The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 4 – How Baptists Ensured Religious Freedom

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the fourth and final article we will see how Baptists, in particular John Leland, played an important role in ensuring religious freedom in America.

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17th century America here, part 2 on Roger Williams and religious freedom here, and how Baptists became tolerated (here).

A depiction of John Leland. Available here.

And now the main event! We will see that Religious liberty is enshrined in the constitution of the new nation thanks, at least in part, to the Baptists. It was a long, hard road to get there. If you were a Baptist, Pennsylvania life would be good. Founded by such a broad-minded fellow as William Penn, Pennsylvania offered a level of tolerance rare in the world at that time. But in places like Massachusetts and Virginia, matters were different, and here the battles over religious freedom were fought the hardest. Back in Massachusetts, Henry Dunster, none other than the first president of Harvard College, had abandoned Puritan doctrine and come to accept Baptist theology regarding baptism. Dunster was subject to earnest efforts by the colonial magistrates to return to Puritan orthodoxy. He refused to give up his beliefs, holding firmly to the conviction that only adults could be baptized.  Forced to resign his position at Harvard, Dunster exiled himself and became pastor of the First Church of Scituate, Massachusetts. Charges were brought against him but they never made it to court. The incident was a shock to the Puritan community; if the president of Harvard could become a dissenter, Baptist beliefs could not be ignored.

Going to Court

A tiny band of Baptists, founding a church in June, 1665, found themselves ordered to attend the Congregational Church. In September, upon refusing to attend the Standing Order, several members, including a Mr. Gould, were ordered to stand before the court where they presented their confession of faith. The court heard them but ordered the nonconforming Gould and his followers to “desist from their schismatic practices.” Upon refusing to pay a fine, the group was charged with “Schismaticall opposition to the Churches of Christ here settled” and jailed. They were released, but Gould and a few others were jailed again in 1668 for participating in a “public disputation” at the First Church in Boston on April 14-15, 1668. Once brought before the court, the defendants were not allowed to speak. David Benedict, a contemporary, commented, “When the disputants met there was a long speech made by one of their opponents, showing what vile persons the Baptists were and how they acted against the churches and government here, and stood condemned by the Court. The Baptists desired liberty to speak, but they would not suffer them, but told them that they stood there as delinquents and ought not to have liberty to speak.”

Transcripts of the offending debate at the First Church have come down to us. John Trumble, although not himself a Baptist, defended the Baptist position, while Jonathan Mitchell, a Congregational Minister, argued the case for the Standing Order. The exchange displayed the fundamental differences between Baptist and Puritans regarding the wisdom of allowing religious freedom or equality for any dissenting sect:

Thrumble: We came for liberty of conscience as well as yourselves. You had not a patent for such a form: and you are not perfect. We are daily exhorted to be growing [in] grace and knowledge: and if you be not perfect: we are to look for light as well as you.

Mitchell: You say the patent give us liberty of conscience. Lo there is no such word as liberty of conscience. This people had made a sad bargain for themselves and their posterity if they had come hither for . . . liberty."

John Leland and the US constitution

Such persecution continued into the revolutionary era. Through the colonial era Baptists persevered in advocating for freedom of religion. When the struggle for independence from Great Britain got under way, most Baptists joined the American cause despite generations of harassment at the hands of their fellow-colonists. They were determined, though, to leverage the conflict to their advantage and put an end, once and for all, to religious persecution. Among the leaders that emerged to head the fight for religious liberty was John Leland of Virginia. 

After American independence was secured and the young nation tackled the challenge of writing a constitution John Leland was determined that the new nation would guarantee the freedoms that Baptists had long been denied. Leland was an articulate and effective spokesman for the Baptist cause. He was also uncompromising in his conviction for the absolute separation of church and state. In a strongly-worded essay, he declared, "The liberty I contend for, is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration, is despicable, it supposes that some have a pre-eminence above the rest, to grant indulgence whereas, all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans and Christians. Test oaths, and established creeds, should be avoided as the worst of evils." The Baptists supported the like-minded Jefferson and Madison as they drew up Virginia’s Statute for Religious freedom. But this milestone needed to be applied on a national level, which brings us to the Bill of Rights. 

If you happen to be in Virginia visiting historic sites and you are on your way to Monticello, you will most likely miss a small park. It is the Leland-Madison Memorial Park. This is where a meeting took place which had a direct impact on the First Amendment. But first, the back story.

Religious freedom

Leland had written a letter to Madison asking him to include stronger guarantees of religious liberties.  He put that at the very end of the letter to make sure Madison would not forget. For his part, Madison needed little convincing. As a young man fresh out of college, he was keenly offended by the persecution of religious minorities, such as Baptists, in his native Virginia. On exactly how to implement religious freedom in the Constitution, however, the two men did not agree. Madison did not feel that an amendment specifically to safeguard religious liberty was necessary. Leland and his fellow Baptists, having suffered generations of persecution, strongly disagreed.  When Madison didn’t respond to Leland’s letter, the Baptist firebrand decided to turn up the heat. Since Baptists represented an important voting block in the district Madison represented in the First Congress under the new Constitution, Leland threatened to run against him if he did not provide a firm guarantee of religious liberty. Leland, in fact, had more votes than Madison for the Orange County seat that would go to the convention to ratify the Constitution.  Madison needed Leland’s support to win. This prompted a visit to Leland by the great lawyer. In the fine traditions of American politics, a deal was struck whereby Leland agreed to drop his bid for Madison’s seat and Madison committed to push for the clear guarantee of religious freedom in the Bill of Rights. When this hallowed document became the law of the land in 1791, Baptists knew that at last their long-delayed dream of religious freedom had been realized. 

Leland continued his career as a fiery preacher, political leader and fierce advocate of the separation of church and state. In a July 4 address in 1802 he thundered, “Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny — the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans [sic] of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful.” When the stout-hearted champion of liberty finally succumbed on January 14, 1841 his tombstone included these words: “Here lies the body of John Leland, who labored 67 years to promote piety and vindicate the civil and religious rights of all men.” It was not only a fitting epitaph for Leland but could very well serve as an appropriate tribute for all Baptists.

How important do you think John Leland was in guaranteeing religious freedom in America? Let us know below.

References

Leonard, Bill J. Baptist Ways: A History. Valley Forge PA: Judson Press, 2001.

Shurden, Walter B. (2008). Turning Points in Baptist History. Mercer University Press. 

Ferguson, John E. The First Amendment Encyclopedia, https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1219/john-leland

The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 3 – How Baptists Became Tolerated

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the third article we will see how the view of Baptists changed from a disease to be eradicated to being tolerated, amid the creation of the Rhode Island Royal Charter.

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17thcentury America here, and part 2 on Roger Williams and religious freedom here.

A possible painting of John Clarke, an influential leader during the early days of the Baptist Church in America. Painting by Guilliam de Ville and in the Redwood Library in Newport, Rhode Island. Available here.

While Roger Williams was busy upsetting tender Puritan sensibilities, other colonial firebrands were stoking the fires of dissent. John Clarke emerged as an influential leader, too, during the early days of the Baptist Church in America. Clarke arrived in Boston from England in 1637 as a minister and practicing physician. He soon gravitated to Rhode Island, that budding haven of freedom, where he worked with Roger Williams and helped found Newport. Like his more famous co-religionist, Dr. Clarke was a religious refugee from Massachusetts Bay Colony. By 1644 the Newport congregation had become another center of Baptist activity under Clarke’s leadership. Meanwhile, Massachusetts had, in the same year, outlawed Baptists. The law, reflecting the conflict with Williams and others, reiterated the Puritan concern over the alleged Baptist threat to established order:

“Foreasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptist, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealths, and the infectors of persons main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been . .  . and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth.”

Soon after the Witter incident (discussed in the first article in this series here), Clark left for England along with Roger Williams with the goal of securing a charter for Rhode Island. Immediately after arriving in England, Clark was moved to write a treatise on the subject of religious liberty, Ill Newes from New-England, or, A Narrative of New–England’s Persecution, Whereas Is Declared that While Old England is Becoming New, New–England Is Become Old. In the treatise, Clarke presented his beliefs of governmental non-interference in matters of religion. Clarke's purpose was to alert government leaders to the facts regarding Puritan persecution of other Christians, to defend liberty of conscience, and to propose methods of advancing the Gospel. The earnest doctor hoped to stir up the Puritan government, whom, he hoped, would be outraged to hear about the terrible abused degrading the English outpost across the Atlantic. Specifically, Clark wanted them to take action to uphold liberty of conscience and protect his hard-pressed fellow Baptists. Clarke felt free to exaggerate if it would serve his purpose, "Thereupon they (the Puritan government of New England) have been too deeply engaged in the shedding of much innocent blood in this Land," asserted Clarke. He attempted to convince Parliamentary leaders that the Puritans of Massachusetts were exercising a high-handed government contrary to Biblical principles and odious to that which Parliament itself had fought for when opposing the oppressive rule of the King and his Bishops. To prove his authenticity Clarke also recounted his own persecution at the hands of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He began by stating that his trial at the hands of the Massachusetts authorities involved none of the elements of fairness so beloved of Englishmen. Specifically, Clarke related that his trial lacked accusers, witnesses, jury, 'law of God, or man." Instead, after the charge was brought the sentence followed, along with a scolding from the Governor, John Endicot. Here Clarke was accused of being an Anabaptist and of re-baptizing. Clarke denied the charge of being an Anabaptist or of re-baptizing and pointed out that such an accusation could not be proven. When the Governor persisted in his accusations, Dr. Clarke stated his beliefs, or in his parlance, testified, regarding true baptism and liberty of conscience. Clarke's withering indictment of the 'The Antichristian Rule in New England' proved to be effective. This "drum major of freedom" so alarmed Massachusetts’ authorities that they responded with a counterblast of their own entitled The Civil Magistrates Power in Matters of Religion Modestly Debated, published in 1653. Despite their rebuttal, Clarke's expose led to his next, and greatest, accomplishment, the Rhode Island Royal Charter.

The Rhode Island Royal Charter

The struggle to acquire a charter kept Clarke in England for next twelve years. It was vital that Rhode Island had its interests defended because all the other colonies were hostile towards the young colony. They were fortunate to have a determined agent to act as their advocate in England. After a lengthy process, including ten letters and petitions to the king in one year alone, Charles II, affixed his seal to the document on July 8, 1663. The charter was quite radical for its time. Among its provisions, the one most dear to Clarke touched on religious liberty:

“Our royal will and pleasure is that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any difference in opinion in matters of religion ..."

This charter remained the basis of Rhode Island's government until 1842. The following words, written by Clarke himself in all capitals to press his case, are carved into the frieze of the Rhode Island State House: ‘TO HOLD FORTH A LIVELY EXPERIMENT THAT A MOST FLOURISHING CIVILL STATE MAY STAND ... AND BEST BE MAINTAYNED ... WITH A FULL LIBERTIE IN RELIGIOUS CONCERNMENTS’.With this charter, the Baptists had a safe haven in the New World. The struggle for liberty in the other colonies, however, was just beginning.

Now, read part 4 here. It is the final part in the series - How Baptists Ensured Religious Freedom.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

Clarke, John. Ill Newes from New-England, or, A Narrative of New–England’s Persecution, Whereas Is Declared that While Old England is Becoming New, New–England Is Become Old. London: Henry Hills, 1652.

Backus, Isaac. History of New England With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists. Ulan Press, 2012.

Brackney, William H. editor. Baptist Life and Thought: a Source Book. Valley Forge PA: Judson Press, 1998.

Green, Samuel. The Book of the General Laws and Libertyes Concerning the Inhabitants of the Massachusetts.Cambridge:1648.

James, Charles. A Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia.ForthWorth TX: RDMc Publishing, 1900.

Leonard, Bill J. Baptist Ways: A History.Valley Forge PA: Judson Press, 2001.

Mather, Cotton. MagnaliaChristi Americana: or The Ecclesiastical History of New England. London, Thomas Parkhurst, 1702.

Shurden, Walter B. (2008). Turning Points in Baptist History. Mercer University Press.

Ward, Nathaniel. The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam in America, 1647, www.publicbookshelf.org.

The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 2 – Roger Williams and Religious Freedom

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we will explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. In the second article we look at the important and lasting influence of Roger Williams, a 17th century religious thinker who argued for religious freedom. 

Victor Gamma explains. You can read part 1 on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17th century America here.

Return of Roger Williams from England with the First Charter, 1644. From a painting by C.R. Grant.

Last time we looked at some early examples of how Baptists resisted state control of religion and some of their motives and the reasons for conflict with the established church. In this next article we will examine the impact and career of one of the most famous early colonists: Roger Williams. Not only is he credited with establishing the first Baptist church in America, he was an early champion of quintessential American liberal ideals such as separation of church and state, fairness in dealings with Native Americans and the abolition of slavery. In holding these convictions, Williams was far in advance of most contemporaries. Naturally, such sentiments did not sit well with the austere Puritans, especially when expounded by someone like Williams, who was one of those people who insist on loudly proclaiming all the vagaries of their conscience regardless of the consequence. 

Williams was not the first nonconformist to set foot in the New England wilderness. Massachusetts would be the scene of the first confrontation in the long Baptist contest for freedom of conscience. In 1620 the first dissenters from England arrived when 102 settlers came to Plymouth. Many were members of a separatist group under the leadership of John Robinson. Soon the settlement attracted a variety of those seeking religious freedom. However, in the Great Migration of the 1630s, large numbers of non-separating Puritans began settling in the colony. These Puritans believed that, for all its faults, the Church of England was still a true church. 

The early clashes with the Puritan establishment represent the first phase of the Baptist quest for liberty: the right to simply exist and gather together as a body. This goal was achieved by the end of the seventeenth century. Leading this early effort was the brilliant, idealistic and combative visionary Roger Williams. In England the harsh treatment of dissenters by Archbishop Laud, led Williams, who had become a Puritan, to immigrate to Massachusetts in 1631. Soon after arriving, Williams broke with the Church of England entirely and, after offending the authorities at Boston with his nonconformist views, moved to Salem where he worked with a separatist congregation for a time before moving to Plymouth. It did not take long for the outspoken Williams to clash with the establishment again. 

An Exile Founds a Colony

The Massachusetts government found it impossible to ignore this charismatic and persuasive man in their young colony who would not back down nor be silenced. He was also a threat due to his intelligence. A precocious youth, Sir Edward Coke had discovered him as a mere lad recording Star Chamber speeches and sermons in shorthand. For his part, Williams forced the issue by the bold and perhaps intemperate manner of his proclamation on the doctrine of tolerance and by sternly questioning the right of the king and the colonial government to appropriate lands from Native Americans without recompense. The state, Williams confidently asserted, has power only over “the Bodies and Goods, and outward state of men.” He argued that civil magistracy has no legitimate right to persecute citizens for their beliefs. He also refused to acknowledge the legality of a church-state alliance such as existed in Massachusetts. Massachusetts in turn condemned Williams, linking him with John Smyth, the founder of the Baptist Church. The official charges against Williams stated that he “hath broached and divulged divers new and dangerous opinions against the authority of magistrates, as also writ letters of defamation both of the magistrates and churches here.” The ‘letters of defamation’ consisted of an appeal to the charter Williams had written and a letter he wrote to his congregation regarding the separation of church and state. The sentence of banishment read, “It is therefore ordered that the said Mr. Williams shall depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing, which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the governor and two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the court.”

The ruling caused such an uproar in Salem, that the Magistrates began to reconsider their decision and extended the time of his required leaving into the spring. Williams regarded this as a sign of leniency and began to proclaim his radical views all the more loudly, to which he now added that he was an Anabaptist, denying the validity of infant baptism. This outburst ended any sympathy Williams had preserved among the majority of settlers and led Governor Haynes to resolve to remove this thorn in the side of the colony and deposit him back to England immediately. Having learned that Williams’ refused a summons to appear at court in Boston, a vessel was dispatched to Salem for his arrest. Warned by former Governor Winthrop, Williams and some followers, in the midst of a New England winter, escaped and made their way with the help of local tribes to Narraganset Bay in what is now Rhode Island.

Of his new colony Williams wrote, “I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed of conscience...” and he worked hard to make that statement a reality. In 1640 the Providence township articles of government announced: “We agree, as formerly been the liberties of the Town, so still to hold forth Liberty of Conscience.” After some years of hosting church meetings in his home, Williams established the first Baptist Church in America in 1638. Settlers and refugees of a similar mind, including Anne Hutchinson and her family, soon formed communities nearby. These settlements maintained a loose association until threats against their independence led them in 1643 to seek to become an English Colony. Accordingly Roger Williams set out for England in 1644 to secure a charter. 

The tolerant reputation of Rhode Island quickly spread and soon non-conformists such as Quakers were making Rhode Island their home. True to his word, Williams, although opposed to the Society of Friends, allowed them to live in the colony, freely holding their meetings and discussing their beliefs. Soon Rhode Island became an example to other colonies. Rhode Island’s religious pluralism also drew criticism. It led Cotton Mather to write, “There never was held such a variety of religious together on so small a spot of ground . . . Antinomians, Familists, Anabaptists, Antisabbatarians, Arminians, Socinians, Quakers, Ranters—everything in the world but Roman Catholics and real Christians.”

A "Bloudy" Controversy

Restless as ever, Williams did not remain with the Baptists for long, but nonetheless, his example and writings had a powerful influence on the future of the Baptist Church as well as the cause of religious liberty. Many of Williams’ most influential writings appeared in a series of treatises written as part of a long-standing debate with Cotton Mather, who defended the Standing Order. Mather issued statements and correspondence which argued for state support of religious uniformity. Williams first took aim at the Puritan Divine in 1644 with The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience Discussed. In this treatise, Williams attacked religious and political intolerance. Cotton Mather returned fire with The Bloudy Tenant, Washed, and Made White in the Bloud of the Lamb, in 1647. After returning from England in 1652, Williams' answered with The Bloudy Tenent, yet more Bloudy: by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to Wash it White in the Bloud of the Lambe. In these works, Williams laid out his beliefs on religious liberty, namely; that God alone can judge the conscience, the use of force by the civil authority in matters of religion is entirely ineffective and in fact an evil against God’s design and contrary to Christ’s methods, and non-Christians could be good citizens. Williams limited the role of government to non-religious matters such as maintaining order and justice. The Bloudy Tenantmade full use of the Williams skills at argumentation and was written in the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace. Williams has both Peace and Truth plead movingly against religious persecution:

Peace: Dear Truth I have two sad complaints. First, the most sober of your witnesses that dare to plead your cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies—contentions, turbulent, seditious! Secondly, your enemies, though they speak and rail against you, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill your faithful witnesses, yet how is all need over for justice against the heretics! 

The words and deeds of Roger Williams gave a powerful impulse to the cause of religious freedom. Williams’ impact went well beyond a controversy with the Massachusetts religious establishment, his writings would be cited as philosophical support for John Locke, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the writings of Thomas Jefferson on religious liberty. 

In part 3 (here), How the Baptists Ensured Religious Freedom, you can read about another heroic defender of religious liberty (there seems to be no end of them!), the early Rhode Island colony and the early Baptists in Massachusetts.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

The Role of the Baptists in the Pursuit of Religious Liberty in America: Part 1 – Baptist Persecution

When thinking about the Constitution of the United States, names like James Madison usually come to mind. But a friend of the great "architect of the Constitution," John Leland, a Baptist minister, had much to do with Madison's giant accomplishments. In fact, without Mr. Leland's influence the establishment clause in the First Amendment may not exist as we know it. In this series of articles we will explore the critical but little-known role played by the Baptists in helping to secure America’s cherished religious freedoms. Our story begins by focusing on the persecution suffered by Baptists in 17thcentury America – and a hot New England summer.

Victor Gamma explains.

An engraving of the 1651 whipping of Obadiah Holmes.

In July 1651 the Newport Baptist Church received a request from a house-bound member in Lynn, Massachusetts named William Witter. Witter was desirous of hearing the Word of God preached. Being blind and quite elderly, he requested a pastoral visit from Baptist minister and physician John Clarke along with co-religionists Obadiah Holmes and John Crandall. The three men made the eighty-mile journey to Lynn, where Witter lived. While in Massachusetts they baptized Witter in accordance with 'believer's baptism'. Clarke and Holmes were known to the Massachusetts authorities. The Bay Colony required that any who denied infant baptism or taught this to others, or who denied the right of the state to make war should be arrested and banished from the colony. Witter was no stranger to the authorities as well, being bold to the point of insolence. Salem court records have preserved some of his statements made during his earlier trial;

          “The baptism of infants is sinful.”

         “Infant baptism is the badge of the whore.”

         “They who stay whiles a child is baptized do worship the devil.” 

News of Clarke and his associates’ presence at Witter’s home spread quickly. By that very evening a warrant had been issued for their arrest, which action was carried out the following day.  The three were forced to attend a congregational service, in which they refused to remove their hats and attempted to preach. They were imprisoned and then taken to Boston for trial. Their prosecutor was John Cotton, who argued that the defendants, whom he called Anabaptists, were worthy of the death penalty for heresy. After a ‘trial’ which consisted merely of charges and sentencing, the three Baptists were given the penalties of paying fines or to be ‘well-whipt.’

Of the three Baptists, Clarke and Holmes refused to pay a fine. Clarke avoided the whipping post when a friend paid his fine while he was being led to his punishment. The steadfast Holmes, however, would brook no aid from friends or sympathizers, saying, “Agreeing to the payment of my fine would constitute admission of wrongdoing.”  By refusing to pay a fine and not allowing anyone else to, Holmes was making a statement that the law was completely invalid and unjust by its very nature.  The sentence was carried out publically with thirty stripes, which was ten less than the forty considered to be a death sentence, but equal to that given to rapists. The “whipper’s” instrument of torment featured three leather strips, so in reality Holmes received ninety lashes. Holmes chose the opportunity to preach to the crowd while being whipped. An eyewitness, John Spur, described the whipping of Obadiah Holmes. As the 'whipper' removed the clothes from his upper body in order to administer the beatings, Spur records that Holmes declared, "Lord lay not this sin upon their charge." During the whipping Holmes stated, "O Lord I beseech thee to manifest thy power in the weakness of thy creature." According to Spur, Holmes submitted to the whipping, ". . . neither moving nor stirring at all for the strokes, (and) broke out into these expressions,  'Blessed and praised be the Lord,' and this he carried it to the end and went away rejoicingly." Many onlookers were moved to loudly request the beating to stop, and were themselves arrested. As a result of his beating, Holmes was unable to sleep on his back for a month. After recovering, Holmes went on to continue his evangelistic work. His bold stand had also become a symbol in the struggle for religious liberty.

Freedom of conscience

Bold stands such as this led the historian George Bancroft to declare, “Freedom of conscience, unlimited freedom of mind, was from the first a trophy of the Baptists.” In the seventeenth century, freedom of conscience had become such a become such a defining feature of Baptists that the great John Locke was moved to write, “The Baptists were the first and only propounders of absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty.” Ultimately, the measures taken against Baptists would include whipping, imprisonment, fines and banishment. Because America offered such a vast abundance of space, a favorite device of those defending the Standing Order was to exile Baptists and other dissenting groups into the wilderness. As one offended contemporary put it, “All Familists, Antinomians, Anabaptists, and other enthusiasts, shall have free Liberty to keep away from us, and such as will come to be gone as fast as they can the sooner the better.”

You will not find names like Isaac Backus or John Leland in a book about the writing of the Constitution, nonetheless, these Baptists, along with their predecessors like Holmes, played a critical role in providing the underpinning attitudes that resulted in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In fighting for their own freedom, they struck a blow for all Americans, articulating a philosophy concerning the relationship between the religious and civil sphere, protecting the rights of the former. Baptists were often well ahead of their colonial brethren in the matter of freedom of conscience.

Baptists felt the heavy hand of persecution from the moment of their arrival in the English colonies. There were many reasons for this. Both the Puritans of New England and the Anglicans of Virginia believed in the union of church and state to some degree and the necessity of the civil authority to enforce religious conformity. The Protestant churches that broke away from Rome in the fifteenth century maintained the system of state support of churches. In England the government sponsorship of religion was called the ‘nursing father.’ In the English colonies, this system of the civil rulers as nursing fathers continued. Furthermore, the Puritans held that society could not function without establishment of religion, referred to as the “Standing Order.” Without it, they contended, society would crumble into anarchy and moral perversion. The 1689 Act of Toleration, although a milestone in British history, did not establish religious liberty. It extended toleration to a greater number of religious expressions, but maintained England as a protestant state with England under the prelacy of the Church of England and Scotland under the Presbyterian establishment. During the colonial era, most colonists also held the view that residents of a particular colony should properly all belong to the same church, and took it as natural that this church should be financially and legally supported by the state, including non-voluntary taxes and even laws requiring participation in religious services. Even havens of religious toleration like Pennsylvania and Maryland sometimes heard the lament of oppressed minorities.

Baptists in the New World

The Baptists, having already experienced persecution in England, arrived in the New World generally hostile to the idea of civil authorities determining their religious beliefs and practices. The Baptists eventually compiled a large amount of scriptural and historical support for their position. Isaac Backus, later to be the champion of liberty for Baptists during the Revolutionary era, relied on eighteenth-century Lutheran historian Johann Lorenz Von Mosheim to express the common Baptist view of the state of Christendom in his History of New England. Backus' history asserted that the early church's purity was perverted by  “. . . an alteration. . . that Christian ministers succeeded to the rights and privileges of the Jewish priesthood. Heathen philosophy was also called in to interpret the scriptures . . . to which they added, in the fourth century, under Constantine, the use of temporal penalties, and corporal tortures, for the same end (to promote of the interests of the church).” 

No other issue so horrified the religious establishment, though, as the issue of baptism. The Puritans and Separatists held firmly to the practice of infant baptism as one sign of the covenantal nature of the church. They saw in the ceremony a badge of the covenant a sign as circumcision was for the Jews.  As Cotton Matter put it, “They did all agree with their brethren in Plymouth in this point, ‘That the children of the faithful, were church members, with their parents, and that their baptism was a seal of their being so.’ ” In Massachusetts Puritans held to the validity of an established church, and as Anglicans in Virginia they were determined to support the canons of the Church of England including the Thirty Nine Articles. Article 27 stated, “The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institutions of Christ.” Those that refused to comply with this article were spoken of as those who “dare not submit their children to be baptized by their undertaking of god-fathers, and receive the Cross as a dedicating badge of Christianity . . .” This belief conflicted sharply with Baptist convictions. Isaac Backus in hisHistory of New England offers a quote from John Robinson which, citing scripture for each point, summarized the Baptist position on baptism “. . . the sacrament of baptism is to be administered   . . . only to such as are . . . taught and made disciples [Matt. xxviii. 19]. . . Baptism administered to any others is so far from investing them with any saintship in that estate, that [as] it makes guilty, both the giver and the receiver, of sacrilege, and is the taking of God’s name in vain.” 

The view of Baptists

False perceptions also fanned the flames of suspicion. When the Puritan or Anglican establishment looked at Baptists they often saw not simple dissenters but dangerous incendiaries. The memory of Anabaptist excesses, such as the Munster Rebellion of 1535-6 were still recalled and projected on to the Baptists. In fact, ‘Anabaptist’ was a name that continued to be applied to the Baptists.  Regardless of their efforts to distance themselves from the taint of Anabaptist excesses, the Baptists were popularly held to be dangerous subversives or degenerate antinomians.  The 1644 law banishing Baptists from Massachusetts Bay Colony stated, “Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved that since the first arising of the Anabaptists about a hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealths and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion and the troublers of churches . . .” Baptists promptly answered such charges when given the opportunity. In 1680 John Russel, second pastor of the Baptist church in Boston, sought to dispel the irrational opinions of Baptists in a tract entitled Some Considerable Passages Concerning the First Gathering and Further Progress of a Church of Christ in Gospel Order in Boston in New England Commonly (though Falsely) Called By the Name of Anabaptists. Russell’s tract was a point-by-point refutation of the common charges laid at the feet of Baptists using simple logic. For example Russell argues against the contention that Baptists were a threat to the church, “We are charged to be underminers of the Churches. This is also a great mistake: we never designed . . . any such thing, but heartily desire and daily pray for the well-being, flourishing, and Prosperity of all the Churches of Christ.” 

Up until now we’ve explored the reasons why Baptists faced persecution in America.  In part two (here), Roger Williams and Religious Freedom, we look at the story of Roger Williams and the founding of the first Baptist church in America.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.