This is the full text of a paper which was originally presented at a convocation in Washington, D.C., "Reclaiming an Historic Baptist Principle: Separation of Church and State" co-sponsored by The Center for Baptist Heritage & Studies and the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, Sept. 30, 2003.
Birthing a Principle: Baptists and Separation
of Church and State
By William H. Brackney
Some people come to their convictions as a matter of education, like studying
a theory or reading a narrative. Some are nurtured in families or traditions
where certain ideas are "genetic." Still others arrive at convictions
due to their experiences. That was the case with Baptists and separation
of church and state. There was a long and many-storied history of persecution,
denial, and government interference among nonconformists that led directly
to the Baptist position. Here is a history that is over four centuries
old, and longer, if one counts pre-modern struggles for dissenting bodies.
In their haste to make the case for separation of church and state, Americans often reach the conclusion that this issue was inherent in the colonial milieu and that the historic stances taken, for instance in Massachusetts and Virginia, were unique to those contexts. No doubt the specific circumstances were, but the issues underlying our love for religious freedom are older and broader.
Background in the Struggle for Religious Liberty
During the reign of Queen Mary of England (1553-1558), the one whom dissenters called "Bloody Mary," religious liberty became an open sore. Words like "dissenter" and "nonconformity" came into English usage. Early dissenters like Henry Hart and Humphrey Middleton were imprisoned and executed, and on Easter Day 1575 two Anabaptists were burned at Smithfield. Hundreds left England for The Netherlands and Geneva where more freedom was possible. Many others occupied a large chapter in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. Upon Mary's demise, some returned but the Crown on Elizabeth's head tolerated little dissent. Continuing in the reign of Elizabeth I, illegal "conventicles," or small religious gatherings, cropped up. They practiced bible study and primitive Christian community. As these leaders began to write and speak openly and organize more visible fellowships, Elizabeth's government cracked down.1 Among those imprisoned and silenced were John Greenwood, Robert Browne, and Henry Barrowe. Late in Elizabeth's reign, men like Francis Johnson and John Robinson and small congregations left England for the safety of Amsterdam and Leyden.2 The first Baptists, John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, evolved from these communities, and soon fled their country under persecution as well. Helwys, a prominent lawyer, lost his home and suffered the imprisonment of his wife in order to induce him to return to England. He was, of course, the author of A Mistery of Iniquity, said to be the first full claim for complete religious liberty in the English language. 3
Under the Stuarts the trend continued. James I and his son Charles I were no friends to religious toleration. James, who should have been mildly sympathetic to nonconformity from his upbringing in Scotland and the fate his mother Mary, Queen of Scots suffered, was transformed as King of England. He adopted strong monarchist tendencies, appointed rigid Episcopalians, wrote a book himself called The Divine Right of Kings, and dared anyone to question the authority of the episcopacy. From his politically hierarchical perspective, it was a matter of "no bishop, no king." Throughout his two-decade reign, he fostered ill will with nonconformists and called for uniformity of worship in the kingdom. (Too many modern Baptists, I think, give thanks for his accomplishment in producing the Authorized Version of the Bible, without actually realizing that he intended to use that version to create even more uniformity.) James' son, Charles, a pious man who married a Roman Catholic woman (after whom the state of Maryland was named), pursued an even more rigorous course that some recognized as "Anglo-Catholicism." He was known to have had regular contacts with Rome and many feared that Rome would reverse England's fragile Reformation and bring the Church in England back under its control. His archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, developed strategies to assert absolute uniformity or to rid the realm of dissenters. It is estimated that 50,000 Englishmen and women left between 1630 and 1650 for New England. Many of these were in search of greater religious liberty. The excesses of Charles' reign led ultimately to his downfall and that of the monarchy. He was beheaded in 1649 as Oliver Cromwell organized Parliament to approve a godly Commonwealth. 4 It was during the reign of Charles I, by the way, that Roger Williams made his famous reply to John Cotton about a hedge or a wall that had been raised between the Garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world. Williams believed the world had been allowed to go over the wall, and had thus invaded and corrupted the church. 5
Cromwell allowed a modicum of toleration and opportunity to dissenters. During the Civil War the lines had been drawn pretty clearly between the Royalist/Anglican Party of Charles I and the Puritans, Congregationalists, and Baptists who supported to one degree or another the idea of a Christian Commonwealth. Cromwell owed a special debt to Baptists, many of whom populated and officered his New Model Army. Baptists enjoyed a short-lived regionalized liberty until Cromwell and the Presbyterians took a dim view of radical dissent and many liberties were withdrawn in Cromwell's "Instrument of Government." There were some enterprising Baptists, by the way, who worked for Cromwell's government, actually assessing the spiritual life of congregations! They were called "government Tryers" and they were a detestable lot among their fellow Baptists! 6
The real achievement in English terms came in 1689 with the Act of Toleration. After renewed attempts by the Earl of Clarendon to suppress nonconformist growth by pushing through Parliament a series of laws that limited office-holding to those who took the Oath of Supremacy, denying university admissions to nonconformists, and disallowing dissenter worship within five miles of a Anglican parish. Nonconformists again fell under deprived circumstances and some like the venerable John Bunyan, made a large case out of his opposition to certificates, registration and limited toleration. Bunyan personified the continuing Baptist angst with establishment religion. Eventually relief in part came with the Glorious Revolution and the first act of the new parliament and monarchs, the Act of Toleration. It was a proud moment for those who had struggled for recognition of their rights as dissenters. But, from a Baptist point of view it was only a beginning. Still, religious toleration was limited to those on an approved list of Protestants-separate legislation was later added to cover the Quakers. 7 Catholics were not given full rights and a modest but pointed religious test was employed. In Britain itself, it would take another century and a half for the disestablishment of one Church and the egalitarian recognition of other forms of religious affiliation, including those who are non-Christians and non-religious. It is poignant to recognize that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is still the ruling governess of the Church of England.
The American Achievement
Having surveyed the English background and Baptist concerns for religious liberty in that context, we now turn to the American scene. Very early on, persons with baptistic convictions ran afoul of the majoritarian system. One of the first episodes focused the life of Henry Dunster, first president of Harvard College. In 1654 Dunster refused to have his child baptized and eventually lost his position, his house and his reputation. He moved in 1655 to Plimoth Colony. Not yet a full-blown "Baptist," Dunster is related to us in the term "anti-paedobaptist," meaning one who opposed the baptism of infants and children. 8 An even more well-known illustration occurred in Lynn, Massachusetts where in 1651 three Baptist ministers from Rhode Island made a pastoral call on a blind man, William Witter. John Clarke, John Crandall, and Obadiah Holmes were seized by the authorities for holding an authorized meeting, denouncing the bases of church membership, re-baptizing persons, and keeping their hats on in church! While two colleagues paid their fines, Holmes refused and was given thirty lashes by an overzealous executioner. His case was celebrated by John Clarke celebrated the story of Holmes in his popular book, Ill Newes from New England (1652), recalled over a century later by the venerable historian Isaac Backus, and yet again in our own generation by Edwin S. Gaustad. 9
A few years later, more trouble erupted very close to the nerve center
of Massachusetts Bay. Some time between 1652 and 1655 a Charlestown wagon maker
and farmer named Thomas Goold developed "scruples" against infant
baptism. Goold refused to have his infant daughter baptized, yet stayed
in his church to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. When the
church officers determined his stance, Goold was interrogated and eventually
the case was turned over to the Middlesex County Court grand jury. The
matter trailed on inconclusively for four years with demands that Goold
submit as he peaceably refused to do so. Finally in 1663 he began meeting
with several recently arrived English Baptist families in his home. They
were refugees from the Clarendon Code. In 1665 he was censured for schismatical
behavior and he withdrew formally from the Congregational Church to form
what became the First Baptist Church of Boston. The General Court then
disenfranchised Goold and his friends and warned that imprisonment would
follow if they did not cease their activities. A lengthy debate ensued
between Goold and authorities, and Goold spent a considerable period in
jail while his congregation fled to Noddles Island in exile. 10
But let us venture nearer home to eighteenth century Ashfield, Massachusetts.
Ashfield in 1763-64 was a quiet township about a hundred miles west of
Boston on the Berkshire frontier. Originally Ashfield had been intended
for war veterans' settlement, but that did not happen owing to its distance
on the frontier and the continued threat of Indian raids. Instead, after
the French and Indian War, a number of Baptist families moved in from
Connecticut and organized a church and erected a meetinghouse. It was
a perfect place for nonconformists, well beyond the reach of the Standing
Order's strongholds. However, before long substantial numbers of Congregationalists
moved into the town, outnumbering the Baptists. They called a Yale graduate
as pastor and built their meetinghouse. Within two years the Town was
incorporated which allowed the Congregationalists to enjoy part of the
tax levy for the support of their pastor and meetinghouse. By earlier
Massachusetts exemption laws, dissenters were to be allowed exemptions
from the taxes, but in this case it was denied. For two years Baptists
reluctantly paid the taxes, and suffered under a haughty attitude from
the Congregationalist clergy. Baptist services were interrupted, they
were disallowed the right to purchase wine for communion and their presence
in the community was ridiculed. At length, they brought a case before
the Massachusetts General Court. The petition was disallowed and the law
was in fact changed to allow local administration of tax collections and
disbursements. The new law also instructed officials to sell lands at
auction of any who refused to pay taxes. This in fact happened to several
Baptists and about 400 acres of Baptist lands were confiscated. In 1769
other acts of harassment followed and the Grievance Committee of the Warren
Baptist Association stepped in to represent the claimants. The Grievance
Committee applied for moral support and finances to brethren in Philadelphia,
creating an inter-colonial concern. A second attempt was made to change
the mind of the Legislature on grounds of "No taxation without representation."
Here was the crux of the issue for Isaac Backus. This was disallowed and
the local impression of Baptists as undesirable was strengthened. The
final option open was to take the case to the King in Council in England.
The new basis of the Baptist position was that they had been denied their
natural rights of grieving an injustice. This time the assistance of prominent
Baptists in England was sought and on July 31, 1771 King George III in
Council disallowed the Ashfield Act of 1768 and ruled to restore Baptist
property. Vindictiveness continued in Ashfield as trumped up charges of
counterfeiting was alleged against the Baptists, but a bold stroke was
made against the Congregational Standing Order. Ashfield became a leading
center of separationist sentiment in the 1790s. 11
There was an irony in all of this: the redoubtable Morgan Edwards of Philadelphia
quipped, "in the past eighty years all the bishops in Old England
have not done Baptists the harm that the Presbyterians in New England
have done this past year."
The second colonial epicenter of Baptist concern for separation of church and state was Virginia. Virginia had a long heritage of establishment Christianity that frequently flew in the face of even the toleration laws of the Mother Country. In 1623 in the first act of the colonial legislature, it was mandated that there should be a house or room set aside for the worship of God in every village or plantation. Those who skipped church on Sunday were fined a pound of tobacco. Indeed tobacco played a major role in the establishment as every minister was entitled to ten pounds of tobacco per year as a "tithe." In 1643 the reins were further tightened by the House of Burgesses to restrict worship and preaching to the order of the Church of England, with severe fines upon dissenters. Only those who had taken the Oath of Supremacy could hold office or certain positions like schoolteachers. Only Church of England clergy could solemnize marriages and conduct official services. Early on, Quakers and Recusant Catholics were disbarred from entering the Colony. Even after the Revolution not so subtle attempts were made to continue this favored position for the soon-to-be organized Episcopal Church, by creating a statewide assessment for the support of parishes.
While many groups would groan under the weight of the Anglican establishment in Virginia, none would be as vocal or relentless as the Baptists. The first Baptists had come into the colony as possibly as early as the 1620s and a small number, quiet and inconsiderable, were scattered through the tidewater and upcountry regions. All of that changed, however in the 1750s when as a result of the Great Awakening, fiery Separate Baptists moved into Virginia from Carolina and the North. But by the 1760s several churches had been planted and there were frequent evangelical trips by various Baptist preachers. Incidents abound in the public record of abusive, inhumane treatment of these bold ministers of the gospel. Samuel Harriss and James Craig were among the first and attracted crowds to their preaching. This concerned the establishment and plans were set in place to silence the dissenters. In 1768 John Waller and Craig were arrested in Spotsylvania and the following year James Ireland spent six months in a one-room jail in Culpepper where he was taunted and abused, at one point having gunpowder lit to suffocate his preaching. Similar treatment of Baptists was meted out in Caroline and Chesterfield counties. Negro slaves were especially targeted for brutality when they attended Baptist preachings. In 1770 warrants were made for William Webber and John Waller on charges of illicit public preaching in Middlesex County. They were beaten, thrown into flea-filled jail cells, and placed on a diet of bread and water. The formal charges against these folk were usually vague and unclear. 12
On the eve of the Revolution, several attempts were made to protect the establishment or to continue assessments in support of the Church. Baptists from across Virginia organized and submitted petitions and proposed legislation favoring religious liberty. In 1784 a General Committee of the Baptist associations was organized to address the real possibility of the incorporation of the former Church of England and thus continue "business as usual." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison responded favorably to the pleas of the Baptists, and Jefferson drew up what has been called the first among statutes advocating a divorce of church and state. The Virginia Assembly approved the bill in 1786. The next and final stage was achieved as John Leland, a pastor in Orange, joined forces with Madison to address the same issue in the proposed federal constitution 1787-1789. Leland absolutely opposed religious hierarchies of any kind-the church for him was local and democratic. Madison faithfully drew up his constitutional "amendments," Virginia supported ratification of the Constitution, and within a short period the first amendment assuring separation of church and state was ratified. This proved to be a huge and signal accomplishment. 13
Back in New England, each of the states in which the Standing Order had established itself ran the course toward disestablishment. And in every case Baptists took a lead. In Connecticut, the Republicans who favored religious toleration finally outdistanced the Federalists in 1817 and immediately Baptists campaigned widely for a revised constitution favoring equal rights for all denominations. The Danbury Baptist Association led the charge for voluntary support of churches and this became law in 1818. In New Hampshire Baptists had long enjoyed a status as a recognized denomination, but when the establishment began to crumble after 1816, Baptists joined the chorus favoring an end to all religious taxation in 1819. Likewise in Vermont, Baptists fought the glebelands distribution and by sheer growth ensured an evangelical base for the state's future after 1818. There the Shaftsbury Association led the struggle. Finally in Massachusetts, home of Isaac Backus' pamphlet war against ministerial taxation and establishments, Baptists were at the forefront of disestablishment, which ended in 1833. Elder Charles Train of First Baptist, Framingham wrote the draft of the law introducing religious freedom in 1823. Essentially a voluntary system handled at the local levels, replaced the older levy system in support of the Standing Order. Massachusetts signaled the end of the old colonial system of a favored church supported by taxes. Separation of church and state at the state level was thus concluded, thanks largely to Baptists. Old Isaac Backus put it this way, "a door is now opened in our land for clear deliverance from the evils of an establishment. Can anyone be free if he tries to shut it?" 14
The Issue Rejoined
It is easy to assume that the Baptist struggle for separation ended in the victory of documented disestablishment. However, the legacy of separation of church and state in the United States cast a long shadow in the nineteenth century. Early Baptist missionaries, originally sent out by a Congregationalist Board confronted various forms of religious intolerance. 15 Adoniram Judson, for instance, found stiff opposition to his presence in India because the East India Company wanted on the one hand to subjugate the Hindu population, while otherwise guaranteeing the establishment of the Church of England in India. The Judsons were forced to leave India. Later in Burma they enjoyed only limited toleration for a few years. Stories of Adoniram's brutal imprisonment in 1823-24 again awakened American enthusiasm for religious liberty and separation of church and state. 16
Similarly in Siam and China pioneer Baptist missionary William Dean dealt with several varieties of religious intolerance. He found opposition not only from the government, but also from the social hierarchy who did not want Christians in the country. Perhaps most painfully, in his work in translating the bible into Chinese he was met by stiff opposition from Anglicans and Presbyterians in the Bible Society who did not want a literal translation of baptismal passages. They had the support of prominent government and intellectual Chinese. 17
Perhaps the greatest influence in maters of church-state relations that Baptists from the United States had was in the German context. The first Baptist missionary in modern times was Johann G. Oncken who began his work in 1834. The Lutheran Church was entrenched in the German culture, completely intolerant of dissenters. Clergy and magistrates cooperated to silence J. G. Oncken, Julius Koebner, and G. H. Lehmann. Time and again Oncken and his associates were jailed and their goods confiscated for preaching and organizing missions. At length, Oncken boldly declared himself a devotee of the separation of church and state. The Baptist model in the United States was foremost in his thinking: it was in the United States where a love for freedom and a clear separation of church and state prevailed. 18
Another bold example of Baptist advocacy of separation of church and
state occurred in Bolivia. In the 1890s Archibald Reekie went to that
country as a pioneer missionary. He was thwarted in his attempts to open
a church and start a school. The Roman Catholic authorities forbid him
to distribute Scriptures. Reekie persevered and made friends within the
Liberal Party. At length, when national elections were held in 1900, the
Liberals won and in the new government they formed, one of the first pieces
of legislation they passed was a "freedom of religion" act that
separated the state from any religious tradition. The Baptists were credited
with being a major force in prompting that act.
19
Other examples could be adduced to show the full blossoming of the principle
of religious freedom and separation of church and state in the overseas
context. It was, for instance, one of the reasons for the establishment
of the Baptist World Alliance in 1905.
Summary
What was accomplished in this relentless pursuit of freedom? For the
first time in civilized history, the interests of government and religion
were separated. Thomas Helwys began the case in his insistence that kings
have no power over one's conscience. Roger Williams constructed a wall
between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the World that
Thomas Jefferson later recreated as a "wall of separation."
Isaac Backus refused to support someone else's ministry, and John Leland
defended the church as a democratic body, disclaiming any external power
whatsoever save Christ. Baptist missionaries added materially to the principle
of separation by calling for non-interference in Christian evangelization
by decree or harassment. By the twentieth century, Baptists in the United
States could with genuine unity say, "We recognize the sovereignty
of the state and we give allegiance to the state, but we cannot give the
state control of our consciences. We must obey God rather than men…We
stand for a civil state, with full liberty in religious concernments."
20
The historical record is clear about one matter. Baptists, alone among
nonconformist sects in the colonial period and among the denominations
of the New Nation, advocated complete separation of church and state.
Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Lutherans
all stood to gain by some sort of happy alliance between religion and
civil affairs. This is in fact what transpired in Canada. But the rigid
wall that was put up in the case for separation was a Baptist accomplishment,
aided by politicians and social theorists who understood that a voluntary
church and the inviolacy of one's conscience were to become hallmarks
of the modern western tradition.
Philip Jones put it well in 1901: "In matters spiritual, the State must be without authority, save to protect. For this Baptists have stood, and will stand, grateful for triumphs now, and watchful to protect what they account of such vast worth." 21
William H. Brackney
Program in Baptist Studies
Baylor University
1-On the Marian and Elizabethan periods, see Christopher Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics, and Society under the Tudors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 203-267.
2-Michael Watts, The Dissenters: From the Reformation to the French Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), 14-40.
3-On Smyth, see James Coggins, John Smyth's Congregation: English Separatism, Mennonite Influence and the Elect Nation (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1991) and Jason K. Lee, The Theology of John Smyth, Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2003) and on Helwys, A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity: Classics of Religious Liberty edited by Richard Groves (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1998), xi-xxxii.
4-Watts, The Dissenters, 62-67; Keith Lindley, The English Civil War and Revolution: A Sourcebook (London: Routledge, 1998), 1-20; 136-141.
5-Edwin S. Gaustad, Liberty of Conscience:Roger Williams in America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 207-208.
6-John Myles of Illston, Wales was one of these Tryers. He and most of his congregation would emigrate to Massachusetts in 1660 and restart themselves as a church and community in the colonial milieu. On the Tryers, see W.K. Jordan, The Development of Religious Toleration in England, from the Convention of the Long Parliament to the Restoration, 1640-1660 (Gloucester: Peter Smith, 1965), 156-158.
7-A History of Religion in Britain: Practice and Belief from Pre-Roman Times to the Present, edited by Sheridan Gilley and W. J. Shiels (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1994), 177-178; Ernest Gordon Rupp, Religion in England 1688-1791 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 114-115.
8-Henry S. Burrage, A History of the Baptists in New England (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1894), 38.
9-See his Baptist Piety: The Last Will and Testimony of Obadiah Holmes (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1981).
10-Isaac Backus, An Abridgement of the Church History of New England from 1602 to 1804 (Boston: E. Lincoln, 1804), 96-97; Nathan E. Wood, The History of the First Baptist Church of Boston (1665-1899) (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society), 55-96.
11-The saga of the Ashfield case is retold in William G. McLoughlin, New England Dissent: The Baptists and the Separation of Church and State 1630-1833 2 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971), I: 516-517; 531-546.
12-Garnet Ryland, The Baptists of Virginia, 1699-1926 (Richmond: The Virginia Baptist Board of Missions and Education, 1955), 56-91.
13-Ibid, 91-135.
14-Quotation in Baptist Life and Thought: A Sourcebook (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1999), 159; McLoughlin, New England Dissent, II; 1043-1062; 1202-1203.
15-Adoniram and Ann Judson and Luther Rice in 1813 converted to Baptist principles while at sea en route to India.
16-Courtney Anderson, To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1987), 302-313 and Joan J. Brumberg, Mission for Life: The Story of the Family of Adoniram Judson (New York: The Free Press, 1980), 54-57.
17-This has been ably assessed in Chung-Yan Joyce Chan, "Beating the Rock with the Hammer of God's Word: William Dean and Denominational Identity in Cross-cultural Context" (Ph.D. dissertation, Baylor University, 2003).
18-See my forthcoming essay, "Baptists, Religious Liberty and Evangelism: Nineteenth Century Challenges," 19, in David Bebbington, editor, Papers of the International Conference on Baptist Studies, 2003 (Cumbria: Paternoster Press, 2005).
19-See the essays on Reekie in William H. Brackney, editor, Bridging Cultures and Hemispheres: The Leagacy of Archibald Reekie and Canadian Baptists in Bolivia (Macon: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 1997), 1-11; 85-111.
20-"American Baptist Bill of Rights" in Baptist Life and Thought, 1600-1980, edited by William H. Brackney (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1983), 426.
21-Philip Jones, "A General Survey of Baptist Achievements" in A. H. Newman, A Century of Baptist Achievement (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), 447.
April 2004