No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The American Colonial Environment and Religious Liberty
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
Extract
There is nothing inherent in Christianity itself which calls for a close relationship with the state. Primitive Christianity “demanded the complete separation of church and state,” asserting that each must be recognized as having its own distinct and independent mission to perform. For the first three hundred years of Christian history the church existed entirely apart from the state, and indeed had not even a legal status. Then came a time during which the church became little more than a branch of the state, and in this period it lost practically all independence of development, and was largely diverted from its proper work to serve political ends. It was as a result of this danger that the church developed, during the next period in its history, the doctrine of its independence of state control, and in the great investiture struggle, maintained it with success, against Roman emperors and German kings. Then the church having secured its independence of state control, and having perfected its organization to a high degree, and having grown strong and aggressive, it went a long step further and asserted the right of the church to control the state. But it needs no argument to prove that both the control of the church by the state and the control of the state by the church are equally foreign to the teaching of Christianity as such.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of Church History 1935
References
1 For a summary of the changing relationship between the church and the state see Adams, G. B., Civilization during the Middle Ages, New York, 1914, pp. 62–63.Google Scholar
2 See paper by Hayes, Carlton J. H., Historical Background for the Contemporary Problem of Religious Liberty in America, in pamphlet published by The National Conference of Jews and Christians, New York, 1932, p. 4ff.Google Scholar
3 Burke, Edmund, Speech on Conciliation with America, 1775. Edited by Denney, J. V.. Chicago, 1898, pp. 50–52Google Scholar. Also Humphrey, E. F., Nationalism and Religion in America. Boston, 1924. pp. 20–22.Google Scholar
4 Cf. Van Tyne, C. H., The Causes of the War for Independence. New York and Boston, 1922. Vol. I., Chapter I.Google Scholar, for a full discussion of this type of influence upon thought and action in the American colonies.
5 See article by Greene, E. B., The American Record in Relation to Religions Liberty published by “The National Conference of Jews and Christians” 289 4th Avenue, New York, 1932; p. 17.Google Scholar
6 For a scholarly presentation of this view see the article by ProfessorDennis, Alfred Pearce, Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634–1649. Annual Report of the American Historical Ass'n., 1900, Vol. I., pp. 107–125Google Scholar. The position that Lord Baltimore's motives in establishing Maryland were wholly or largely free from mercenary ends is defended in Seharf, J. T.History of Maryland, (3 vols.) Baltiomre, 1879. Vol. I., pp. 151 ff.Google Scholar
7 Father Henry More, the Jesuit Provincial in England, writing to Rome states that “by far the greater part of the colony were heretics” (Records of English Province S. J., v. 3, series 7, p. 364.)Google Scholar Again writing to Rome less than seven years after the founding of the colony, the father provincial states, “three parts of the people of four at least are heretics.” Paper headed “Cases,” Vol. IV, Stonyhnrst MSS. Copy held at Woodstock College, Woodstock, Md., quoted in Dennis, , op. cit., pp. 112Google Scholar. For a statement as to the relative number of Catholics and Protestants among the first colonists, see Browne, W. H., Maryland, (American Commonwealth Series,) Boston, 1895, p. 22.Google Scholar
8 Calvert Papers, Maryland Hist. Society, Baltimore, 1888. I, p. 133.Google Scholar
9 Cheyney, E. P., European Background of American History, (Am. Nation series,) New York, 1904, pp. 213–215.Google Scholar
10 Neill, E. D.Founders of Maryland, Albany, 1876, p. 109.Google Scholar
11 Dennis, , op. cit., p. 120 fl.Google Scholar
12 Ibid., p. 122.
13 Ibid., 123–124.
14 For a reprint of these early documents see Proud, Robert, The History of Pennsylvania etc., Philadelphia, 1798, Vol. IIGoogle Scholar, Appendix I, II, III, IV, V and VI.
15 Penn, and Logan Correspondence, I, 373Google Scholar quoted in Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century. New York, 1930, vol. II., p. 343.Google Scholar
16 Osgood, H. L., op. cit., vol. II.Google Scholar, Chapter XIII, “The Ecclesiastical Eolations in the Later Proprietary Colonies;” especially pp. 323–324.
17 Greene, , op. cit., p. 19.Google Scholar
18 Garrison, W. E., Intolerance. New York, 1934, pp. 10–24Google Scholar. See especially Chapter II, “Grounds for Tolerance.”
19 Hayes Carlton, J. H., op. cit., p. 5.Google Scholar
20 Archives of Maryland, vol. I, Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly, 01 1637–September 1664Google Scholar. Browne, William H., Editor. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883. pp. 144–145.Google Scholar
21 Stiles, Ezra, Itineraries and Correspondence, Dexter, F. B., Editor; Yale University Press, 1938, pp. 92–94Google Scholar. According to Stiles' calculations there were 62,420 dissenters and 450,000 Congregationalists in the four New England states.
22 For a brief discussion, of indifference as one of the grounds for religious toleration see Garrison, , op. cit., pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
23 Collins, V. L., President Witherspoon; A Biography. Princeton, 1925, Vol. II., p. 196 ff.Google Scholar See also Mecklin, John M., The Story of American Dissent. New York, 1934, pp. 291–292Google Scholar, for Madison's religious views.
24 For a summary of the religious views of Jefferson see Muzzey, David S., Thomas Jefferson. New York 1918, pp. 295–300Google Scholar. See also a more recent summary in Koch, G. A., Republican Religion, etc. New York, 1933, pp. 266–270Google Scholar
25 The Works of John Locks, in ten volumes. Tenth Edition. London, 1801. Vol. VI., pp. 13, 26, 34, 36, 152.Google Scholar
26 For the influence of Locke upon Madison and Jefferson see Mecklin, , op. cit., pp. 342–343Google Scholar. In recent years there has been an attempt to credit Cardinal Bellarmine, the great seventeenth century Jesuit theologian, with having had a large influence on the views of Jefferson and Madison on religious liberty. Supporting this view see Hunt, Gaillard, “Cardinal Bellarmine and the Virginia Bill of Eights,” Catholic Historical Review, 10 1917Google Scholar; also article in the same Review, for January, 1925 by J. C. Rager. The opposing view is set forth most adequately by Schaff, David S. in Papers of the American Society of Church History, 2nd Series, Vol. VIII, 1928Google Scholar, in a paper entitled “The Bellarmine-Jefferson Legend.”
27 Hunt, , Gaillard, , “James Madison and Religious Liberty,” American Hist. Association Report, 1901, Vol. 1., pp. 165–171.Google Scholar