Thursday, April 2, 2009

Help Wanted

Looking for assistance in tracking down a passage from Ben Morris:
"who should go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion by broaching and maintaining damnable heresies, as denying the immortality of the soul or the resurrection of the body, or denying that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins, or shall deny the morality of the 4th commandment, or shall deny the ordinance of the civil magistrate, shall be banished"

I think this might be from something passed by the General Assembly of Massachusetts in 1672, but I can't find it. Perhaps some of you with better internet search skills (or better resources) can find it?

The relevance is that it goes to the question of who counted as "Christian", at least in Massachusetts. Three points deserve note: (1) no mention of the triune nature of God, nor the union of natures in Christ; (2) special mention given to the sabbath, (3) special mention given to the civil magistrate.

What on earth does denying the ordinance of the civil magistrate have to do with "damnable heresies"? Only this: church structure matters.

The Puritans of Massachusetts were Congregationalists/Separatists, as opposed to Presbyterians. The Puritan movement in Britain was broken into those three branches, with the Church of England defining the fourth branch, Episcopalianism. The Episcopelians taught rule of bishops; the Presbyterians (e.g. the Church of Scotland) taught rule of church courts. The Congregationalists had a bottom-up view, rather than a top-down view, and couldn't develop a principle of who should rule while they were in Europe, but in America they quickly realized that the only choice left if they were not to be ruled either by church hierarchies or by church administrations was to be ruled by some parachurch entity, the civil magistrate. The Separatists became Congragationalists once in America, separation having been achieved. (Some would argue the other way around, the Congregationalists became Separatists; no matter)

The other point, about the sabbath, is a nod to why the Puritans were not content with life in Calvinist Holland.

In any case, can you help track down the quote?

18 comments:

Jonathan Rowe said...

I'm not sure about that quotation, but what might be more relevant is the Mass. Body of Liberties (1641)

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/masslib.htm

The relevant portion being:

94. Capitall Laws.

1.
(Deut. 13. 6, 10. Deut. 17. 2, 6. Ex. 22.20)
If any man after legall conviction shall have or worship any other god, but the lord god, he shall be put to death.


2.
(Ex. 22. 18. Lev. 20. 27. Dut. 18. 10.)
If any man or woeman be a witch, (that is hath or consulteth with a familiar spirit,) They shall be put to death.


3.
(Lev. 24. 15,16.)
If any person shall Blaspheme the name of god, the father, Sonne or Holie Ghost, with direct, expresse, presumptuous or high handed blasphemie, or shall curse god in the like manner, he shall be put to death.

[Page 274]


The research that I've seen shows that sometime in the early to mid 18th Century, seminaries became hotbeds of heresy, first moving to Arminianism then to theological unitarianism. And it was mainly figures like Newton, Locke and Clarke that inspired their heresy. The "orthodox" (i.e., of the "American" bent) termed Harvard's library during that era "Satan's bookshelf" for carrying the works of Clarke, et al.

jimmiraybob said...

I found this here which might provide an additional lead:

The following law was enacted in 1646:

That if any Christian within this jurisdiction, shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith or Religion, by broaching and maintaining any Damnable Heresies; as denying the immortality of the soule, or resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin, or denying that Christ gave himselfe a ransom for our sins, or shall affirm that we are not justified by his death and righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works, or shall deny the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall openly condemn or oppose the Baptizing of Infants, or shall purposely depart the Congregation at the administration of that Ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or the Lawful Authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first commandment, or shall endeavor to seduce others to any of these errors or heresies above mentioned, every such person continuing obstinate therein, after due meanes of conviction, shall be sentenced to Banishment (Colonial Laws, 1660-1672, p. 154).


This has references (Howe 1899) and may be where the qoute above originates. The quote that you cite is on page 201.

The Puritan Republic of the Massachusetts Bay in New England
By Daniel Wait Howe
Published by The Bowen-Merrill company, 1899
Original from Harvard University
Digitized Aug 25, 2006
422 pages

Chris Rodda said...

I haven't absolutely confirmed this date yet, but I have two sources putting it at 1646, one that actually says 1646, and one that's talking about something that happened in 1650 that references the statute, saying it was passed four years earlier, which, of course, would have been 1646.

But, here's the really interesting thing. This law applied ONLY to Christians.

Here's how the paragraph, which seems to have been part of the preamble of the statute, actually began:

"Though no human power be lord over the faith and conscience of men, and therefore we may not constrain them to believe or profess against their conscience; yet, because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian faith and destruction of the souls of men, out duly to be restrained from such monstrous impiety, it is therefore ordered that, if any Christian shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion, by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresy ..."

If I can find some time later, I'll try to hunt down the title of the statute.

Chris Rodda said...

I had a typo in the quote of the statute (I typed "out duly" instead of "ought duly"). Here it is corrected:

"Though no human power be lord over the faith and conscience of men, and therefore we may not constrain them to believe or profess against their conscience; yet, because such as bring in damnable heresies, tending to the subversion of the Christian faith and destruction of the souls of men, ought duly to be restrained from such monstrous impiety, it is therefore ordered that, if any Christian shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion, by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresy ..."

jimmiraybob said...

Here are some quotes with sources and some bolding by me:

1646
“When the Baptists became troublesome, laws were passed authorizing their banishment. Still severer laws were passed in reference to the Quakers, increasing in severity in proportion to their obstinacy. Heavy penalties were imposed upon the master of any vessel bringing them to the colony, and against any person who should entertain them, and the Quaker ministers were subjected to banishment, and to death if, after banishment, they voluntarily returned.2

2) Colonial Laws 1660-1672, p. 155-156

“As might be supposed, it was considered of prime importance to preserve the purity of the orthodox religion and to prevent the contamination of it by any heretical dogmas. Blasphemy, as already stated, was punishable capitally by the Body of Liberties. In 1646 it was ordered1

“’That if any Christian within this jurisdiction, shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and Religion, by broaching and maintaining and Damnable Heresies: as denying the immortality of the soule, or resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin, or denying that Christ gave himselfe a ransom for our sins, or shall affirm that we are not justified by his death and righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works, or shall deny the ordinance of Magistracy, or their Lawful Authority to male war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first Table2, or shall endeavour to seduce others to any of the errors or heresies above mentioned, every such person continuing obstinate therin, after due meanes of Conviction, shall be sentenced to Banishment.’”

1) Colonial Laws 1660-1672, p. 154

2) [my ed. the first four of the Ten Commandments]

(pp. 200-201)
The Puritan Republic of the Massachusetts Bay in New England
By Daniel Wait Howe
Published by The Bowen-Merrill company, 1899
Original from Harvard University
Digitized Aug 25, 2006
422 pages

And:

1644
“Also in Massachusetts we are told that ‘Anabaptists increased and spread in the country.’1 Upon which they framed and passed the following act at their General Courts, November 13, 1644:--

“’Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one 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 in all places where they have been, and that they who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies together therewith, though they have (as other heretics used to do) concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this kind have since our coming into New England appeared amongst ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table [my ed. the first four of the Ten Commandments]; which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the Court willfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment.’2

“Let it be known that the evident design of the law was to guard against such as refused to countenance infant baptism, and the use of secular force in religious affairs; which the Baptists have ever done from that day to this…”


(pp. 125-127)
A history of New England with particular reference to the denomination of Christians called Baptists
By Isaac Backus
Edition: 2
Published by Backus Historical Society, 1871
Item notes: v. 1
Original from the University of Michigan
Digitized Nov 8, 2008

Both of the above passages contain the author's original text before and after the law/act that the author quotes to preserve some of the original context. Also, I didn't include all of the footnotes [my boss (me) is starting to give me dirty looks, which I think means "get back to work"].

I am constantly amazed at how much material is available on the internets and at how much time I will spend finding it (like a beagle in the field).

Chris Rodda said...

“When the Baptists became troublesome, laws were passed authorizing their banishment."

That makes the other thing I found make sense. It looked to me like this statute was prompted by a particular court case against a Puritan who had become an Anabaptist, and because of his conversion, did something contrary to the established church's doctrine.

Chris Rodda said...

I just did a little more checking, and found that the court case I referred to in my last comment actually prompted the law passed in 1844. A man named Mr. Painter had become an Anabaptist, but his wife had not. Mr. Painter, being an Anabaptist, would not allow his wife to have their newborn child baptized, so he was "subverting" the religion of his family. This led to the clause in the 1844 law making those who opposed infant baptism subject to punishment. Mr. Painter didn't have the money to pay a fine, so he was sentenced to a whipping. When the 1846 law was passed, it included opposing infant baptism among its punishable heresies.

Kristo Miettinen said...

Thanks everyone for all of this!

It definitely helps. Jon, you're correct that the seminaries (Harvard in particular) went off in philosophical directions, I'd say even earlier than you peg it. After all, Yale was founded in reaction to Harvard's impiety, and that happened in 1701. Chances are Harvard had been off the rails for some decades by then; people don't just up and found universities in response to transient eccentricities. It takes time to decide (time for the failure of efforts to fix Harvard), and even more time to raise funds and act.

My point is mainly that Massachusetts, and the Puritan colonies more generally, were tolerant of unorthodoxy (not of blasphemy, of course, that is another matter) on the topics that you focus on, but not on the ones that I focus on (hence my choice of focus on ecclesiology).

To Chris's point (welcome to the discussion!), they were even tolerant of irreligion.

That is part of the point of Congregationalism: you can have your Separatist community over there (e.g. Plymouth), and I'll have my Puritan one over here (e.g. Boston), and the heathen can wander about, but let's make sure those Presbyterians stay further south and Episcopelians stay over the ocean, because those groups have dangerous organizations, with offices of church coercion (courts or bishops).

Harvard could go Arminian, or Unitarian, or secular, without the mobs burning it down. But they would have burnt it if it went Episcopalian and had a Bishop for its president.

Tom Van Dyke said...

if any Christian shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion, by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresy ...

Well, I guess that means heretics were still considered Christian!

At least we've cleared that one up...

IntelligentDecline said...

A medium depth search at Google Books returned references to slightly paraphrased version(s) in Massachusetts Legislative Acts of 1646 and again in 1697. Here's a list of three records returned which were fairly clear:

The Spirit of the Pilgrims. 1831. Boston: Peirce and Williams.
Volume IV
pg 138

Whitman, Bernard. 1831. "Two letters to the Reverend Moses Stuart; on the subject of religious liberty". Boston: Published by Gray and Bowen.
Google Books link
link to passage (pagination is non-standard)

Hildreth, Richard. "The History of the United States of America: Colonial, 1497-1688". 1863. Harper
Volume 1
pg 369

Also, I found a very similar, although partial version that had a footnote citation to "Hazard's Collection V. 4", which I believe is also known as "A Collection of American State Papers", but was subsequently renamed. (Look Here) I was unable to locate this collection at Google Books though.

When looking for quotes at Google Books, I've frequently discovered that paraphrasing of the original is often common. A successful method to work around this is to remove all common words and often paraphrased (4th-fourth) from the quote, and search using different variations of the resultant word list. I was lucky using the first ten from this list as the search string:

{banished body broaching civil commandment damnable deny destroy faith heresies}

Tom Van Dyke said...

Very nice to see someone who hits the books, ID. Or google as the case may be. This is the 21st century afterall.

Hope you'll stick around. We like facts and adore original source document facts around here.

IntelligentDecline said...

Thank-you for the kind remarks Tom. The quantity of my reading is probably a bit higher than the average American's. I've also spent a fair amount of time poking around Google Books in the last year or so, and have become decent at locating the links to complete sets of multi-volume collections, the majority of which are early America Founding History. If you or anyone else here is interested, I'm willing to post the links at the seldom used backwater of a blog this pseudonym points to. Pick an early president from the following, and I'll post links to their Writings for starters:

Washington, J or JQ Adams, Madison or Jefferson (either Ford or Bergh).

Truthfully, I'm not tightly focused on American Religious History, but the topic comes up fairly often in these texts.

Chris Rodda said...

Another great digital archive is Making of America (MOA). This is actually what I used to quickly put the date of the Massachusetts law we were looking for at 1646.

The MOA archive contains a large number of 19th century periodicals, which were full of articles about history. These, of course, are secondary sources, but I find them incredibly useful for finding clues that lead to the primary sources.

There are two MOA archives, one at Cornell and one at the University of Michigan. It's the University of Michigan one that I've found most useful for finding articles on the type of stuff people on this blog would be looking for. The LOC American Memory archive now includes the MOA periodical collection, but the search feature on the LOC site sucks. The search feature on the MOA site is much, much better.

Here's the link to the MOA search page:
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moagrp/

IntelligentDecline said...

Chris, I greatly appreciate any links to publicly accessible "deep web" collections. The Univ. of Michigan Making of America (MOA) site has been down all day. It may be caused by a Java Server problem, and isn't considered to be important enough to pay IT overtime to get it fixed over the weekend. The current economy has squeezed University budgets very hard. I did learn about OISter today, while browsing the Univ. of Mich. library website though, and that was a great find.

Also, I Just posted at the ID blogger acccount, a list of links to all 10 volumes of:
Adams, John, and Charles Francis Adams. 1850. The Works of John Adams, second President of the United States: with a life of the author, notes and illustrations. Boston: Little, Brown.

(Note for purists: I have not attmpted to post links to the same editions in my Google Books collections links, and instead have generally prioritized clean scans. The search functionality at Google Books is still somewhat primitive, the quality of metadata varies greatly from text to text, and it can take several different search cycles to find complete collections.)

Tom Van Dyke said...

Thx, Chris and ID.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/

has been very useful for me. Not as comprehensive as other sites, but the search function works great.

Chris Rodda said...

Liberty Fund is great. In addition to using their website, I've bought a number of their books. I'm one of those weird people who still prefers holding an actual book in my hands to the internet. They've published a lot of great reprints of books, and their prices are incredibly low because they're a non-profit.

IntelligentDecline said...

Liberty Fund is a "deep web" site. I have it bookmarked, and am familiar with it.

Chris, I agree with your assessment about reading whole texts electronically, but might have substantially less easy access to extensive research libraries than you, because of my location. I am aware of some authorship and affiliations of yours. This is resultant from my own past personal research into the origination of specious Founder Quotations, which too many times ended at Barton's published works, and because I'm am an irregular visitor/poster at Ed Brayton's "Dispatches from the Culture Wars" blog (different pseudo). The local University had a good library, but is not a first-tier University, nor does it have a long history. Google Books provides me direct access to many texts in the public domain that interest me, and would never be able to read without it.

Several months ago I emailed you once (almost certain, but may have been only intended), about a bit of personal research just published on the web, that you might have a use for. If I did, it is certain that you did not respond, but that's not important, as it's common for me to email persons out of the blue, and is not done with an expectation it will be replied too. Once I become a little more familiar round this here blog, there will probably be occasional links offered to some relevant personally hosted web content.

Chris Rodda said...

Hey ID...

Never take it personally if I don't respond to an email. I actually do read all the stuff emailed to me from other people about their research. I just have a bad habit of saving the emails with all intentions of responding later, but then I get slammed with work and by the time I get back to the emails I wanted to respond to, so much time has elapsed (sometimes weeks) that it seems weird to respond.