text:
Tag Archives: Jamestown
November 2, 2022 Jerald Finney Leave a comment
Click here to go to homepage with links to all analyses of "An American Minute by Bill Federer" Challenged
To gain a comprehensive understanding of this spiritual warfare between Calvinists, Anglicans, and other advocates of union of church and state (church establishment) and historic Baptists, I especially recommend: The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus.
Analysis of "Virginia's Founding & Highlights of its Religious History – American Minute with Bill Federer"
Bill Federer's American Minute article, "Virginia's Founding & Highlights of its Religious History – American Minute with Bill Federer" mentions a few selected facts from the religious history of Virginia but leaves out more important facts which more correctly explain the whole picture of that history. However, even those few selected facts do not point toward a correct understanding of the road to the First Amendment, religious freedom, and soul liberty in America. Click here to go to Federer's article. Endnote [i] (click to go to the Endnote) is a summary of the article. Although far from comprehensive on the colonial history of Virginia as related to the issues of the relationship of church and state and the road to the First Amendment, the article did point out a few important facts concerning those matters.
This article now presents a comprehensive history of the struggle for religious freedom and soul liberty in Virginia colony into the early republic. See, The Trail of Blood of the Martyrs of Jesus pp. 185-218; see also, To Virginia.
The Battle for Religious Freedom in Virginia
Although the final expression of religious freedom that would be incorporated into the Constitution came from Virginia, the final motivation came because of the convictions of the dissenters, mainly the Baptists, and the thrust for their growth and influence came from the Great Awakening.
"[T]he early Baptists of Virginia, … while they could not boast of great wealth, or culture, or refinement, they possessed some things of more real value, and which the Commonwealth greatly needed. In the first place they had religion—genuine religion; not a sham, nor an empty form, but the old time religion of the heart. Then they had a personal worth or character, that character which always follows from having genuine religion. And then, again, those early Baptists had an unquenchable love of liberty. The truth of the New Testament makes men free indeed, and it inspires them with a love of freedom, not for themselves only, but for all men. And it was because they possessed these traits that they resisted the temptations of the General Incorporation and General Assessment, and stood their ground amid the general desertion. They resolved to continue to fight." Endnote [ii].
The conflict in Virginia originally involved the Anglicans and Presbyterians, neither of which originally believed in either religious freedom or separation of church and state. Religious freedom and separation are owed mainly to the Baptists who believed in both. What Jefferson and Madison wrote about and did for religious freedom resulted from their observance of the conflict among Christians and is not to be found in the pages of philosophers of the Enlightenment. Endnote [iii].
"The Presbyterians [in Virginia] won religious liberty for themselves against the opposition of the Episcopalians. Next the Baptists won religious liberty for themselves against the opposition of the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians. By 1775 about three quarters of the people of Virginia were outside the Church of England, but many of the most influential Virginians were inside. When the war started, there were ninety-five Anglican parishes in Virginia. The war killed off at least a quarter of them. Nowhere in the colonies was Tory sentiment stronger than among the Anglican clergy of Virginia, and they found themselves at the gravest of odds with their flocks." Endnote [iv].
Virginia "was founded by members of the Church of England and none others were tolerated in its jurisdiction." Endnote [v]. The Episcopal church, the Church of England, in Virginia was established from the founding of Jamestown in 1607.
"It was known, also, as the 'Established Church,' because it was made, by legal enactment, the church of the State and was supported by taxation. Not only so, but it was designed to be the established church, to the exclusion of all others. Rigid laws, with severe penalties affixed, were passed, having for their object the exclusion of all Dissenters from the colony, and the compelling of conformity to the established, or State, religion. Even after the Revolution of 1688, which placed William and Mary upon the throne of England and secured the passage of the 'Act of Toleration' the following year, the 'General Court of the Colony' of Virginia construed that act to suit themselves, and withheld its benefits from Dissenters … until they were compelled to yield to the force of circumstances." Endnote [vi].
Christian revisionists Peter Marshall and David Manuel who favored the Calvinism of the New England Congregationalists, wrote, amidst many historical revisions, the truth that Jamestown was a disaster and that the people who settled the colony were motivated by greed and not the love of the Lord. Endnote [vii]. Although undoubtedly there probably were some godly ministers, much of the clergy of the Anglican church in Virginia prior to the Revolution had loose morals, were mainly concerned about their financial security, and were lacking in biblical and spiritual knowledge. The clergy of that church fought to keep their establishment to the bitter end. By far their most consistent and determined opponents were the Baptists. A publication of a law firm that encourages churches to become corporate 501(c)(3) religious organizations led off with an article laughingly entitled (to one who knows the real facts about the settlement) "Jamestown, Where America Became a Christian Nation." Endnote [viii]. The author, unnamed, states some truth in the article but also gives a totally distorted view of the early history of Jamestown and fails to mention the depravity of the people who originally settled there. Neither Marshall and Manuel nor the author of the aforementioned article make mention that the theology behind the settlement was ecclesiocratic and against religious liberty: the "Articles, Instructions, and Orders" from the homeland said that the "'true word' must be 'according to the doctrine, rights, and religion now professed and established within our regime in England.'" Endnote [ix].
The Church of England was stronger in Virginia than in any colony. In Virginia, the established Anglican church was controlled by the state, unlike in New England where the established church controlled the state. From the beginning of the colony, the "company knew not how to control the members composing the colony but by religion and law." Endnote [x]. The original "Lawes Divine, Moral and Martial" which were decreed in 1612, were severe. Speaking impiously of the Trinity or of God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, blaspheming God, incorrigibly cursing, a third failure to attend religious services, and a third "Sabbath-breaking," were punishable by death. Other spiritual offenses were punished by whipping and other penalties. Endnote [xi].
Upon appeal to England, these laws were repealed. The laws enacted in support of the Anglican establishment were less severe. Still, the Anglican church was established (and this establishment continued until the revolution with one short interruption), nonattendance at church services was the subject of fines, the payment of tithes were mandatory, every parson was entitled to the glebe—a piece of land—parish churches were built by taxes, and ministers were required to "conform themselves in all things according to the canons of the Church of England."
"Puritan clergy were banished for failing to conform to Anglican services; Quakers [and Baptists] were fined, imprisoned, and banished. Catholics were disqualified from public office, and any priest who ventured to enter the colony was subject to instant expulsion. Penalties were imposed on those who having scruples against infant baptism, neglected to present their children for that purpose." Endnote [xii].
A 1643 law forbade anyone to teach or preach religion, publicly or privately, who was not a minister of the Church of England, and instructed governor and council to expel all nonconformists from the colony. Endnote [xiii]. In 1643, three Congregationalist ministers from Boston were forced to leave the colony. Also in 1643, "Sir William Berkeley, Royal Governor of Virginia, strove, by whippings and brandings, to make the inhabitants of that colony conform to the Established church, and thus drove out the Baptists and Quakers, who found a refuge in … North Carolina." Quakers first came to Virginia in "1659-60, and … the utmost degree of persecution was exercised towards them." "During the period of the Commonwealth in England, there had been a kind of interregnum as to both Church and State in Virginia; but in 1661, the supremacy of the Church of England was again fully established." Only ministers of the Church of England were permitted to preach, and only ministers of that church could "celebrate the rites of matrimony," and only "according to the ceremony prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer." Endnote [xiv].
Although some Presbyterians settled in Virginia from 1670 to 1680, the number & influence of Presbyterians in Virginia was small until the mid-1700s. In the mid-1700s an influential body of Presbyterians settled in Hanover County as a result of a 1738 agreement between the Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia and Virginia governor William Gooch which allowed "emigrants to occupy the frontier portions of Virginia and enjoy the benefits of the Act of Toleration." Endnote [xv].
The first non-Anglican minister to receive a license under the Act of Toleration passed by the British Parliament in 1689, which instructed liberty of conscience for all but Papists, was Francis Makemie, a Presbyterian minister in Accomac County. By 1725, no more than five conventicles, "three small meetings of Quakers and two of Presbyterians," were licensed, and these in poorer counties who were unable to pay the established minister enough to stay. In 1725, a similar license was granted to "certain parties (doubtless Presbyterians)" in Richmond County. Endnote [xvi].
Presbyterian families from Pennsylvania and Maryland began to move to remote parts of Virginia on the western frontier in 1738. The Presbyterian Synod of Pennsylvania wrote Governor Gooch of Virginia asking for religious freedom for those Presbyterians. Governor Gooch, knowing these people "to be firm, enterprising, hardy, brave, good citizens and soldiers," and desiring "to form a complete line of defense against the savage inroads," welcomed them. "At so great a distance from the older settlements, he anticipated no danger to the established church." The conditions of settlement were that they "were not only to settle in the frontier counties as a buffer between the Churchmen and the Indians, but they had to swear allegiance to 'His Magesty's person and government,'" pay the taxes levied in support of the Established Church, and never by word or deed seek to injure the said church…. "Houses for public worship could not be occupied without permission from the civil authorities, and each application for a house of worship was heard on its own merits." "[Those early Presbyterians] did not break their promise nor violate their oaths." Up to the Revolution, "they never demanded anything more than their rights under the Act of Toleration, and … not until the Revolution was accomplished, and Virginia had thrown off allegiance to Great Britain, did they (the Presbyterians) strike hands with the Baptists in the effort to pull down the Establishments." However, with the fury of the French and Indian War, which broke out in 1755, Presbyterians east of the Blue Ridge occupied houses of worship without license or molestation. Endnote [xvii].
Different bodies of Baptists came to Virginia during the colonial period. The "Regular Baptists," like the Presbyterians, "applied for license and took the prescribed oaths." As for the "Separate Baptists," the "body spread so rapidly throughout the State from 1755 to the … Revolution," and "did not recognize the right of any civil power to regulate preaching or places of meeting." They were the "most active in evangelizing Virginia and most severely persecuted, and … had the largest share of the work of pulling down the 'Establishment' and securing religious liberty for all." "While yielding a ready obedience to the civil authorities in all civil affairs, in matters of religion they recognized no lord but Christ. They were truly apostolic in refusing to obey man rather than God." Endnote [xviii].
Conditions were favorable for the rapid growth of Baptist principles. "First, the distress of the colonists, consequent upon the French and Indian wars, inclined them towards religion." Secondly, the distressed people could find no solace or comfort in the immoral established clergy.
"The great success and rapid increase of the Baptists in Virginia must be ascribed primarily to the power of God working with them. Yet it cannot be denied but that there were subordinate and cooperating causes; one of which, and the main one, was the loose and immoral deportment of the Established clergy, by which the people were left almost destitute of even the shadow of true religion. 'Tis true, they had some outward forms of worship, but the essential principles of Christianity were not only not understood among them, but by many never heard of. Some of the cardinal precepts of morality were discarded, and actions plainly forbidden by the New Testament were often proclaimed by the clergy as harmless and innocent, or, at worst, foibles of but little account. Having no discipline, every man followed the bent of his own inclination. It was not uncommon for the rectors of parishes to be men of the lowest morals. The Baptist preachers were, in almost every respect, the reverse of the Established clergy.'" Endnote [xix].
Their own authorities prove the bad character and actions of the established clergy. Many of that clergy came to Virginia "to retrieve either lost fortune or lost character…." "Many of them had been addicted to the race-field, the card-table, the theatre—nay, more, to drunken revel, etc…." "They could babble in a pulpit, roar in a tavern, exact from their parishioners, and rather by their dissoluteness destroy than feed the flock." Endnote [xx].
The Baptists grew stronger and more numerous in Virginia. Robert Nordin, when he arrived from England in 1714, established the first Baptist church in Virginia. By 1755, there were six Baptist churches in Virginia. Endnote [xxi]. 1758 to 1769 was a period of slow but persistent growth in the face of a determined popular hostility. The early opposition to the Baptists came from the lower classes and was based upon prejudice.
The Virginia expansion was intimately tied up with the ministry of Colonel Samuel Harris. Harris—who served at various times as churchwarden, sheriff, justice of the peace, colonel of the county, and captain and commissary of Fort Mayo and its military garrison—was the first person of prominence to join the Separates in Virginia and was just one of many examples of the power of this movement. He was saved at a house meeting after hearing a sermon preached by a Separate Baptist from North Carolina. He resigned from his official positions and narrowed his business interests almost to the vanishing point in order to preach. He began to preach throughout Virginia, and many were converted because of his ministry. Endnote [xxii].
Harris was a fearless preacher. "The excellence of his preaching lay chiefly in 'addressing the heart,' and Semple holds that 'perhaps even Whitefield did not surpass him in this.'" Endnote [xxiii]. He had the assistance of several North Carolina itinerant evangelists planting the earliest Separate churches in south central Virginia. In 1760, Daniel Marshall and Philip Mulkey with seventy-four charter members, eleven of whom were Negroes, started the Dan River Church. Other churches were soon constituted from the Dan River Church. Endnote [xxiv].
Wherever the Baptist itinerants preached, great crowds came to hear them. Many were converted in Virginia, and many Baptist churches were started. In 1770, there were only two Separate churches north of the James River, four south of it. The General Association of Separate Baptists of Virginia was held in May 1771 in Orange County with twelve churches represented, and three not represented.
By 1772, the Separate Churches outnumbered those of the Regular churches. In that year, as many as forty thousand Virginians may have heard the gospel. By 1773, thirty-four churches were represented at the General Association meeting, and they reported a combined membership of 3,195. By May 1774, when Baptist expansion and Baptist persecution were at high tide, the Southern District in Virginia had twenty-seven churches with 2,033 members and the Northern District had twenty-four churches with 1,921 members. By the end of 1774, there was at least one Separate Baptist church in twenty-eight of the sixty counties of Virginia. During the Revolution, Baptist growth continued, but at a much slower pace. Endnote [xxv].
From 1768 through 1774, the Baptists were persecuted severely. "Baptist preachers were whipped, arrested, fined, imprisoned on bread and water, although the authorities sanctimoniously denied that punishment was for 'preaching'; the crime they said, was 'breach of the peace.'" Endnote [xxvi]. The first instance of actual imprisonment was on June 4, 1768, when John Waller, Lewis Craig, James Childs, James Reed, and William Marsh were arrested at Craig's meetinghouse in Spotsylvania and charged with disturbing the peace. The magistrates offered to release them if they would promise to preach no more for a year and a day. They refused and were jailed. Many more were jailed and otherwise persecuted until 1774. Endnote [xxvii].
"[The persecutors] seemed sometimes to strive to treat the Baptists and their worship with as much rudeness and indecency as was possible. They often insulted the preacher in time of service, and would ride into the water and make sport when they administered baptism. They frequently fabricated and spread the most groundless reports, which were injurious to the characters of the Baptists. When any Baptist fell into any improper conduct, it was always exaggerated to the utmost extent." Endnote [xxviii].
"The enemy, not contented with ridicule and defamation, manifested their abhorrence to the Baptists in another way. By a law then in force in Virginia, all were under obligation to go to church several times a year; the failure subjected them to fine. [Little action against members of the Established church was taken under this law, but] as soon as the 'New Lights' were absent, they were presented by grand jury, and fined…. [Others were imprisoned for preaching without a license.] 'When persecutors found religion could not be stopped … by ridicule, defamation, and abusive language, the resolution was to take a different step and see what they could do; and the preachers in different places were apprehended by magisterial authority, some of whom were imprisoned and some escaped. Before this step was taken, the parson of the parish was consulted [and he advised that] the 'New Lights' ought to be taken up and imprisoned, as necessary for the peace and harmony of the old church….'" Endnote [xxix].
"[An Episcopalian wrote,] No dissenters in Virginia experienced, for a time, harsher treatment than did the Baptists. They were beaten and imprisoned, and cruelty taxed its ingenuity to devise new modes of punishment and annoyance." Endnote [xxx].
Because of the persecutions and oppressions, Baptists began to petition the House of Burgesses for relief. Their first petition in 1770 requesting that Baptist ministers "not be compelled to bear arms or attend musters" was rejected. Other petitions from Baptists in several counties were submitted in 1772 requesting that they "be treated with the same indulgence, in religious matters, as Quakers, Presbyterians, and other Protestant dissenters enjoy." The petitions continued until 1775. Endnote [xxxi]. The Presbyterians petitioned also, but for the right to incorporate so that they could receive and hold gifts of land and slaves for the support of their ministers. One of the Presbyterian petitions was improperly hailed as proof "that the Presbyterians anticipated the Baptists in their memorials asking for religious liberty." An examination of that petition reveals that it "contemplate[d] nothing more than securing for Presbyterians and others in Virginia the same privileges and liberties which they enjoyed in England under the Act of Toleration," and contained no "attack upon the Establishment, or any sign of hostility to it." Endnote [xxxii].
During this time, James Madison wrote to his old college friend, Bradford of Philadelphia, in a letter dated January 24, 1774. He expressed his belief that if
"uninterrupted harmony had prevailed throughout the continent [in matters of established religion as practiced in Virginia] it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insinuated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence, and ecclesiastical establishments tend to greatly ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitates the execution of mischievous projects…. Poverty and luxury prevail among all sorts; pride, ignorance, and knavery among the priesthood, and vice and wickedness among the laity. This is bad enough; but it is not the worst I have to tell you. That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some, and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such purposes. There are at this time in the adjacent country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common patience…. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all." Endnote [xxxiii].
[In another letter to Bradford dated April 1, 1774, Madison wrote that he doubted that anything would be done to help the dissenters in the Assembly meeting beginning May 1, 1774.] He spoke of "the incredible and extravagant stories [which were] told in the House of the monstrous effects of the enthusiasm prevalent among the sectaries, and so greedily swallowed by their enemies…. And the bad name they still have with those who pretend too much contempt to examine into their principles and conduct, and are too much devoted to ecclesiastical establishment to hear of the toleration of the dissentients…. The liberal, catholic, and equitable way of thinking, as to the rights of conscience, which is one of the characteristics of a free people, and so strongly marks the people of your province, is little known among the zealous adherents to our hierarchy…. [Although we have some persons of generous principles in the legislature] the clergy are a numerous and powerful body, have great influence at home by reason of their connection with and dependence on the bishops and crown, and will naturally employ all their arts and interest to depress their rising adversaries; for such they must consider dissentients, who rob them of the good will of the people, and may in time endanger their livings and security. … Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind, and unfits if for every enterprise, every expanded prospect." Endnote [xxxiv].
1775 closed the period of "Intolerance, Toleration, and Persecution."
"The colony is involved in trouble with the mother country. Virginia has denounced the 'Boston Port Bill,' and made common cause with Massachusetts. The First Continental Congress has already met in Philadelphia. Patrick Henry has electrified the country by his memorable speech in the popular Convention which met March, 1775…. The Battles of Lexington and Concord have been fought (April 19), and Virginia has taken steps to enroll companies of volunteers in every county. The war of the Revolution is on, and the times call for union and harmony among all classes. Hence, there is no more persecution of Baptists. There are no more imprisonments in 1775, and that obnoxious Toleration Bill is indefinitely postponed. The same ruling class that admitted the Presbyterians to Virginia and to the benefits of the Act of Toleration, on condition that they occupied the frontier counties, and thus protected them against Indian raids, are now inclined to tolerate, not only the Presbyterians, but the Baptists also, with all their 'pernicious doctrines,' if only they will help in the struggle with Great Britain. The Baptists will help, and not a Tory will be found among them. But they will strike for something more and something dearer to them than civil liberty—for freedom of conscience, for 'just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.'" Endnote [xxxv].
The Baptists were ready to push for religious freedom and abolition of the establishment. In their Association meeting on the fourth Saturday of May 1775, "they were to a man favorable to any revolution by which they could obtain freedom of religion. They had known from experience that mere toleration was not a sufficient check, having been imprisoned at a time when that law was considered by many as being in force." "The Revolutionary War opened up possibilities to overthrow the entire system of persecution…. [Baptists] were everywhere the friends of liberty…. There was not a tory among the Baptists of America." Endnote [xxxvi]. They received the highest praise for their patriotic endeavors. Endnote [xxxvii].
The Baptists decided to circulate petitions throughout the state calling for abolition of the church establishment and freedom of religion, and also to appoint commissioners to present their address for military resistance to British oppression and "offering the services of their young men as soldiers and asking only that, so far as the army was concerned, their ministers might enjoy like privileges with the clergy of the Established church" to the State Convention which was the House of Burgess under a new name and in a different character. The Convention, still controlled by "the same class that had, a few years before made concessions to the … Presbyterians on condition that they settle on the western counties forming a line of defense against the Indians, resolved to allow those dissenters in the military who so desired to attend divine worship administered by dissenting preachers. This first step towards placing all Virginia clergy on an equal footing, came as a result of the need for the numerical strength of the Baptists in what was considered by the establishment in 1775 a "struggle for their rights 'in the union' [with England]." The Convention maintained their "faith and true allegiance to His Majesty, George the Third, [their] only lawful and rightful King." "It would have been very impolitic, even if their petitions had been ready, to have sprung the question of disestablishment upon [the Convention] before they had committed themselves to the cause of independence." Endnote [xxxviii].
Virginia adopted a new constitution in 1776. The Convention of 1776 was, by its act, made the "House of Delegates" of the first General Assembly under the new constitution. Twenty-nine new members in this meeting were not in the 1775 Convention. "[W]hen there was anything near a division among the other inhabitants in a county, the Baptists, together with their influence, gave a caste to the scale, by which means many a worthy and useful member was lodged in the House of Assembly and answered a valuable purpose there." Endnote [xxxix]. Among those favorable to Baptist causes was James Madison. On May 12, the Congress met in Philadelphia "and instructed the colonies to organize independent governments of their own. The war was on." On May 15, the Convention resolved to declare the "colonies free and independent states" and that a committee be appointed to prepare Declaration of Rights and a plan of government which would "maintain peace and order" and "secure substantial and equal liberty to the people." Endnote [xl].
Other than Rhode Island, Virginia was the first colony to recognize religious liberty "in her organic law, and this she did in Article XVI. of her Bill of Rights, which was adopted on the 12th day of June 1776." Endnote [xli]. In 1776, petitions from all over Virginia seeking religious freedom and freedom of conscience beset the Virginia state convention. Patrick Henry proposed the provision to section sixteen of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which granted religious tolerance. Endnote [xlii]. On June 12, the House adopted a Declaration of Rights. The 16th Article provided for religious tolerance. However, [o]n motion on the floor by James Madison, the article was amended to provide for religious liberty. In committee, Madison opposed toleration because toleration "belonged to a system where there was an established church, and where it was a thing granted, not of right, but of grace. He feared the power, in the hands of a dominant religion, to construe what 'may disturb the peace, the happiness, or the safety of society,' and he ventured to propose a substitute, which was finally adopted." Endnote [xliii]. He probably moved to change the amendment before the whole house in order to demonstrate his position to the Baptists who were viewing the proceedings. The amendment as passed by the convention read:
"That religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other." Endnote [xliv].
"The adoption of the Bill of Rights marked the beginning of the end of the establishment." Endnote [xlv].
Where did Madison learn the distinction between religious freedom and religious toleration?
"It had not then begun to be recognized in treatises on religion and morals. He did not learn it from Jeremy Taylor or John Locke, but from his Baptist neighbors, whose wrongs he had witnessed, and who persistently taught that the civil magistrate had nothing to do with matters of religion." Endnote [xlvi].
Madison studied for the ministry at Princeton University, then the College of New Jersey, under John Witherspoon. When he returned to Virginia, he continued his theological interests and developed a strong concern for freedom of worship.
"At the time of Madison's return from Princeton, several 'well-meaning men,' as he described them, were put in prison for their religious views. Baptists were being fined or imprisoned for holding unauthorized meetings. Dissenters were taxed for the support of the State Church. Preachers had to be licensed. Madison saw at first hand the repetition of the main evils of the Old Country. But he also saw a deep dissatisfaction among the people—the kind of dissatisfaction that would grow and that would serve as a mighty battering ram for religious freedom." Endnote [xlvii].
It appears that the Baptists were the only denomination of Christians that addressed the 1775 and 1776 conventions on the subject of the rights of conscience. Not until the Revolution in Virginia were the Presbyterians free from the agreement with Governor Gooch. When the Assembly met in October 1776, they were "powerful allies of the Baptists and other dissenters in the war against the Establishment." Endnote [xlviii].
"From that time down to January 19, 1786, when Jefferson's 'Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,' became the law of the State, the battle for soul liberty was on," Endnote [xlix]. and the process of disestablishment gathered momentum. The legislature of 1776 repealed the laws punishing heresy and absence from worship and exempted dissenters from paying taxes for support of the Church. Although this bill was a compromise, it sounded the death knell of the Anglican establishment. A later statute removed the law fixing the salaries of clergymen, and the position of the Established church was limited more and more until the Declaratory Act of 1787 ended establishment in Virginia. Endnote [l].
"From 1776 to 1779 the assembly was engaged almost daily in the desperate contests between the contending factions." Endnote [li]. Whereas only one Baptist petition had been presented to the first Convention in 1776, and that after the adoption of the Bill of Rights, the Legislature that assembled on October 7, 1776, was immediately flooded with petitions both for and against establishment. "None of the petitions against establishment were from Baptists as such. However, historians of the times admit that Baptists 'were not only the first to begin the work, but also the most active in circulating petitions for signatures.'" "Among the signers were some of all denominations of Christians, and many of no denomination. This explains why the Baptist petition or petitions were from dissenters in general, instead of from Baptist dissenters in particular." Endnote [lii]. The Reverend E. G. Robinson, in his review of Rives' Life and Times of James Madison, Christian Review of January 1860, said, "The [Presbyterians] argued their petitions on various grounds, and indeed sought for different degrees of religious freedom, while the [Baptists] were undeviating and uncompromising in their demands for a total exemption from every kind of legal restraint or interference in matters of religion." Endnote [liii]. The Methodists and the established church presented petitions for establishment. Endnote [liv].
The established church did not give up. Thomas Jefferson gave an account of the struggle through which the Legislature, meeting in late 1776, had just passed:
"The first republican Legislature, which met in 1776, was crowded with petitions to abolish this spiritual tyranny. These brought on the severest contest in which I have ever been engaged…. The petitions were referred to a Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Country; and, after desperate contests in the committee almost daily from the 11th of October to the 5th of December, we prevailed so far only as to repeal the laws which rendered criminal the maintenance of any religious opinions (other than those of the Episcopalians), the forbearance of repairing to the (Episcopal) church, or the exercise of any (other than the Episcopal) mode of worship; and to suspend only until the next session levies on the members of that church for the salaries of its own incumbents. For, although the majority of our citizens were dissenters, as has been observed, a majority of the legislature were churchmen. Among these, however, were some reasonable and liberal men, who enabled us on some points to obtain feeble majorities. But our opponents carried, in the general resolutions of November the 19th, a declaration that religious assemblies ought to be regulated, and that provision ought to be made for continuing the succession of the clergy and superintending their conduct. And in the bill now passed was inserted an express reservation of the question whether a general assessment should not be established by law on every one to the support of the pastor of his choice; or whether all should be left to voluntary contributions; and on thus question, debated at every session from 1776 to 1779 (some of our dissenting allies, having now secured their particular object, going over to the advocates of a general assessment,) we could only obtain a suspension from session to session until 1779, when the question against a general assessment was finally carried, and the establishment of the Anglican church entirely put down.
Endnote [lv].
Legislative meetings from 1776 to December 1779 were presented with memorials both for and against establishment. Endnote [lvi].
When the House met in June 1779, petitions presented to the Assembly showed that the old establishment and its friends were fighting for some sort of compromise based on a general assessment. In 1779, the assembly repealed all laws requiring members of the Episcopal Church to contribute to the support of their own ministry. Endnote [lvii]. In December 1779, a bill passed which "cut the purse strings of the Establishment, so that the clergy could no longer look for support to taxation. But they still retained possession of the rich glebes, and enjoyed a monopoly, almost, of marriage fees." Endnote [lviii]. It took until 1779 to pass a bill taking away tax support for the clergy because the dissenters, with the exception of the Baptists, "having been relieved from a tax which they felt to be both unjust and degrading, had no objection to a general assessment." Endnote [lix].
"Jefferson sought to press the advantage, and introduced his Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom, but Virginia was not quite ready to formalize the separation which had in effect taken place, and the bill was not voted on." Endnote [lx]. Instead "a bill was introduced which declared that "the Christian Religion shall in all times coming be deemed and held to be the established Religion of this Commonwealth." This bill required everyone to register with the county clerk stating which church he wished to support. Endnote [lxi].
Although various petitions were presented to the Assembly during the period from 1780 until the end of the Revolution on September 3, 1783, the General Assembly did very little regarding the cause of religious liberty. In 1783 "the project … of incorporating, or establishing as the religion of the State, all the prevailing denominations, and assessing taxes upon the people to support the ministers of all alike, was now warmly advocated by Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Methodists, and becoming quite popular. To this scheme the Baptists still gave the most determined opposition, and sent up against it the most vigorous remonstrances." The Baptists also continued to petition for the adoption of the Act to Establish Religious Freedom. Endnote [lxii].
After the Revolution, numerous petitions and memorials were presented to the House of Delegates in 1784 and 1785 by the above-mentioned denominations in support of their positions. Endnote [lxiii]. The Episcopalians sought to recover lost ground. "In the late spring of 1784, a resolution was introduced in the Virginia Assembly seeking official recognition for the Episcopal Church. The resolution was debated for two days, with notable opposition from Baptists and Presbyterians." Endnote [lxiv]. Madison, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson dated July 3, 1784, wrote concerning this resolution:
"The Episcopal clergy introduced a notable project for re-establishing their independence of laity. The foundation of it was that the whole body should be legally incorporated, invested with the present property of the Church, made capable of acquiring indefinitely—empowered to make canons and by-laws not contrary to the laws of the land, and incumbents when once chosen by vestries, to be immovable otherwise than by sentence of the Convocation." Endnote [lxv].
The Baptists continued their uncompromising stand against any vestige of union of church and state. They gave their reasons for their position against a general assessment:
"First, it was contrary to their principles and avowed sentiments, the making provision for the support of religion by law; that the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical governments ought to be kept up without blending them together; that Christ Jesus hath given laws for the government of his kingdom and direction of his subjects, and gave instruction concerning collections for the various purposes of religion, and therefore needs not legislative interference.
"Secondly, should a legislative body undertake to pass laws for the government of the church, for them to say what doctrines shall be believed, in what mode worship shall be performed, and what the sum collected shall be, what a dreadful precedent it would establish; for when such a right is claimed by a legislature, and given up by the people, by the same rule that they decide in one instance they may in every instance. Religion is like the press; if government limits the press, and says this shall be printed and that shall not, in the event it will destroy the freedom of the press; so when legislatures undertake to pass laws about religion, religion loses its form, and Christianity is reduced to a system of worldly policy.
"Thirdly, it has been believed by us that that Almighty Power that instituted religion will support his own cause; that in the course of divine Providence events will be overruled, and the influence of grace on the hearts of the Lord's people will incline them to afford and contribute what is necessary for the support of religion, and therefore there is no need for compulsory measures.
"Fourthly, it would give an opportunity to the party that were numerous (and, of course, possessed the ruling power) to use their influence and exercise their art and cunning, and multiply signers to their own favorite party. And last, the most deserving, the faithful preacher, who in a pointed manner reproved sin and bore testimony against every species of vice and dissipation, would in all possibility, have been profited very little by such a law, while men-pleasers, the gay and the fashionable, who can wink at sin and daub his hearers with untempered mortar, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace, who can lay out his oratory in dealing out smooth things mingled with deception, the wicked, it is clear, would like to have it so; and it follows the irreligious and carnal part of the people would richly reward them for their flattery, and the undeserving go off with the gain."
Endnote [lxvi].
The Presbyterians took "a sort of middle ground, which caused confusion in their own ranks and compromised them in the estimation of others." It appears that the Presbyterian clergy advocated a plan of general assessment supporting all denominations who believed in union of church and state, but not those who believed in religious liberty and absolute freedom of conscience. James Madison commented on the position of the Presbyterians:
"The laity of the other sects (other than Episcopalian) are generally unanimous [against the general assessment]. So are all the clergy, except the Presbyterian, who seem as ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in as they were to pull down that which shut them out. I do not know a more shameful contrast than might be found between their memorials on the latter and former occasions. Rives, I., 630." [Quoting a letter to James Monroe, April 12, 1775] Endnote [lxvii].
Thus, "[i]n [these] later stages of disestablishment there was a curious alliance formed between the Episcopalian and Presbyterian clergy with an eye to creating a new line of defense." Endnote [lxviii]. "In 1784, the Virginia House of Delegates having under consideration a 'bill establishing provision for teachers of the Christian religion,' postponed it until the next session, and directed that the Bill should be published and distributed, and that the people be requested 'to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of such a bill at the next session of assembly." Endnote [lxix]. This last action was a result of a resolution offered by the Baptists and adopted by the Legislature. The Baptists, appearing to be losing ground as the only opponents of a general assessment, the majority of the Legislature being churchmen, the only hope of the opponents of the assessment was an appeal to the people. Endnote [lxx].
The bill—which was proposed by Patrick Henry and supported by George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and John Marshall—provided for the establishment a provision for teachers of the Christian religion, in effect providing for the "establishment of Christianity, but without precedence in such an establishment to any particular church." Endnote [lxxi]. The bill required all persons "to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of the Christian religion, or of some Christian church, denomination or communion of Christians, or for some form of Christian worship." Endnote [lxxii].
Leo Pfeffer noted:
"the bill was predicated on the legislative determination in its preamble that 'the general diffusion of Christian knowledge hath a natural tendency to correct the morals of men, restrain their vices, and preserve the peace of society; which cannot be effected without a competent provision for licensed teachers.'
"The preamble is of great significance, because it recognized the widely held belief that religion was not within the competence of civil legislatures. It sought to justify intervention not on any theocratic ground but on what today would be called the 'police' or 'welfare' power. Government support of religion is required to restrain vice and preserve peace, not to promote God's kingdom on earth." Endnote [lxxiii].
Pfeffer does not understand that God has given civil government the choice of whether to honor his principles. The government is to intervene, according to God's word, to control and restrain certain crimes. Government does not support religion in order to do its job. Government merely makes a choice of whether to honor God and his principles for the purpose of restraining vice and preserving peace.
James Madison, among others, opposed the bill. Mr. Madison had witnessed and opposed the persecution of the Baptists in his own state.
"Madison wrote to a friend in 1774: 'That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some…. This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent country not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. I have neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about it to little purpose, that I am without common patience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray for liberty of conscience to all.' I Writings of James Madison (1900) 18, 21." Endnote [lxxiv].
Mr. Madison prepared his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance," in which he maintained "that religion, or the duty we owe the Creator," was not within the cognizance of civil government. The "Memorial" presents fifteen arguments against the assessment bill. Endnote [lxxv]. One historian says of this document, "For elegance of style, strength of reasoning, and purity of principle, it has, perhaps, seldom been equaled, certainly never surpassed, by anything in the English language." Endnote [lxxvi]. "Dr. George B. Taylor says: 'It may certainly be called a Baptist document this far, that they only, as a people, held its views, and pressed those views without wavering.'"Endnote [lxxvii]. Dr. E. G. Robinson wrote of the document:
"In a word, the great idea which he [Madison] put forth was identical with that which had always been devoutly cherished by our Baptist fathers, alike in the old world and the new, and which precisely a century and a half before had been perfectly expressed in the celebrated letter of Roger Williams to the people of his settlement, and by him incorporated into the fundamental law of the colony of Rhode Island. By Mr. Madison it was elaborated with arguments and wrought into the generalizations of statesmanship, but the essential idea is precisely the same with the 'soul liberty' so earnestly contended for by the Baptists of every age." Endnote [lxxviii].
One must keep in mind that although the document advocated freedom of conscience, something for which Baptists had long struggled, the tone was that of deistic or humanistic arguments based upon reason and natural law. As pointed out supra, Jefferson and Madison and other deistic separatists "were interested in leaving the mind free to follow its own rational direction." A trust in man's reason without consideration of principles in the word of God is a leaven which eventually totally pollutes. Tragically, the pietistic arguments of Isaac Backus never prevailed in America. America never fully proceeded upon the lessons taught by the Bible, and implemented by Roger Williams, John Clarke, and the other founders of Rhode Island.
Some excerpts from Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" follow:
"Because we hold it for a fundamental and unalienable truth, 'that religion, or the duty which we owe to the Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence,' the religion, then of every man, must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. The right is, in its nature, an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men. It is unalienable, also, because what is here a right towards man, is a duty towards the Creator…. The duty is precedent both in order and time, and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe…. We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion, no man's rights is abridged by the institution of civil society; and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance….
"Because if religion be exempt from the authority of society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the legislative body. The latter are but the creatures and viceregents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited…. The preservation of a free government requires, not merely that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power, be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great barrier which defends the rights of the people. The rulers, who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are tyrants. The people who submit to it, are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.
"Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties, we hold this prudent jealousy to be first duty of citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late revolution…. Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects; that the same authority, which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property, for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment, in all cases whatsoever?
"Because the bill violates that equality which ought to be the basis of every law; and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached…. Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those, whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man. To God, therefore, and not to man, must account of it be rendered….
"Because the bill implies, either that the civil magistrate is a competent judge of religious truths, or that he may employ religion as an engine of civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension, falsified by the extraordinary opinion of rulers, in all ages, and throughout the world; the second, an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
"Because the establishment proposed by the bill, is not requisite for the support of the Christian religion itself; for every page of it disavows a dependence on the power of the world; it is a contradiction to fact, for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them; and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence: nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy: it is, moreover, to weaken in those, who profess this religion, a pious confidence in its innate excellence, and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those, who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its faculties, to trust it to its own merits.
"Because experience witnesses that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution. Inquire of the teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect point to the ages prior to its incorporation with civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive state, in which its teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall….
"Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of civil government…. If religion be not within the cognizance of civil government, how can its legal establishment be said to be necessary for civil government? What influences, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances, they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; in more instances, have they been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the publick liberty, may have found on established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government instituted to secure and perpetuate it needs them not. Such a government will be best supported by protecting every citizen in the enjoyment of his religion, with the same equal hand which protects his person and property; by neither invading the equal hand which protects his person and property; by neither invading the equal rights of any sect, nor suffering any sect to invade those of another.
"Because the proposed establishment is a departure from that generous policy, which, offering an asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every nation and religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens…. [The proposed bill] is a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of citizens, all of those whose opinions in religion do not bend to those of the legislative authority. Distant as it may be, in its present form, from the inquisition, it differs from it only in degree; the one is the first step, the other the last, in the career of intolerance….
"Because it will have a tendency to banish our citizens…. Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm to extinguish religious discord, by proscribing all differences in religious opinion….
"Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the light of Christianity. The first wish of those, who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those, who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominion of false religions, and how small is the former? Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of truth, from coming into the regions of it; and countenances, by example, the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them….
"Because, finally, 'the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of his conscience,' is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either then we must say, that the will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plentitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press; may abolish the trial by jury; may swallow up the executive and judiciary powers of the State; nay, that they have no authority our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly; or we must say that they have no authority to enact into a law, the bill under consideration. We the subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority; and that no effort may be omitted on our part, against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it this Remonstrance, earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may, on the one hand, turn their councils from every act, which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them; and on the other guide them into every measure which may be worthy of His blessing, may redound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the property, and the happiness of the Commonwealth."
Endnote [lxxix].
Madison, who led the opposition, was able to obtain a postponement of consideration of the bill from December 1784 to November 1785. Before adjourning, the legislature passed a bill which incorporated the Protestant Episcopal Church,
"deemed necessary in order to regulate the status of that church in view of the severance of its subordination to the Church of England that had resulted from the Revolution. The bill gave the Episcopal ministers title to the churches, glebes, and other property, and prescribed the method of electing vestrymen.
"Even Madison voted for the incorporation bill, though reluctantly and only in order to stave off passage of the assessment bill. Nonetheless, the incorporation bill aroused a good deal of opposition." Endnote [lxxx].
The people were against the assessment bill, and the Presbyterians reversed their position, opposed the bill, and for the first time, on August 10, 1785, the whole Presbyterian body supported Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom," "although that bill had been before the Legislature since June 1779." The Baptists asked all counties which had not yet prepared a petition to do so and agreed to prepare a remonstrance and petition against the assessment. Thus the Presbyterians and Baptists stood together, but for different motives. Mr. Madison's opinion was that the Presbyterians were "moved by either a fear of their laity or a jealousy of the Episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed by the late act incorporating the latter…. Writings of Madison, I., 175." Endnote [lxxxi].
Patrick Henry, the leading proponent of the assessment bill was elected governor, "depriving the bill of its ablest legislative leader." The Memorial and Remonstrance had received wide distribution. At the next session, the General Assembly was flooded with petitions and memorials from all parts of the State, overwhelmingly against the bill. The bill was defeated by three votes.
On January 16, 1786, the Virginia Act for Religious Liberty, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was passed instead. That bill provided for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. It stated:
"I. Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord of both body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such, endeavoring to impose them on others hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, … that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;
that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; …
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from his own;
that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt [open, or public] acts against peace and good order;
and, finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
"II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
"III. And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to her own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet, as we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural right of mankind, and that if any act shall hereafter be passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural rights."
Endnote [lxxxii].
The act included three factors: church, state, and individual. It protected the individual from loss at the hands of the state incursion into his church affiliation, and implicitly banned church establishment. "It did not attempt to define the relations between Church and State except in terms of the individual." Endnote [lxxxiii].
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the above bill, never swerved from his devotion to the complete independence of church and state. He wrote:
"The care of every man's soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well, what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more clearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills." Endnote [lxxxiv].
"But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God….
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." Endnote [lxxxv].
According to Biblical principles, the bill was right about some things and wrong about others. It was right about its position on freedom of conscience from interference by civil and ecclesiastical governments, about compelling contributions to opinions to which one is opposed, about forcing any contributions to any pastor whatsoever, and about its assertion "that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order."
However, the act was wrong in four ways. First, it was wrong in not recognizing that the word of God is the source of all ultimate truth. Second, it was wrong in not recognizing that God desires all nations to be under Him, and that judgment is the ultimate fate of all nations which do not glorify Him. Third, it was wrong in not recognizing that the only way to determine what acts against peace and good order against one's fellow man is through God-given conscience and the study of the word of God as led by the Holy Spirit. Fourth, the act was also wrong when it asserted "that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is proper and sufficient antagonist to error and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, [for] errors [cease] to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them." As mankind has proven over and over, truth never prevails. Ultimately, mankind always reverts to satanic principles instead of truth, which is of God. Not recognizing this accelerates the ultimate deterioration and judgment of a nation.
The Baptists continued their struggle to remove all vestiges of the establishment until 1802 when the glebes were sold and all religious societies were placed on equal footing before the law. The glebes were tracts of land and buildings built thereon for the accommodation of the minister and his family, all at the expense of the people within the parish. The Baptists fought to have the act incorporating the Episcopal church repealed. Reuben Ford and John Leland attended the first 1787 assembly meeting as agents in behalf of the Baptist General Committee. Endnote [lxxxvi]. On August 10, 1787, the act incorporating the Episcopal church was repealed, and until 2001—when Jerry Falwell and trustees of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, who were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the Virginia Constitutional provision forbidding the incorporation of churches in federal district court—no church in Virginia could be incorporated. Endnote [lxxxvii].
"The Baptists continued to memorialize the Legislature … and in 1799 that body passed an act entitled 'An Act to Repeal Certain Acts, and to Declare the Construction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Concerning Religion,' which act declared that no religious establishment had legally existed since the Commonwealth took the place of the regal government, repealed all laws giving to the Protestant Episcopal church any special privileges, and declared that 'the act establishing religious freedom' contains the true construction of the Bill of Rights and of the Constitution; but no order was given for the sale of the glebes." Endnote [lxxxviii].
As the Anglican establishment in Virginia yielded to pressure from Baptists [and to a much lesser extent Presbyterians] so that religious liberty was established in that state, "[t]he same pressure, reinforced by the conditions of frontier living, ended the Anglican establishment in the Carolinas and Georgia…. [T]he conditions which made establishment possible never existed in the states admitted after Vermont, nor in the territories with the exception of unique Utah." Endnote [lxxxix].
By the time the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, "three states, Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia granted full religious freedom. Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland demanded in different degrees adherence to Christianity. New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia demanded Protestantism."[xc]
Endnote [i] Summary of Federer's article. I will make a few comments in red.
1n 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh attempted to settle Roanoke Island Virginia according to a grant which he quotes part of. I would note the important part of that grant for purposes of the state/church theology of England which was to go with the colony: "Ordinances … agreeable to … the laws … of England, and also so as they be not against the true Christian faith." He points out what Thomas Jefferson wrote in his autobiobraphy: "The first settlersof Virginia were Englishmen, loyal subjects to their King and Church, and the grant to Sir Walter Raleigh contained an express proviso that their laws 'should not be against the true Christian faith, now professed in the Church of England.'"
He points out that the colony was abandoned and that Sir Walter Raleigh personally lost 40,000 pounds on the venture.
More than two decades later, the Virginia Company was formed, and King James I granted to the Virginia Company the First Charter of Virginia, April 10, 1606 and quotes part of that charter:
"For the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God."
Of course, in context, the Christian Religion to be propagated and the "true Knowledge and Worship of God" spoken of was that of the Church of England.
On April 26, 1607, Captain Christopher Newport arrived with 105 settlers on 3 ships. The "First Landing" was at Cape Henry, named from Prince Henry of Wales, the eldest son of King James I. Their first act was to erect a wooden cross and commence a prayer meeting led by Rev. Robert Hunt.
They ascended the James River, named for King James I, and settled Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in America.
Meanwhile King Henry IV of France sent Samuel de Champlain, who founded Quebec City, capital of Canada in 1608.
Captain John Smith was of Jamestown's leaders. Federer includes some information about him, including military exploits including that he was captured and held as prisoner by the Turks, etc.
Smith was captured by Chief Powhatan in December 1607. Pocahontas interceded on his behalf and he was not killed. Federer then tells more about Pocahontas, that she was baptized, and married tobacco planter John Rolfe. People in England thought that smoking tobacco would make one healthy since the Indians smoked "peace pipes," and were healthy. This caused a great demand for tobacco.
On May 23, 1609, King James granted a Second Charter of Virginia. He quotes part of that charter: "The principal Effect which we can expect … is the Conversion and reduction of the people in those parts unto the true worship of Godand the Christian Religion … It shall be necessary for all such our loving Subjects … to live together, in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness, with each other."
The colony would have been abandoned in 1610 except for the arrival of more settlers and supplies.
The Third Charter of Virginia,March 12, 1611, stated: "Our loving Subjects … for the Propagation of Christian Religion, and Reclaiming of People barbarous, to Civility and Humanity, We have … granted unto them … the first Colony in Virginia."
In May of 1611, the London Company sent Sir Thomas Dale to Virginia. He founded Henricus, the colony's second settlement, named after James' eldest son, Prince Henry
In 1619, Henricus became the location of the first English hospital in American and the first chartered college in the English colonies initially designed to educate Powhatan children. It was destroyed in 1622 in an Indian uprising in which Indians killed 347 men, women, and children, one full quarter of Virginia's population. An Indian convert to Christianity saved the town by warning Richard Pace. Federer gives more facts about the massacre.
The colony suffered droughts, famines, starvation, diseases, and attacks. Between 1608 and 1624, of the 6,000 settlers that came to Jamestown, only 3,400 survived.
In 1624, King James I revoked the Virginia Company charter and ruled directly over Virginia.
The Church of England was established from 1606 till 1786. Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary defined "establishment" of religion as:
"The episcopal form of religion, so called in England."
Webster's 1828 dictionary was written to comport with the English language of the time of the writing of the Bible and also to conform, in many matters, to the Anglican establishment in England. "Establisment" of religion is any combination of religion and state.
Establishment also meant that settlers had to take the "oath of supremacy." The Second Charter of Virginia, 1609, stated:
"None be permitted to pass in any voyage … into the said country, but such as first shall have taken the Oath of Supremacy."
The Oath of Supremacy, 1535, stated:
"I declare … that the King's Highness is the only Supreme Governor of this Realm … in all Spiritual or Ecclesiastical things."
Church attendance was mandatory. The Virginia House of Burgesses passed an ordinance in 1623:
"To see that the Sabbath was not profaned by working or any employments, or journeying from place to place."
On March 5, 1624, Virginia's legislature passed the ordinance: "Whosoever shall absent himself from Divine service any Sunday without an allowable excuse shall forfeit a pound of tobacco …"
That there be an uniformity in our Church as near as may be to the Canons in England … and that all persons yield ready obedience unto them under pain of censure."
In 1699, the Virginia Assembly adopted the statues of monarchs William and Mary allowing for limited toleration of some Protestant dissenters.
James Madison wrote to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819:
"The English Church was originally the established religion …
Of other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who predominated on the west side of the Blue Mountains …"
Madison continued:
"A little time previous to the Revolutionary struggle, the Baptists sprang up, and made very rapid progress …
At present the population is divided, with small exceptions, among the Protestant Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists."
Federer then offers some quotes from Justice Hugo Black, writing in Engel v. Vitale, 1962:
"As late as the time of the Revolutionary War, there were established Churches in at least eight of the thirteen former colonies …
The successful Revolution against English political domination was shortly followed by intense opposition … in Virginia where the minority religious groups such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Quakers and Baptists had gained such strength …"
"In 1785-1786, those opposed to the established Church … obtained the enactment of the famous 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' by which all religious groups were placed on an equal footing."
The "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty," drafted by Jefferson, prevented the government from infringing on the rights of conscience, January 16, 1786:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint;
that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments … are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion,
who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to extend it by its influence on reason alone …"
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical …
that … laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust … unless he … renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges … to which … he has a natural right …
that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction;
that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion … is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,
because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others …
that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself …"
"that no man shall be … molested … on account of his religious opinions or belief;
but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion."
Federer then points out how that Jefferson's view that no man should be molested "on account of his religious opinions, would have pitted him against mandatory CRT teaching, LGBTQ grooming, anti-bullying or hate crime laws, etc. What about how it would affect the issue of the relationship of church and state, establishment of religion?
The Virginia Declaration of Rights,Article 16, ratified June 12, 1776, stated:
"That Religion, or the duty which we owe to our CREATOR, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence;and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity, towards each other."
Only a small number of Catholics settled in the Anglican Colony of Virginia because Virginia's 1609 Charter denied Catholics the right to settle there. That changed with Virginia's Declaration of Rights, 1776, and Jefferson's Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty, 1786, followed by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, 1789, and bill of Rights, 1791. The first Catholic Church in Virginia was erected in 1795. The first Jewish synagogue in Virginia was in 1820. Federer asserts that it is one of the oldest colonial Jewish congregations in America along with others in New York, Philadelphia, Newport, Savannah, and Charleston. I believe this is error. I believe at least one Jewish synagogue was founded in Rhode Island in the colonial period, in the 1600s. Also, 1820 was not the colonial period.
Virginian George Washingtonwrote November 27, 1783:
"Acknowledge … our infinite obligations to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for rescuing our country from the brink of destruction; I cannot fail … to ascribe all the honor of our late success to the same glorious Being … The establishment of civil and religious liberty was the motive which induced me to the field … It now remains to be my earnest … prayer, that the Citizens of the United States would make a wise and virtuous use of the blessings placed before them."
[ii] Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia, (Harrisonburg, Virginia: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; first published in Lynchburg, Virginia: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), Appendix A, pp. 207-208.
[iii] See, e.g., William H. Marnell, The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from the Colonial Days to the School Prayer Controversy, (Garden City New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1964), pp. 89-90.
[iv] Ibid., p. 93.
[v] John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Volume I, (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Bogard Press), p. 381.
[vi] James, pp. 10-11.
[vii] Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977), pp. 80—105.
[viii] "Jamestown: Where America Became a Christian Nation," Legal Alert (Monthly Newsletter of the Christian Law Association), April 2007, p. 1.
[ix] Marshall and Manuel, pp. 80-105; see Clarkson for this excerpt from "Articles, Instructions, and Orders" from the homeland.
[x] Ibid., p. 17.
[xi] See Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom, (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953) p. 69 for the text of this law.
[xii] Ibid.; see also James, pp. 17-20 for a more comprehensive overview of the laws of Virginia which provided for religious persecution and the established church.
[xiii] William A. Lumpkin, Baptist History in the South, (Shelbyville, Tennessee: Bible and Literature Missionary Foundation) p. 105.
[xiv] James, pp. 17-20.
[xv] Ibid., pp. 11-12.
[xvi] Ibid., pp. 20-22.
[xvii] Ibid., pp. 22-25, citing Foote, "Sketches of Virginia," pp. 99, 160-162, 307, 308.
[xviii] Ibid., pp. 12-14, 26.
[xix] Ibid., pp. 26-27, citing Robert B. Semple, "History of the Baptists of Virginia," 1810, p. 25.
[xx][xx] Ibid., pp. 27-28, citing Foote, p. 38 quoting from the Bishop of London; Bishop Meade, "Old Parishes and Families of Virginia" (Vol. I, 118, 385, etc.; Dr. Hawks, "History of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia," p. 65.).
[xxi] James R. Beller, America in Crimson Red: The Baptist History of America, (Arnold, Missouri: Prairie Fire Press, 2004) pp. 140-142.
[xxii] Lumpkin, pp. 48-49.
[xxiii] Ibid., p. 90, citing A. B. Semple, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists of Virginia (Richmond: Pitt & Dickinson, 1894), p. 380.
[xxiv] Ibid., pp. 90-98.
[xxv] Ibid., pp. 90-103.
[xxvi] Pfeffer, p. 95. citing Edward F. Humphrey, Nationalism and Religion in America (Boston: Chipman Law Publishing Co., 1924), p. 370.
[xxvii] James, pp. 29-30. Included is a listing of some of those jailed and otherwise persecuted. See also Beller, America in Crimson Red, pp. 230-250; Lumpkin, pp. 105-120; Grady, What Hath God Wrought, Appendix A, pp. 593-598 citing Lewis Peyton Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia, (Galatin, Tenn.: Church History Research and Archives, 1987), pp. 516-520 (lists many Baptists and the persecutions they endured in Virginia; persecutions such as being jailed for preaching, civil suit, being annoyed by men drinking and playing cards, being jerked off stage and head beaten against the ground, hands being slashed, beaten with bludgeons, being shot with a shotgun, ousted as a justice for preaching, being brutally beaten by a mob, severely beaten with a stick, etc.).
[xxviii] James, p. 30, citing Semple, p. 19.
[xxix] Ibid., pp. 30-31, citing William Fristoe, "History of the Ketocton Baptist Association," p. 69.
[xxx] Ibid., citing Dr. Hawks, "History of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Virginia," p. 121.
[xxxi] Ibid., pp. 31-35.
[xxxii] Ibid., pp. 42-47.
[xxxiii] Lenni Brenner, editor, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State (Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc, 2004), pp. 11-12; James, p. 36.
[xxxiv] Brenner, pp. 12-13; James, pp. 35-38, citing Rives Life and Times of Madison, Vol. I, pp. 43, 53; Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1958), pp. 299-301.
[xxxv] James, pp. 47-48. See also Christian, Volume I, pp. 381-384.
[xxxvi] Christian, Volume I, p. 386-387.
[xxxvii] Ibid., pp. 390-391.
[xxxviii] James, pp. 49-57.
[xxxix] Ibid., p. 58.
[xl] Ibid., pp. 58-62.
[xli] Ibid., p. 10.
[xlii] Marnell, pp. 94-95; James, pp. 62-65.
[xliii] See Leni Brenner, editor, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State, ((Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc. 2004), pp. 21-22 for George Mason's Article, Madison's Amendment to Mason's Article, The Proposal of Committee of Virginia's Revolutionary Convention, Madison's Amendment to the Committee's Article, and the Article as Passed); James, pp. 62-65.
[xliv] James, pp. 62-64; Pfeffer, p. 96.
[xlv] Pfeffer, p. 96.
[xlvi] James, p. 63 quoting Dr. John Long.
[xlvii] Norman Cousins, In God We Trust, ((Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1958), p. 296.
[xlviii] James, pp. 66-67.
[xlix] Ibid., p. 10.
[l] Marnell, pp. 94-95; Pfeffer, p. 96.
[li] Pfeffer, p. 97.
[lii] James, p. 74. See pp. 68-74 for the petitions against establishment.
[liii] Ibid., p. 82.
[liv] Ibid., pp. 75-78. The petitions of the Methodists and the established church are quoted and the author comments on the petition of the established church.
[lv] Ibid., pp. 80-81; See also Pfeffer, p. 96.
[lvi] James, pp. 84-91 quotes those memorials.
[lvii] Pfeffer, p. 97.
[lviii] James, p. 95.
[lix] Ibid., pp. 96-98.
[lx] Pfeffer, p. 97.
[lxi] Ibid., citing R. Freeman Butts, The American Tradition in Religion and Education (Boston: Beacon Press, 1950), pp. 53-56.
[lxii] James, pp. 112-121 citing Dr. R. B. C. Howell, "Early Baptists of Virginia" for the quotation which is on p. 120.
[lxiii] Ibid., pp. 122-133.
[lxiv] Cousins, p. 301.
[lxv] Ibid., p. 302; Brenner, pp. 60-61.
[lxvi] James, pp. 132-133, citing William Fristoe, "History of the Ketocton Association."
[lxvii] Ibid., p. 130; Cousins, p. 306.
[lxviii] Marnell, p. 95.
[lxix] Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 163 (1879); see James, p. 129 where the preamble to the bill is quoted.
[lxx] James, p. 135.
[lxxi] Marnell, pp. 95, 96.
[lxxii] Pfeffer, p. 98, citing N. J. Eckenrode, The Separation of Church and State in Virginia (Richmond, Va.: Virginia State Library, 1910), p. 86. Pfeffer notes in Chapter 4 fn. 102 that the text of the bill is printed as an appendix to Justice Rutledge's dissent in Everson, 330 U.S. 1.
[lxxiii] Ibid.
[lxxiv] Everson, 330 U.S. fn. 9 at 11; 67 S. Ct. at 509.
[lxxv] Pfeffer, p. 101. Pfeffer states that "[i]t is important to note the emphasis the 'Memorial' places on ideological factors." His comments following that quote ignore the references to our "creator," and the "Governor of the Universe."
[lxxvi] James, p. 135, quoting Semple.
[lxxvii] Ibid., p. 135, quoting Dr. George B. Taylor, Memorial Series, No. IV., page 19.
[lxxviii] Ibid., p. 135.
[lxxix] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785, cited in Beller, America in Crimson Red, pp. 512-515; Cousins, pp. 308-314; may also be viewed online.
[lxxx] Pfeffer, p. 99, citing Eckenrode, p. 100.
[lxxxi] Brenner, p. 74 (letter dated August 20, 1785); James, pp. 134-139. Madison's quote was from a letter to Mr. Jefferson.
[lxxxii] Cited in Cousins, pp. 125-127; see also, for an edited version, Living American Documents, Selected and edited by Isidore Starr, Lewis Paul Todd, and Merle Curti, (New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961), pp. 67-69.
[lxxxiii] Marnell, pp. 96-97.
[lxxxiv] Pfeffer, p. 94, citing Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943), p. 943. Keep in mind that although Pfeffer's quotes of Jefferson and others often spoke of God and His sovereignty and freedom of conscience, Pfeffer passes over God as though he had not been mentioned.
[lxxxv] Pfeffer, citing Joseph L. Blau, Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1949), pp. 78-79.
[lxxxvi] James, pp. 142-146.
[lxxxvii] See Falwell v. Miller, 203 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Va. 2002).
[lxxxviii] James, pp. 142-145.
[lxxxix] Marnell, p. 130.
[xc] Ibid., p. 98.
1606 Virginia Charter1607 Virginia Charter1776 Virginia Constitution1776 Virginia Declaration of Rightsand Orders from EnglandArticlesBaptist petitions in colonial VirginiaBaptistsBaptists in VirginiaCape HenryCaptain Christopher NewportCaptain John SmithChief PowhatanChurch of EnglandColonel Samuel HarrisDavid ManuelEnglish Act of TolerationGeneral Incorporation and General AssessmentGeneral Incorporation and General Assessment in VirginiaHouse of BurgessesHouse of Burgesses in VirginiaInstructionsJames MadisonJamestownJohn RolfeKing Henry IV of FranceLawes DivineLeo PfefferLondon CompanyMemorial and RemonstranceMoral and Martial decreed in 1612Patrick Henrypersecution in VirginiaPersecution of Baptists in VirginiaPeter MarshallPressbyterians in VirginiaPrince Henry of WalesRegular BaptistsRegular Baptists in VirginiaRev. Robert HuntRoanoke IslandSamuel de ChamplainSamuel HarrisSecond Charter of Virginia 1609Separate BaptistsSeparate Baptists in VirginiaSir Walter RaleighThird Charter of Virginia 1611Thomas JeffersonVirginiaVirginia Act establishing religious libertyVirginia Act for Religious LibertyVirginia Bill for Establishing Religious FreedomVirginia CompanyVirginia constitution of 1776Virginia Declaration of RightsVirginia Declaration of Rights of 1776Virginia's Founding & Highlights of its Religious History - American Minute with Bill Federer
To Virginia
III. Presbyterians in Virginia Colony
March 2, 2018 Jerald Finney Leave a comment
A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry
Previous Lesson:
II. Only the Church of England Was Tolerated in Virginia Colony
Next Lesson:
IV. Baptists in Virginia Colony; The Bad Character of the Anglican Clergy; Colonel Sam Harris and Other Baptist Preachers; The Separate and Regular Baptists
Click here for links to all lessons on "To Virginia."
Click here to go to the written lessons.
Click here to go to the 3 1/2 to 6 minute video lectures.
For accompanying more thorough study from God Betrayed click here.
Copyright © March 2, 2018
Although some Presbyterians settled in Virginia from 1670 to 1680, the number & influence of Presbyterians in Virginia was small until the mid-1700s. In the mid-1700s an influential body of Presbyterians settled in Hanover County as a result of a 1738 agreement between the Presbyterian Synod of Philadelphia and Virginia governor William Gooch which allowed "emigrants to occupy the frontier portions of Virginia and enjoy the benefits of the Act of Toleration."[1]
The first non-Anglican minister to receive a license under the Act of Toleration passed by the British Parliament in 1689, which instructed liberty of conscience for all but Papists, was Francis Makemie, a Presbyterian minister in Accomac County. By 1725, no more than five conventicles, "three small meetings of Quakers and two of Presbyterians," were licensed, and these in poorer counties who were unable to pay the established minister enough to stay. In 1725, a similar license was granted to "certain parties (doubtless Presbyterians)" in Richmond County.[2]
Presbyterian families from Pennsylvania and Maryland began to move to remote parts of Virginia on the western frontier in 1738. The Presbyterian Synod of Pennsylvania wrote Governor Gooch of Virginia asking for religious freedom for those Presbyterians. Governor Gooch, knowing these people "to be firm, enterprising, hardy, brave, good citizens and soldiers," and desiring "to form a complete line of defense against the savage inroads," welcomed them. "At so great a distance from the older settlements, he anticipated no danger to the established church." The conditions of settlement were that they "were not only to settle in the frontier counties as a buffer between the Churchmen and the Indians, but they had to swear allegiance to 'His Magesty's person and government,'" pay the taxes levied in support of the Established Church, and never by word or deed seek to injure the said church…. "Houses for public worship could not be occupied without permission from the civil authorities, and each application for a house of worship was heard on its own merits." "[Those early Presbyterians] did not break their promise nor violate their oaths." Up to the Revolution, "they never demanded anything more than their rights under the Act of Toleration, and … not until the Revolution was accomplished, and Virginia had thrown off allegiance to Great Britain, did they (the Presbyterians) strike hands with the Baptists in the effort to pull down the Establishments." However, with the fury of the French and Indian War, which broke out in 1755, Presbyterians east of the Blue Ridge occupied houses of worship without license or molestation.[3]
[1] Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, VA.: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; First Published Lynchburg, VA.: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), pp. 11-12.
[2] Ibid., pp. 20-22.
[3]Ibid., pp. 22-25, citing Foote, "Sketches of Virginia," pp. 99, 160-162, 307, 308.
Accomac CountyAccomac County VirginiaAct of TolerationAct of Toleration of 1689Charles F. JamesDocumentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in VirginiaEnglish Act of Toleration of 1689Francis MakemieFrancis Makemie Presbyterian MinisterGovernor William GoochHanover CountyHanover County VirginiaJamestownJamestown VirginiaPresbyterian Synod of PhiladelphiaRichmond CountyRichmond County VirginiaVirginia ColonyWilliam Gooch
I. Motivation for the Final Thrust for the First Amendment-the Convictions of Dissenters, mainly the Baptists; the thrust for the growth of the Baptists Came from the Great Awakening
III. Presbyterians in Virginia
Virginia "was founded by members of the Church of England and none others were tolerated in its jurisdiction."[1] The Episcopal church, the Church of England, in Virginia was established from the founding of Jamestown in 1607.
"It was known, also, as the 'Established Church,' because it was made, by legal enactment, the church of the State and was supported by taxation. Not only so, but it was designed to be the established church, to the exclusion of all others. Rigid laws, with severe penalties affixed, were passed, having for their object the exclusion of all Dissenters from the colony, and the compelling of conformity to the established, or State, religion. Even after the Revolution of 1688, which placed William and Mary upon the throne of England and secured the passage of the 'Act of Toleration' the following year, the 'General Court of the Colony' of Virginia construed that act to suit themselves, and withheld its benefits from Dissenters … until they were compelled to yield to the force of circumstances."[2]
The Church of England was stronger in Virginia than in any colony.
1612 Virginia Charter
In Virginia, the established Anglican church was controlled by the state, unlike in New England where the established church controlled the state. From the beginning of the colony, the "company knew not how to control the members composing the colony but by religion and law."[3] The original "Lawes Divine, Moral and Martial" which were decreed in 1612, were severe. Speaking impiously of the Trinity or of God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit, blaspheming God, incorrigibly cursing, a third failure to attend religious services, and a third "Sabbath-breaking," were punishable by death. Other spiritual offenses were punished by whipping and other penalties.[4]
"Puritan clergy were banished for failing to conform to Anglican services; Quakers [and Baptists] were fined, imprisoned, and banished. Catholics were disqualified from public office, and any priest who ventured to enter the colony was subject to instant expulsion. Penalties were imposed on those who having scruples against infant baptism, neglected to present their children for that purpose."[5]
A 1643 law forbade anyone to teach or preach religion, publicly or privately, who was not a minister of the Church of England, and instructed governor and council to expel all nonconformists from the colony.[6] In 1643, three Congregationalist ministers from Boston were forced to leave the colony. Also in 1643, "Sir William Berkeley, Royal Governor of Virginia, strove, by whippings and brandings, to make the inhabitants of that colony conform to the Established church, and thus drove out the Baptists and Quakers, who found a refuge in … North Carolina." Quakers first came to Virginia in "1659-60, and … the utmost degree of persecution was exercised towards them." "During the period of the Commonwealth in England, there had been a kind of interregnum as to both Church and State in Virginia; but in 1661, the supremacy of the Church of England was again fully established." Only ministers of the Church of England were permitted to preach, and only ministers of that church could "celebrate the rites of matrimony," and only "according to the ceremony prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer."[7]
[1] John T. Christian, A History of the Baptists, Volume I, (Texarkana, Ark.-Tex.: Bogard Press, 1922), p, 381.
[3] Ibid., p. 17.
[4] See Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 69 for the text of this law.
[5] Ibid.; see also James, pp. 17-20 for a more comprehensive overview of the laws of Virginia which provided for religious persecution and the established church.
[6] William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations in the South (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), p. 105.
[7] James, pp. 17-20.
1606 Virginia Charter1607 Virginia Charter1612 Virginia Charter1689 Act of TolerationA History of the BaptistsAct of Tolerationand FreedomBaptist Foundations in the SouthCharles F. JameschurchDocumentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in VirginiaJamestownJamestown VirginiaJohn T. ChristianLawes DivineLeo PfefferMoral and MartialstateVirginiaWilliam L. Lumpkin
D. History of Religious Liberty in America
Secular and Christian revisionism
December 31, 2012 Jerald Finney Leave a comment
Copyright © December 31, 2012
Click here to go to the entire history of religious liberty in America.
Note. This is a modified version of Section IV, Chapter 2 of God Betrayed: Separation of Church and State/The Biblical Principles and the American Application. Audio Teachings on the History of the First Amendment has links to the audio teaching of Jerald Finney on the history of the First Amendment.
The tactics of Christian and secular revisionists do not change. As Isaac Backus noted, concerning the revisionism and lies of the leaders of the established churches in the colonies:
"[I] appeal to the conscience of every reader, whether he can find three worse things on earth, in the management of controversy, than, first, to secretly take the point disputed for truth without any proof; then, secondly, blending that error with known truths, to make artful addresses to the affections and passions of the audience, to prejudice their minds, before they hear a word that the respondent has to say; and thirdly, if the respondent refuses to yield to such management, then to call in the secular arm to complete the argument" (Isaac Backus, A History of New England With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, Volume 1 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, Previously published by Backus Historical Society, 1871), p. 150. This comment followed and preceded illustrations of how those in favor of church/state marriage, infant baptism, etc. advance their cause. On pp. 151-152, Mr. Backus illustrated how those in favor of infant baptism argued their position, pointing out the fallacies of their arguments. Their tactics have not changed, although in America, due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, they no longer can call upon civil government to enforce their beliefs.)?
Religious and secular revisionists (including many United States Supreme Court Justices) of our time are using the tactic mentioned by Backus today, absent the third component which is, to their dismay, unavailable to them.
"Christian" revisionists have either reconstructed and lied about our Christian heritage or relied on "Christian" authors who have reconstructed and lied about history. They refer to what the writers of their persuasion in times past wrote and said without placing those assertions in the context of other writings and facts surrounding their sources and in the context of biblical truth. They would have one and all to believe either that all "Christians" who came to this nation worked together for religious freedom and are to be given credit for giving us a "Christian" nation, that the Puritans and other sects which followed their principle of church-state establishment gave us a Christian nation, or that those sects of which they approved, the established churches and their leaders, had the truth and dissenters, such as the Baptists and others, were proponents of dangerous heresies. The result of revisionism has been chaos and an accelerating slide down a slippery slope to destruction as individuals, families, churches, and the nation.
What is their reason for doing this? Some are probably just ignorant of historical facts and rely on what others have written (the author of this book was in this category since he relied upon "Christian" authors and speakers until he began to do an independent study). Perhaps the motive of others who may be more knowledgeable is to influence those Christians who do not share their theology concerning church and state to get involved with helping them in their attempt to unite church and state in order to make possible their ultimate unattainable goal of bringing in the kingdom of heaven prior to the return of Christ. Perhaps they believe, contrary to biblical directives for the Christian, that it is all right for Christians to lie to "those who have no right to know the truth" and that Christians can better advance the cause of Christ by lying about irrefutable historical fact which true history has recorded.
Baptist historian James R. Beller builds a strong case to show that the modern day "catholic Reformed Reconstructionists," under the leadership of Rousas John Rushdoony, justify lying based upon a perverted interpretation of certain biblical passages (James R. Beller, The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People: The Baptist History of America (St. Louis, Missouri: Prairie Fire Press, 2005), pp. 30-35). Rushdoony believes in "religious establishments in civil government and that it is acceptable to lie" to promote the cause he supports (Ibid., p. 32).
Andrew Sandlin calls Christian Reconstructionism "a version of the Reformed, Postmillennial Theology that emphasizes the concepts of Theonomy and Dominion" (Ibid., p. 33). The theonomist believes that the magistrate has the duty to enforce the Mosaic law.
"Theonomists believe that Matthew 5:13-16 presents the Church with 'a mandate for complete social transformation of the entire world.' The Church is to play the key role in this transformation by spreading the gospel throughout the world, taking over the function of government, and enforcing the Mosaic Law. Thus, Chilton stated, 'Our goal is world dominion under Christ's Lordship, a 'world takeover' if you will; but our strategy begins with reformation, reconstruction of the church. From that will flow social and political reconstruction, indeed a flowering of Christian civilization.' Again he said, 'The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law.'
"Another theonomist declared that 'the saints must prepare to take over the world's governments and its courts.'
"Theonomists optimistically believe that 'As the gospel progresses throughout the world it will win, and win, and win, until all the kingdoms become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ.
"This optimistic belief makes theonomy a genuine form of Postmillennialism….
"[R.J.] Rushdoony wrote: 'Postmillialism thus believes that man must be saved, and that his generation is the starting point for a mandate to exercise dominion in Christ's name over every area of life and thought. Postmillennialism in its classic form does not neglect the church and it does not neglect also to work for a Christian state and school, for the sovereignty and crown rights of the King over individuals, families, institutions, arts, scientists, and all things else. More, it holds that God has provided the way for this conquest: His Law'" (Renald E. Showers, There Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, New Jersey: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1990), pp. 152-154, citing Meredith G. Kline, "Comments on the Old-New Error," Westminster Theological Journal, p. 41 (1978), pp. 172-173; David Chilton, Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of dominion (Tyler, Texas: Reconstruction Press, 1985), pp. 12, 214, 226, 192; R. J. Rushdoony, "Government and the Christian," The Rutherford Institute, 1 (July-August, 1984), p. 7; R.J. Rushdoony, "Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion," Journal of Christian Reconstruction, 3 (winter, 1976-77), p. 126).
Postmillennialism teaches that the ultimate progress of history is upward. Led by the church and the spreading of God's Word by God's people, eventually the whole world will be brought into subjection by that message. In other words, the church, working with civilization, science, and political agencies will bring in the Kingdom of Heaven before Christ returns.
This movement promotes a strategy of lying which states that Christians have "no obligation to speak truthfully to those who have forfeited the right to hear the truth," and that the "commandment does not say that 'thou shalt never tell a lie'" (Beller, The Coming Destruction of the Baptist People, p. 33). "Even the famous Reformed lawyer, John Whitehead, founder of the Rutherford Institute, apparently approves of this strategy: Rahab risked everything in order to follow God, including telling lies" (Ibid., p. 34, citing John Whitehead, "Christian Resistance in the Face of State Interference," Christianity and Civilization 3: The Theology of Christian Resistance (Tyler, TX: General Divinity School, 1983), p. 8). Based upon their reasoning, they justify lying about historical facts. Obviously, they do not want an honest debate of American history which would reveal that the theology of the established churches justified persecution to include banishment, taking of property, imprisonment, and murder.
These Christian revisionists lie and continue to lie and also to make their secular arguments, polished with allusions to God and maybe even Jesus Christ, even when the enemy is quoting historical truth. Those who observe what is going on must shake their heads at the ignorance of Christians, especially Christian lawyers. Instead of trying to get out the whole truth, which would aid the cause of Christ (at least if Christians including pastors and Christian lawyers and scholars had stood on truth from the beginning of the nation), they lied and continue to lie.
Even the United States Supreme Court is accurate many times as to historical fact concerning persecution by church-state establishments. For example, the Court wrote in 1947:
"See e. g. the charter of the colony of Carolina which gave the grantees the right of 'patronage and advowsons of all the churches and chapels … together with licence and power to build and found churches, chapels and oratories … and to cause them to be dedicated and consecrated, according to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England.' Poore, Constitutions (1878) II, 1390, 1391. That of Maryland gave to the grantee Lord Baltimore 'the Patronages, and Advowsons of all Churches which … shall happen to be built, together with Licence and Faculty of erecting and founding Churches, Chapels, and Places of Worship … and of causing the same to be dedicated and consecrated according to the Ecclesiastical Laws of our Kingdom of England, with all, and singular such, and as ample Rights, Jurisdictions, Privileges, … as any Bishop … in our Kingdom of England, ever … hath had….' MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History (1934) 31, 33. The Commission of New Hampshire of 1680, Poore, supra, II, 1277, stated: 'And above all things We do by these presents will, require and command our said Councill to take all possible care for ye discountenancing of vice and encouraging of virtue and good living; and that by such examples ye infidle may be invited and desire to partake of ye Christian Religion, and for ye greater ease and satisfaction of ye sd loving subjects in matters of religion, We do hereby require and comand yt liberty of conscience shall be allowed unto all protestants; yt such especially as shall be conformable to ye rites of ye Church of Engd shall be particularly countenanced and encouraged.' See also Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch 292" (Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, fn. 6 at 9; 67 S. Ct. 504, fn. 6 at 508; 91 L. Ed. 711, fn. 6 at 720; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2959; 168 A.L.R. 1392 (1947)).
The Court in Everson and in other cases also wrote of the persecutions going on in the Old World prior to the settlement of America, the persecutions going on in America, and the religious turmoil out of which our First Amendment emerged. Of course, the Supreme Court placed the above facts in a case which gave a new meaning to "separation of church and state." Additionally, the Court never addressed the false theology versus the accurate theology that resulted in religious liberty and freedom of conscience in America. They never examined the true biblical principles concerning the sovereignty of God over all governments, religious liberty, and freedom of conscience. Had the whole truth been argued by Christian lawyers at that time, as well as before and after that time, the downfall of America may have been at least stalled. At the very least, the name of Christ would have been exalted rather than abased.
In addition, true Catholicism still despises separation of church and state. Of course, most Catholics "laymen" have no clue about Catholic theology on the relationship of church and state and Catholic interpretation of end-time biblical teachings. Catholic theology still calls for union of the Catholic "church" and state and believes that the "church," working with civil government will bring peace and unity to the earth. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Samuel F. B. Morris discovered and publicized a Catholic political conspiracy against the United States of America (Ireneus Prime, The Life of Samuel F. B. Morse (New York: Arno Press, 1974), p. 730; Samuel F. B. Morse, Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States (New York: Arno Press, 1977), pp. 19-20, 28-29, 31; Samuel F. B. Morse, Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States Through Foreign Immigration (New York: Arno Press, 1969), pp. 7, 8; cited in Dr. William P. Grady, What Hath God Wrought: A Biblical Interpretation of American History (Knoxville, Tennessee: Grady Publications, Inc., 1999), pp. 221-222)). "At least 45 fanatically anti-Catholic newspapers and periodicals could be purchased in the … U.S. of A…. There were also well over 500 books and pamphlets written on this anti-popery theme as well" (Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, p. 225).
Dr. Morse [wrote]: "From whom is authority to govern derived? Austria and the United States will agree in answering,—from God. The opposition of opinion occurs in the answers to the next question. To whom on earth is this authority delegated? Austria answers, To the EMPEROR, who is the source of all authority,—'I the Emperor do ordain,…' The United States answers, To the PEOPLE, in whom resides the Sovereign power,—'We the People do ordain, establish, grant,'… In one principle is recognized the necessity of the servitude of the people, the absolute dependence of the subject, unqualified submission to the commands of the rulers without question or examination. The Ruler is Master, the People are Slaves. In the other is recognized the supremacy of the people, the equality of rights themselves; the Ruler is a public servant, receiving wages from the people to perform services agreeable to their pleasure; amenable in all things to them; and holding office at their will. The Ruler is Servant; the People are Master.
"The fact and important nature of the difference in these antagonistic doctrines, leading, as is perceived, to diametrically opposite results, are all that is needful to state in order to proceed at once to the inquiry, which position does the Catholic sect and the Protestant sects severally favor? The Pope, the supreme Head of the Catholic church, claims to be the 'Vicegerent of God,' supreme 'over all mortals;' 'over all Emperors, Kings, Princes, Potentates and People;' King of kings and Lord of lords.' He calls himself, 'the divinely appointed dispenser of spiritual and temporal punishments;' 'armed with power to depose Emperors and Kings, and absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance:' 'from him lies no appeal;' 'he is responsible to no one on earth;' 'he is judged of no one but God'" (Morse, Foreign Conspiracy, pp. 34-35, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, pp. 226-227).
The Pope determines what writings are heretical, and reading those writings, according to the "Congregation of the Index"—an essential department of the papal court—shall be regarded as an offense against the church and against God (R. W. Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1876), p. 91, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, p. 227). In 1832, Pope Gregory XVI referred to "that absurd and erroneous doctrine, or rather raving, in favor and defence of 'liberty of conscience,' for which most pestilential error, the course is opened to that entire and wild liberty of opinion, which is every where attempting the overthrow of religious and civil institutions…. Hither tends that worst and never sufficiently to be execrated and detested LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, for the diffusion of all manner or writings…" (Morse, Foreign Conspiracy, pp. 41-42, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought, p. 228). Accordingly, the Provincial Council of Baltimore, in order to guard against error, forbade the reading of Scripture "without the advice and permission of the pastors and spiritual guides whom God has appointed to govern his Church" (Thompson, p. 79, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, p. 228). If Catholic principles had prevailed in the United States, the First Amendment would never have been adopted because the two are diametrically opposed.
The Vatican planned a Romanized America. The plan was to be expedited through Catholic immigration. Although men such as Samuel F. B. Morse, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others warned against allowing immigration of those whose principles were contrary to those upon which America was founded, their warnings were not heeded and huge numbers of Catholics came into America, bringing with them their abominable religion as well as their base morality. A lot of money was spent on the significant number of immigrant paupers, and mob violence by immigrants became a new part of the American culture. Catholic mobs disrupted meetings where those of other faiths renounced Catholicism, and Roman shepherds bartered the votes of their flocks to politicians, and fought over the reading of the King James Bible in American's public schools (What Hath God Wrought!, pp. 229-236, 244-253). Jesuit author F. X. Weninger wrote in 1862, "One of the most glorious enterprises for the Catholic Church to engage in at this day is the conversion of the United States to the Catholic faith" (Thompson, The Papacy and the Civil Power, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, p. 236). "Vallestigny, a Jesuit priest and deputy of Alva, stated in his address to His Majesty:
"The mass of the human family are born, not to govern, but to be governed. This sublime employment of government has been confided by Providence to the privileged class, whom he has placed upon an eminence to which the multitude cannot rise without being lost in the labyrinth and snares which are therein found" (Morse, Imminent Dangers, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!).
Catholic clergy themselves admitted that there was a conspiracy against the United States and that Catholicism planned to take over America. For example:
"The Shepherd of the Valley, the official journal of the Bishop of St. Louis …, declared in 1851: The Church is of necessity intolerant. Heresy she endures when and where she must, but she hates it and directs all her energies to destroy it… If Catholics ever gain a sufficient numerical majority in this country, religious freedom is at an end. So our enemies say, so we believe" (Charles Chiniquy, 50 Years in the "Church" of Rome (Chino, Calif." Chick Publications, 1985), p. 285, cited in Grady, What Hath God Wrought!, p. 254).
Naturally, Catholic spokesmen and writers have attacked the phrase "separation of church and state" since religious liberty and separation of church and state are antithetical to Catholic theology and power. For example:
"Father John Courtney Murray described the phrase 'separation of church and state' as a 'negative, ill-defined, basically un-American [sic] formula….' After the McCollum decision the Catholic bishops of the United States, in a statement issued through the National Catholic Welfare Conference in November 1948, called the phrase 'separation of church and state' the 'shibboleth of doctrinaire secularism.' Father Robert I. Gannon, former president of Fordham University, in an address delivered in St. Louis in November 1951, used the phrase 'the current fraud of separation of church and state.' James M. O'Neill, a Catholic writer whose interpretation of the First Amendment was adopted by the Catholic bishops termed 'spurious' the 'so-called' 'great American principle of complete separation of church and state,' and affirmed that 'There is no such great American principle and there never has been.' Father Thomas F. Coakely, on the front cover of a pamphlet, 'Separation of Church and State,' published by the Catholic Truth Society, says unqualifiedly: 'Church and State have never been separated in America.' Even the Attorney General of the United States, in an address before the National Catholic Educational Association, charged that the Supreme Court had 'distorted' the First Amendment in referring to 'a wall of separation of Church and State'" (Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 118).
In publishing a false history, Christian revisionists have done a great deal of damage to the cause of Christ. Their theology concerning separation of church and state in contravening biblical principles resulted in the persecution of large numbers of believers by established churches and hampered the dissemination of the true gospel for over fifteen hundred years.
Satan's emissaries have revealed to the public that "Christians" have revised history. Even the unregenerate who possess no true understanding and wisdom, although many have been given brilliant minds by God, can look at history and discover true facts when it is to their advantage. The world, or at least the unregenerate who are aware of the facts of history, even though they themselves are the masters of deceit and revisionism when it furthers their cause, must have been turned off to a "religion" which relies on lies.
The knowledgeable Christian is appalled that supposed brothers would lie about historical fact in an attempt to further the cause of the One who was tortured and killed because of His stand for truth. Our Lord never backed off from truth even though He knew that His stand would take Him to the cross. He instructed Christians to be light, not darkness:
"No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light. The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed therefore that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light" (Lu. 11.33-36).
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Mt. 5.14-16).
All the apostles except John were martyred because of their stand for truth. David, who was called a man after God's own heart, said, "I have hated them that regard lying vanities: but I trust in the LORD" (Ps. 31.6). Other Bible verses condemn lying. "I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love" (Ps. 119.163). "Deliver my soul, O LORD, from lying lips, and from a deceitful tongue" (Ps. 120.2). God hates lying: "These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren" (Pr. 6.16-19). Notice that lying is the only sin He mentions twice.
Satan is the father of lies. God, in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, stands for truth.
Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God" (Jn. 8.44-47).
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (Jn. 14.6).
Christian revisionists seem to forget about those verses while taking other verses and perverting them to rationalize lying to promote their cause. For example, they point out the story of the Hebrew midwives in Exodus 1.15-22 who were rewarded by God because they did not obey Pharaoh's order to kill all the sons born to the Hebrews and also lied to Pharaoh as to the reason they did not kill those babies; and the story of Rahab the harlot whom God commended in Hebrews 11.31 for lying to the authorities of the land in order to help the Jewish spies (Jos. 6.22-25). The proper interpretation of those Scriptures, taken in the context of the Bible as a whole, is that the Hebrew midwives and Rahab were confronted with a moral dilemma. The midwives could either lie or be a party to murder. They chose to lie in obedience to God and to protect innocent life. Rahab realized that the spies were of God's chosen people on an errand for God. "And she said unto the men, I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you" (Jos. 2.9). Those and other verses do not support lying as defined and practiced by Christian revisionists.
Attempts to hide truth are in vain:
"And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick? For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear" (Mk. 4.21-23).
Christian revisionists are obviously not interested in honest debate because that debate would reveal that some of the founders of this nation, such as the Puritans and Anglicans, were deceived and adhered to a theology which, as the world correctly points out, advocated and practiced the union of church and state, enforced all ten of the Ten Commandments, including those having to do with man's relationship to God, and severely persecuted dissenters such as the Baptists and Quakers whom they labeled as heretics. The author was mislead by Christian revisionism for over twenty years. When he discovered that he had been lied to by other "Christians," he had to be willing to face the truth. In this book he is publishing what he totally believes to be irrefutable facts and conclusions based upon biblical principles as applied to those facts.
330 U.S. 150 Years in the "Church" of RomeA Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational TheologyAndrew SandlinAudio Teachings on the History of the First AmendmentBible verses about lyingBible verses on lyingcatholic Reformed ReconstructionistsCharles ChiniquyChristian nationalismChristian ReconstructionismChristian Resistance in the Face of State Interferencechristian revisionismChristian revisionists Peter Marshall and David ManuelChristianity and Civilization 3: The Theology of Christian ResistanceChurch and State in the United StatesDavid Barton's revisionismDavid ChiltonEversonEverson v. Board of EducationExodus 1.15-22Father John Courtney MurrayFather Robert I. GannonFather Thomas F. Coakelyfn. 6 at 508; 91 L. Ed. 711fn. 6 at 720; 1947 U.S. LEXIS 2959; 168 A.L.R. 1392 (1947))fn. 6 at 9; 67 S. Ct. 504Foreign ConspiracyFrederick ClarksonGovernment and the ChristianHebrews 11.31Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States Through Foreign ImmigrationIsaac Backus on revisionismJames M. O'NeillJames R. BellerJamestownJn. 14.6Jn. 8.44-47John 14.6John 8.44-47John BlanchardJohn Courtney MurrayJohn WhiteheadJos. 2.9Jos. 6.22-25Joshua 2.9Joshua 6.22-25lyingMark 4.21-23Matthew 5:13-16Mk. 4.21-23Mt. 5:13-16Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of dominionPhelps StokesPostmillennialismPostmillennialism versus Impotent ReligionR. J. RushdoonyRenald E. ShowersrevisionismRobert I. GannonRousas John RushdoonyRushdoonySamuel F. B. MorseSatan the father of liessecular revisionismsecularist Frederick ClarksonThe Coming Destruction of the Baptist People: The Baptist History of Americathe father of liesTheonomistsTheonomists Matthew 5:13-16Theonomy and DominionThere Really Is a DifferenceThere Really Is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational TheologyThomas F. CoakelyWhere America Became a Christian NationWhy the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Mattersyour father the devil
The Consequences of Christian and Secular Revisionism
See also, Exposing Catholic/Calvinist/Reformed Historic Revisionism
"Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it" (Is. 28.14-18).
Neither Christian nor secular revisionism will bring desirable consequences. If the Christian revisionists had their way, the church and state would be working together in America to bring in the kingdom of heaven on earth. There would be no First Amendment to the United States Constitution, no religious liberty, and the persecution would continue.
Sadly, the secularist Frederick Clarkson is right when he writes:
"[T]he Christian nationalist narrative has a fatal flaw: it is based on revisionist history that does not stand up under scrutiny. The bad news is that to true believers, it does not have to stand up to the facts of history to be a powerful and animating part of the once and future Christian nation. Indeed, through a growing cottage industry of Christian revisionist books and lectures now dominating the curricula of home schools and many private Christian academies, Christian nationalism has become a central feature of the political identity of children growing up in the movement. The contest for control of the narrative of American history is well underway" (Frederick Clarkson, "Why the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Matters," PublicEye.org (Spring 2007): online at http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html.).
He is partially correct in pointing out that:
"We've seen how religious beliefs (and other ideologies) inspire people to view others as subhuman, deviant, and deserving of whatever happens to them, including death Ibid. (). It is the stuff of persecution, pogroms, and warfare. The framers of the U.S. Constitution struggled with how to inoculate the new nation against these ills, and in many respects the struggle continues today" (Ibid.).
He is right when those beliefs are based upon certain false theologies. Such religious beliefs led to the murder of millions of Christians who were viewed by the established churches as dangerous heretics. However, his statement cannot be applied correctly to the true Christianity which fought for freedom of religion in America and which has effects opposite those he mentions. Christians who practiced and taught biblical principles concerning separation of church and state have been persecuted since the time of Christ and their stand in the face of persecution ultimately gave America religious liberty. This section of chapters records the history of those Christians.
Mr. Clarkson then goes on to factually tear apart some of the assertions being made by what he calls the Christian nationalists. For example, he asserts:
"John Blanchard [a current "Christian" leader] claims that the Jamestown landing signifies that, 'We were started as a Christian nation and I feel it's God's purpose we stay a Christian nation.' Indeed, to read the Assembly 2007 website, one would think that the King had sent missionaries to Virginia. Far from it. The London Company behind the venture pooled investors interested in making money. For years it floundered badly. Eventually, the company gave up the commercial charter and control reverted to the Crown. The gauzy view of Christians claiming the land for Christ and King is clarified by history.
"When news of the Assembly 2007 and Blanchard's claim reached Joe Conn at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, he pulled out his history books in rebuttal: 'According to Anson Phelps Stokes's Church and State in the United States, the London Company's November 20, 1606 'Articles, Instructions, and Orders' did, indeed, demand that the prospective American colony 'provide that the true word, and service of God and Christian faith be preached.' But the charter added that the 'true word' must be 'according to the doctrine, rights, and religion now professed and established within our regime in England'" (Ibid., pp. 2-3).
Christian revisionists Peter Marshall and David Manuel include some truth in their revisionism. They wrote, amidst many historical revisions, that Jamestown was a disaster and that the people who settled the colony were motivated by greed and not the love of the Lord (Peter Marshall and David Manuel, The Light and the Glory, (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1977), pp. 80-105). As will be seen, although undoubtedly there probably were godly ministers in the established church, much of the clergy of the Anglican church in Virginia prior to the Revolution had loose morals, were mainly concerned about their financial security, and were lacking in biblical and spiritual knowledge. The clergy of that church fought to keep their establishment to the bitter end. By far their most consistent and determined opponents were the Baptists. A publication of a law firm that encourages churches to become corporate 501(c)(3) religious organizations recently led off with an article laughingly entitled (to one who knows the real facts about the settlement) "Jamestown, Where America Became a Christian Nation" ("Jamestown: Where America Became a Christian Nation," Legal Alert (Monthly Newsletter of the Christian Law Association), April 2007, p. 1). The author, unnamed, states some truth in the article but also gives a totally distorted view of the early history of Jamestown and fails to mention the depravity of the people who originally settled there. Neither Marshall and Manuel nor the author of the aforementioned article make mention that the theology behind the settlement was ecclesiocratic and against religious liberty: the "Articles, Instructions, and Orders" from the homeland said that the "'true word' must be 'according to the doctrine, rights, and religion now professed and established within our regime in England'" (Marshall and Manuel, pp. 80-105; see Clarkson for this excerpt from "Articles, Instructions, and Orders" from the homeland.).
Some of what Christian revisionists such as Marshall, Manuel, and Rousas John Rushdoony teach is factual, but it is incomplete, intermixed with lies, and slanted to praise and promote their false theology which teaches that God's principles for the theocracy in Israel are to be applied by the church and that the church, working with the state, will bring peace and unity to the earth. In order to further their cause, the adherents must lie and revise history. They must and do condemn the true theology and its adherents out of which came religious freedom in America.
Since they do not believe in free-will, the Christian revisionist has to attribute everything to the providence of God. Mr. Clarkson is correct when he says:
"Indeed, the general approach [R.J.] Rushdoony outlined has become widely accepted among Christian nationalists, specifically that God actively intervenes in and guides history, and that God's role can be retroactively discerned, from creation to the predestined Kingdom of God on Earth. Historical events described as 'God's providence' are then interpreted in terms of what God must have been up to. This is how Rushdoony arrives at what he called Christian history, based on 'Christian revisionism'" (Frederick Clarkson, "Why the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Matters," PublicEye.org (Spring 2007): online at http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v21n2/history.html, p. 2).
Of course there is such a thing as the providence of God. But the Christian revisionist concept of God's providence is totally unbalanced by an incorrect view of the free will of man. The most that revisionists of the founding era (and probably those of today, if the truth be known) might assert about free will is that if a man has it and uses it wrongly, those with superior insight must step in to correct him, and if he refuses to be enlightened, he must, when the revisionist has the power, be banished, imprisoned, tortured, and/or killed.
Just as the church-state dilemmas of the past and those of the present have not been correctly answered by false theology, even though professed to be from God, neither is the answer supplied by secularists such as Mr. Clarkson. As expected of a secularist, Mr. Clarkson, in trashing the Christian right, adds in some of his own revisionism and inaccuracies, and uses his human reasoning. His proposals cannot and will not work. For example, he says that the rest of society needs not only to
"recognize the role of creeping Christian historical revisionism, but also our need to craft a compelling and shared story of American history, particularly as it relates to the role of religion and society. We need it in order to know not how the religious Right is wrong, but to know where we ourselves stand in the light of history, in relation to each other, and how we can better envision a future together free of religious prejudice, and ultimately, religious warfare"(Ibid.).
Mr. Clarkson, who by his own admission is not a Christian, understandably does not comprehend the doctrine of holiness which runs throughout Scripture. In any institution, including any civil government, anytime the unholy is mixed with the holy, the unholy will corrupt the holy. A civil government made up of true Christians who know, teach, and practice truth and lost people will be corrupted because the worldly wisdom of the lost will pollute the Godly wisdom of the Christians. The good will not prevail, at least in the long run. An unsaved person cannot know, understand, and apply truth and the wisdom which is from above. All Mr. Clarkson's wisdom is of this world, which is "foolishness with God." (1 Co. 3.19). "The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain" (1 Co. 3.20).
Mr. Clarkson is right about religion. But what he says about religion cannot be said about true Christianity. True Christianity is a man, the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the religious perversion of the teachings of Christ that brings all the tragedies referred to by Mr. Clarkson. The greatest tragedy is that many will never come to the One who can give them true liberty, the Lord Jesus Christ. It appears that many who have come to Him have been deceived about, for one thing, the roles of church and state and their relationship to each other and to God because they have not become partakers of the divine nature, having not added to their faith, virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge temperance, to temperance patience, to patience godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness charity (See 2 Pe. 1.3-9). Perhaps an individual Christian has added some of these ingredients to his life, but what about the others? What about knowledge?
Only a civil government whose leader or leaders are truly Christian can prevent the decline of a nation. This would require solid Christian churches teaching the principles of the Bible accurately operating freely within that nation and made up of the majority of the people of that nation including the leader or leaders of the nation all of whom are sincerely attempting to understand and apply biblical principles.
When a professed believer substitutes his reasoning for reality, when he revises historical facts and/or lies to and about other believers in order to advance his underlying theology, something is wrong with his theology. The consequences of such a strategy will ultimately backfire, as it is backfiring today in America, because even secularists, when truth about facts will aid them, will reveal that truth. And when it is revealed that Christians, whom the secularist calls the "Christian right," have seemingly borrowed a page from the secular book of tactics and resorted to revising history and to lying, the effectiveness of Christian spiritual warfare is much weakened.
The existence of Mr. Clarkson's article and much other secular writing reveal the vulnerability of the Christian right position as it has been promoted in America. It is sad that Clarkson includes pertinent quotes (out of context) from men such as Roger Williams, Isaac Backus, and even Thomas Jefferson who are not usually quoted by Christian revisionists. It is sad that Christian revisionists, in their effort to deceive the entire Christian community and advance their agenda of a united church and state so that the resulting union of church and state can bring in the kingdom of heaven, have belittled, misrepresented, and/or totally ignored great men such as Roger Williams, Dr. John Clarke, Isaac Backus, Shubal Stearns, John Leland and others. Their efforts have done great and irreparable damage to the cause of Christ. The author was led by Christian revisionists for over twenty years. In order to be effective in his efforts in his stand for the Lord, he had to be willing to admit that he had been mislead and that the Lord did not honor professed believers who were taking part in a spiritual battle having their loins girt about with lies. "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth…" (Ep. 6.13-14a). [Emphasis mine.]
Audio Teachings on the History of the First AmendmentChristian nationalismchristian revisionismChristian revisionists Peter Marshall and David ManuelChurch and State in the United StatesDavid Barton's revisionismFrederick ClarksonJamestownJohn BlanchardPhelps StokesrevisionismRousas John Rushdoonysecular revisionismsecularist Frederick ClarksonWhere America Became a Christian NationWhy the Christian Right Distorts History and Why it Matters
Audio: Separation of Church and State/God's Churches: Spiritual or Legal Entities?