in money, or otherwise, as to them shall seem equal; and to vote such minister, or ministers, such annual support in money, or otherwise (to be agreed on between such minister, or minister and people), as shall be found necessary; to be assessed on the polls and rateable estates of persons living or estates lying within the limits of such town or parish."

By the same law provision was made for dissenters. It said: "Whereas, there are in many towns and parishes within this state, men of different sentiments in religious duties, which lead peaceable and moral lives, the rights of whose conscience is not to control; and likewise some, perhaps, who pretend to differ from the majority with a design to escape taxation;

"Therefore, Be it enacted, that every person, or persons, being of adult age, shall be considered as being of opinion with the major part of the inhabitants within such town or parish where he, she or they shall dwell, until he, she or they shall bring a certificate, signed by some minister of the Gospel, deacon or elder, or the moderator in the church or congregation to which he, she or they pretend to belong, being of a different persuasion; which certificate shall set forth the party to be of their persuasion; and until such certificate shall be shewn to the clerk of such town or parish (who shall record the same), such party shall be subject to pay all such charges with the major part as by law shall be assessed on his, her or their polls or rateable estate." 1

As in the other New England states, the certificate system for dissenters was adopted, and it met with the same opposition. For, in many of the towns the proportion of dissenters was large. The objection was not so much to certificate as to the principle it involved. Backus declared, in Massachusetts, that to give a certificate was an acknowledgment that the State did of right control in church matters. The same view prevailed in Vermont; for, after the apparently objectionable

1 Records of the Governor and Council of Vermont, Appendix E, p. 401.

features of the certificate law were removed the opposition continued as great as ever. Complete separation of church and state was what was wanted.

Rhode Island never had a state church. The charter of 1663 made religious liberty a part of its fundamental law. It would not tolerate levying taxes for the support of religion. In 1716 there were rumors that movements were on foot to set up the Episcopal church. A law was at once made that "what maintenance or salary may be thought needful or necessary by any churches, congregations, or societies of people now inhabiting, or that may hereafter inhabit, within any part of this government, for the support of their or either of their minister or ministers, may be raised by free contribution and no other ways.'

Rhode Island's laws are said to have disfranchised Catholics for many years. "All men (professing Christianity) and of competent estates, and of civil conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil magistrate, though of different judgment in religious affairs (Roman Catholics excepted), shall be admitted as freemen." are the words that appear in one of the laws of the colony. There is much dispute about the words in parenthesis, "Roman Catholics excepted." Arnold claims that they are an interpolation made when the laws were compiled.2

These

In the period from 1691 to 1787 we have noticed four main forces operating to bring about the separation of church and state: (1) The enlarged commercial and industrial life of New England withdrew the colonists' attention from religion. Material prosperity was sought for at the expense of the higher spiritual prosperity. In the early period the preservation and maintenance and extension of the church was their chief conIn the eighteenth century less attention was given to

cern.

1

1 Palfrey, History of New England, Vol. III, p. 435.

For a discussion of the phrase, see Arnold's History of Rhode Island, Vol. II, pp. 491-6.

the church and religion and more to the state and commerce. Keeping out dissenters was not so important as driving a good bargain with them. A more liberal and a more modern sentiment, too, was brought about by the commercial prosperity of New England in this period. (2) The breaking up of the old town-church system prepared the way for each citizen to support the church of his choice. Baptists and Episcopalians had now only to ask for privileges already granted to many of the Congregationalists. (3) The dissenters strengthened in numbers, guided by wise leaders, were a power for religious liberty. The state with its church had to make one concession after another to them. (4) The decline in religion and the secularization of the church weakened the cause of the Standing Order, an event of which the more vigorous dissenting sects were not slow to take advantage.

CHAPTER V.

DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.-DIS-ESTABLISHMENT.

During the period of the Revolution the dissenters, particularly, the Baptists, tried to make it appear that in ecclesiastical matters they were suffering what the Americans were in political. It was claimed that they were taxed without representation. But the colonists did not dispute the principle "no taxation without representation." They admitted that dissenters should not be taxed for the established church. Exemption laws involving the principle had been enacted. It is true that difficulties were put in the way so that a dissenter could not easily take advantage of the laws. But the right of exemption was admitted; that was not in question; the trouble was in the execution of the laws. Nothing, therefore, was accomplished by appropriating the political argument for ecclesiastical purposes.

After the colonies become a nation, the position that the United States took upon the question was important. It did much to settle the question in the states. Religious liberty was much discussed in the state conventions called to ratify the constitution. The constitution itself did not contain a guaranty of religious freedom. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" was all that it provided for. But this was a decided improvement upon the laws of the colonies. In all of them, with the exception of Rhode Island, religious tests were required.

This clause of the constitution provoked great discussion in the state conventions. In the North Carolina convention a delegate said, "Even the Pope of Rome might become President of the United States." Nowhere was the opposition stronger than in the enlightened state of Massachusetts, where a delegate said, he "shuddered at the idea that Romanists and pagans might be introduced into office, and that Popery and the Inquisition may be established in America." What is

of importance to us in this article is, that it brought the old question of religious liberty, in another form, prominently before all the people, and that at the end of the discussion, the article as given, became one of the fundamental laws of the country. So much was the gain for religious liberty.

But this is not all. So enlightened had the people become that exemption from religious tests was not sufficient. It was good as far as it went, but some of the states wanted to go farther. Six of them suggested amendments bearing upon religion. One of these was a New England state: New Hampshire recommended that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience." The amendment suggested by Virginia is better. It says: "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 have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be forced or established by law in preference to others." The complete separation of church and state is here advocated as a principle.

The result of these amendments suggested by the states was the first amendment to the Federal Constitution. As to

1Quoted from Elliot's Debates, by Dr. Philip Schaff, in Church and State in the United States, Papers of the American Historical Association, Vol. II, p. 408.