“R. W.”
CHAPTER XXIII.
Infant baptism—half-way covenant—laws to support religion—charter from Charles II.—first meeting of Assembly—Mr. Clarke—difficulties about boundaries—charges against Rhode-Island, concerning Catholics and Quakers.
It may be useful to look, for a moment, at the difficulties which arose, about this time, in the other colonies, respecting infant baptism. This rite had been hitherto administered to those children, whose immediate parents were both members of a church. But as the country increased, many persons, who were not members of a church, had children, for whom, nevertheless, they desired baptism. The question accordingly arose, whether the children of such parents could properly be admitted to baptism. It was, on the one hand, a departure from the principle, that as faith is required in the Scriptures as a prerequisite to baptism, and as the infant could not exercise faith, it must consequently be baptized on the ground of its parents’ faith. It seemed hard, on the other hand, that if there was any virtue in infant baptism, the innocent child should be deprived of it, because its parents were not pious. The question began to be publicly agitated. The magistrates of Connecticut, about the year 1656, sent several queries on the subject to the magistrates of Massachusetts.[[319]] A meeting of ministers was held in Boston, June 4, 1657, at which the “half-way covenant,” as it was called, was adopted. “It provided, that all persons of sober life and correct sentiments, without being examined as to a change of heart, might profess religion, or become members of the church, and have their children baptized, though they did not come to the Lord’s table.”[[320]] This disastrous departure from the Scriptures, and from the former practice of the churches, was not unanimously adopted. Many ministers and churches were opposed to it. A synod was held, in Boston, in September, 1662, including all the ministers in Massachusetts. This body ratified the decision of the council of 1657. But parties were immediately formed, for and against the synod. The Rev. Charles Chauncey, President of Harvard College, and the Rev. Increase Mather, wrote against the decision, while others wrote on the opposite side. The country was thrown into a ferment. A division took place in the First Church in Boston, and the Old South Church was formed in May, 1669, by a minority of the First Church, the majority of whose members opposed the decision of the synod, while the seceding minority approved it. The General Court took up the subject, and at its session, in May, 1670, pronounced the formation of the new church to be irreligious, illegal and disorderly. But public opinion set in favor of the half-way covenant. At the next election, the members who had opposed the new church were left out, and others, of different opinions, elected. The Court then passed a vote in favor of the new church, and the cause of innovation and corruption of the purity of the churches triumphed.[[321]] This result generally ensues, when questions pertaining to religion are decided at the polls.
The half-way covenant was, at first, opposed by many churches, but it afterwards extensively prevailed, and “wherever,” says Dr. Hawes, “it did prevail, the consequences were eminently unhappy. Great numbers came forward to own the covenant, as it was called, and had their children baptized; but very few joined the church, in full communion, or partook of the sacrament. Satisfied with being half-way in the church, and enjoying a part of its privileges, they settled down in a state of dull and heartless formality, and felt little or no concern respecting their present condition, or future prospects.”[[322]]
But all men were not content to be half-way in the church. About the year 1700, Mr. Stoddard, a distinguished minister of Northampton, came to the conclusion, that the Lord’s Supper is a converting ordinance, and that all persons ought to come to this ordinance. Thus all the barriers which separate the church from the world were thrown down, and the consequences were deplorable. Multitudes of unconverted persons rushed into the churches, anxious for the privileges of church members, for political purposes. The church at Northampton is a signal instance of the effects of the system. The great President Edwards, after he had been pastor for several years, endeavored to introduce the old practice of discipline, and to require piety as a qualification for membership. But the worldly feeling in his parish was too strong, and notwithstanding his colossal reputation, and his faithful and successful labors, he was expelled from his pastoral office, in a most ungrateful and unkind manner.
We may mention, here, another cause of injury to the purity and permanent prosperity of the churches. The support of the ministry, by taxes, levied on all the inhabitants, operated oppressively on the members of other denominations, created much distress to individuals, and produced a wide-spread dissatisfaction in the community. As the right of a voice in the election of a minister was justly claimed by those who were obliged to pay taxes for his support, the character of the minister depended, of course, on that of a majority of the voters in a parish. The consequence has been, that in many instances, when the majority have become opposed to the doctrines of the existing church, the minister has been expelled, another of opposite sentiments has been chosen, the meeting-house has been seized, and funds, contributed by pious men of former generations, for the support of the ministry, have been applied to the maintenance of men to whom those contributors would have refused to listen. This is the natural effect of the system, and those who uphold it have no right to complain. The American principle, that representation accompanies taxation, is just. If men are taxed by law to support a minister, they have a right to a voice in his election, and they will, of course, choose a minister whose principles accord, as nearly as possible, with their own. Reflecting and pious men, generally, are now, it is believed, thoroughly convinced, that the principles of Roger Williams furnish the only secure basis for the peace and prosperity of a church. It is hoped that the laws of Massachusetts will, ere long, be conformed to these principles, and religion be committed to the protection of God and of the liberal and pure-hearted disciples of the Redeemer.[[323]]
This subject has detained us from our main theme, though it is appropriate to a work which we design to be an exposition of the nature and effects both of the principles of religious liberty and of the opposite doctrines.
Mr. Clarke continued his faithful labors in England, and on the 8th of July, 1663, he obtained from Charles II. a charter, which continues, till the present day, to be the fundamental law of the State.[[324]] It commits the government of the colony to a Governor, Deputy Governor, and ten Assistants, to be elected annually, and a House of Deputies, consisting of six from Newport, four from each of the towns of Providence, Portsmouth and Warwick, and two from each of the other towns. It defines the boundaries of the colony, about which disputes existed for many years. It contains this most important provision, in which the principles on which the colony was founded are embodied: “No person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of religion, who do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his own and their judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others.”[[325]]
This noble declaration is in accordance with the address of the petitioners to his Majesty, in which they “freely declared, that it is much on their hearts (if they be permitted) to hold forth a lively experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be maintained, and that among, our English subjects, with a full liberty in religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyalty.”