, were disfranchised;
and to this effect, Mr. Brinley probably alludes, when he says that the
Quakers were outlawed. If so, his statement is very loose and injurious,
for it implies, that the act was expressly directed against them. But
there was no design, apparently, on the part of the Assembly to affect
them. The King commanded the General Assembly to require an oath of
allegiance. They dispensed with the oath, but required an engagement,
promising, in general terms, obedience to the laws. It would seem, that
all the citizens might have safely taken the engagement, reserving their
opposition to particular laws, to which they might be conscientiously
opposed. An engagement to obey the laws would, of course, mean such laws
only as were consistent with the laws of God and with the rights of
conscience. The Assembly cannot, at any rate, be justly charged with an
assault on the Quakers. The engagement was mitigated, the very next
year, to suit their views, and every disposition was manifested to
consult their feelings and respect their rights. One of their number
was, the next year, elected Deputy Governor.