England held, that each believer stands in the same relation to his children as Abraham did to his in the covenant of circumcision; and therefore that each believer had a right to bring his children to baptism, which no others had. But forty years after, a door was opened for those who had been baptized in infancy, and were not scandalous, to bring their infants to baptism, though none were to come to the ordinance of the supper without a profession of saving grace. Yet in forty years more, an open plea was published, before described, for all baptized persons who were not openly scandalous, to come to the Lord's supper, as well as to bring their children to baptism. And in a third forty years, these things had turned the world into the church, and the church into the world, in such a manner as to leave very little difference between them." The religion of the old Puritan church had declined. The Half-way covenant was not the whole cause of it. The tendency of state churchism from the beginning had been towards secularization. Massachusetts and New Haven put a distinct premium on church membership. Can it be doubted that men were drawn into the church for the purpose of getting civil privileges? The Half-way covenant, too, was hailed for the political advantages it would bring. The door of the church was opened wide. A throng pushed in; no selection was made or could be made. The town was formerly merged in the church, now the church was merged in the town. The condition of religion in New England at the beginning of the eighteenth century may be gathered from the writings of that day. In the election sermon at Boston, May 16, 1683, the Rev. Samuel Torry, of Weymouth, said: "There is already a great death upon religion, little more left than a name to live; the things which remain are ready to die, and we are in great danger of dying together with it. This is one of the most awakening and humbling considerations of 1 Backus, New England Church History, p. 150. 2 our present state and condition. Oh! the many deadly symptoms of death that are upon our religion! Consider we, then, how much it is dying respecting the very being of it, by the general failure of the work of conversion; whereby only it is that religion is propagated, continued and upheld, in being among any people. As conversion work doth cease, so religion doth die away; though more insensibly, yet most irrecoverably."1 In 1697 Dr. Increase Mather wrote: "Dr. Owen has evinced, that the letting go this principle, that particular churches ought to consist of regenerate persons, brought in the great apostasy of the Christian church. The way to prevent the like apostasy in these churches is to require an account of those who offer themselves to communion therein concerning the work of God on their souls, as well as concerning their knowledge and belief." Three years later he wrote: "If the begun apostasy should proceed as fast the next thirty years, as it has done these last, surely it will come to that in New England, (except the Gospel itself depart with the order of it), that the most conscientious people therein will think themselves concerned to gather churches out of churches." Mr. Backus quotes the following from a book published in 1700 by Mr. Willard: "It hath been a frequent observation, that if one generation begins to decline, the next that follows usually grows worse, and so on, until God pours out His spirit again upon them. The decays which we already languish under are sad; and what tokens are on our children, that it is like to be better hereafter? God be thanked that there are so many among them who promise well; but, alas! how doth vanity, and a fondness after new things abound among them? How do young professors grow weary of the strict profession of their fathers, and become strong disputants for those things which their progenitors forsook a pleasant land for the avoidance of!"3 1 Backus, p. 128. * Backus, p. 129. 3 * Backus, p. 129. With so great a departure from the piety of the early New England church, there was not likely to be that jealousy of dissenters which formerly existed. The Puritans were no longer to be charged with ecclesiastical exclusiveness. They were not sufficiently interested in their religion to guard it so carefully. The dissenting sects, still few in number but growing rapidly, took advantage of these conditions, and petitioned for privileges which they soon obtained. They were not strong in any of the colonies when they began to petition for exemption from contributing to the support of the ministers of the Standing Order. In Massachusetts the Baptists were the leading sect, but, as said, they had only nine churches in all New England in 1700. In Connecticut the Episcopalians were the strongest, but they did not begin to exhibit any strength until long after the colony had passed its toleration law of 1708. In New Hampshire there were no churches of the minor sects in the early part of the eighteenth century. Backus says that there was no Baptist church in this colony in 1740. Rhode Island's population was a mixture of Quakers, Baptists and Episcopalians. The Episcopalians claimed to have been the leading sect and to have been the pioneers of church order. Whitfield erroneously speaks of the Episcopalian as the established church of Rhode Island. It is probable, however, that the larger part of Rhode Island's population was Baptist. Though the dissenters were not numerous, yet so favorable were the conditions that religious liberty was destined to advance early in the eighteenth century. This was the period of exemption laws. The descendants of the Puritans were ready to admit the right, at least, of dissenters to contribute their taxes for the support of their own churches. They passed laws exempting them from supporting the state church. But the laws were purposely made impracticable. Neither Baptists, Quakers nor Episcopalians found much relief in them. They required the dissenter to furnish a certificate from the church with which he was identified. They empow ered the assessor to omit to tax those who were known to have furnished the necessary certificates and to be entitled to exemption. In this respect the laws were carelessly carried out. The assessor would often fail to omit Baptists, Quakers or Episcopalians from his list, and consequently they were taxed. Objection could be made; appeals to the courts could be taken, but in such cases the poor dissenter had little prospect of gaining his point. And in order to preserve the few benefits that the exemption laws did confer, petitions for their renewal had to be sent in to the General Court every time the laws expired. In spite of all these difficulties, the exemption laws must be regarded as a long step toward freedom. They were an admission of the right of exemption claimed by dissenters. And, although petitions had to be gotten up for their renewal, yet, after the laws had once been made, their renewal was never desired, and latterly was given unsolicited. Difficulties with certificates and tax lists were mere matters of administrative detail, and their defects could easily be corrected. The progress of religious liberty in Massachusetts was very gradual. The Episcopalians were the first to be favored. In 1927 it was found that the laws taxing all for the state church were working hardship to certain members of the Church of England; it was, therefore, enacted, that in the future they be permitted to pay their taxes to their own minister, provided there is one in the town. This law was limited to five years. It was re-enacted in 1735 and continued for five years more. In 1742 it was again renewed, and no time limit put upon it.3 The next to be favored were the Baptists and Quakers. In 1728 the polls of Baptists and Quakers were exempted for five years. In the following year the polls and estates of members of these two sects were exempted. In 1737 the law in behalf of the Quakers was re-enacted and continued for ten 1 Province Laws, 1727-8, Chap. VII. 3 Laws, 1742-3, Chap. VIII years. For the Baptists the law was renewed in 1740 and continued for ten years. The period of the great awakening is marked by no important changes in the exemption laws. They are continued as before. The law of 1747, exempting both Baptists and Quakers, was taken up, and passed without any petition requesting its renewal. Had this not been done, the Baptists would have brought their grievances before the King. They were on the point of doing so because of the difficulties placed in their way in taking advantage of the laws. It certainly was difficult for the dissenters to conform to the details required of them. There were, doubtless, many cases of persecution under the laws. Hovey, in his Life and Times of Isaac Backus, cites numerous instances. He says that dissenters were forced to pay rates, their property was seized, and their persons were cast into prison. The laws were fair enough, but they were too often maliciously executed. The irregularities, however, were not all on one side. During the years of the great awakening, the Separate churches that were organized, petitioned for the privileges enjoyed by other dissenters. These privileges the court did not choose to give. In order to cut loose from the Standing Order and to maintain their own churches, without contributing to the support of both, these Separatists organized nominal Baptist churches and claimed exemption. To protect itself from this irregularity, the colony had to make the laws for the exemption. of Baptists more rigorous. Accordingly the Act of 1752 provided: "That no person for the future should be esteemed to be an Anabaptist," "but such whose names are contained in the lists taken by the assessors, or such as shall produce a certificate, under the hands of the minister and of two principal members of such church, setting forth that they conscientiously believe such person or persons to be of their persuasion,” 1 It was also provided "that no minister nor the members of any Anabaptist church, as aforesaid, shall be esteemed quali etc. 1 Acts and Resolves of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, 1752-3, Chapter 15. |