Intolerance6: Protestants in America; Pope's Church in Europe

      This continues from Part 5 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — This segment concludes the main essay which concentrated on intolerance among so-called Protestants in the America. Lindemann then begins his supplemental presentation of several examples and testimonies of religious intolerance caused by the Pope's Church in Europe.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

These short contributions to the ecclesiastical history of America, which can still be completed by many others, certainly show most clearly how in earlier years religious intolerance ruled and tyrannized even in this country. Only our present Constitution put an end to this legislature in church matters, to the abominable oppression of consciences, and to the manifold punishments for the sake of faith! Only a blind zealot for his supposedly "true" religion can wish for those times to return. Praise be to God for the freedom He has given us; may He preserve it for us in grace and make us vigilant and courageous so that we do not let ourselves be robbed of it or carelessly lose it. 

"A bishop, as a bishop, has no power to interpret to his churches some statute or ceremony, without the consent of the churches in plain words, or by implication. Because the church is free and a ruler (woman ruler), and the bishops may not rule over the faith of the churches, nor complain and harass them against their will. For they are only servants and stewards, not masters of the churches. But if the church, as one body, agrees with the bishop, they may impose upon each other what they will, if only godliness does not suffer thereby; they may also again leave such things as they please."     (Luther.) <p. 33> 

————————

On  the temporal power of the popes 

already [Pope] Nicholas I (858-867) said: "The Roman See judges which belong to the godless princes and which do not." (Protest. Resp., p. 259.)

[Pope] Gregory VII (1073-1085) declared: "Without the confirmation of the Pope, no civil and no canonical (ecclesiastical) code has validity. The pope alone has the right to use the imperial ornaments, to him alone are the secular princes indebted to kiss the feet, and to him alone is the dispensation of emperors and kings from their dignity, and the absolving of subjects from the oath they have taken." (Protest. Resp., p. 259.)

The Jesuit Antonius Santarelli (1625) says: "The pope may appoint guardians for princes, punish them, and depose them himself for heresy, incapacity, negligence, or any other cause. He can not only do everything that the temporal princes can do, but also has the power to dispose of their states in favor of others." (Protest. Reply, p. 259.)

And the Papist Staudenmaier says: "Emperors, kings, and princes are only through the Pope, because he is of God. Princes, therefore, must obey, everything must obey, because the pope is in God's stead." (Protest. Resp., p. 260.) 

In the so-called Lord’s Supper Bull [“Nachtmahlsbulle” or In Coena Domini, “] (which six popes have so perfected that it appears a veritable spawn of hell) article 5 curses all those princes "who impose and increase new levies in their countries, except in such cases as are granted them by special permission of the apostolic see." (Protest. Resp., p. 260.)

Still in recent times a Catholic wrote: 

"In order to bend the peoples under the yoke of one faith, the Papacy is suppressing their unity and independence in worldly matters. It entertained the Reaction of the Vendee (in France), originated the Civil War in Spain [ref. Carlist Wars], hatched the Sonderbund in Switzerland, incited the Rhineland against Prussia, the Irish against England, the Catholics of Baden against its… government [Kulturkampf], and tore Austria into disastrous parties by the Concordat [of 1855]."

On the Jesuits

already in 1611 the learned Servite monk Paolo Sarpi said: "Nothing is more important than to destroy the reputation of the Jesuits. If they are overthrown, Rome will fall, and if Rome is lost, religion will renew itself" (because then the Bible will be read and the Gospel preached).

Peter the Great (Emperor of Russia from 1682 to 1725) spoke of the same order: "I know that the Jesuits use religion only for their personal advantage, that this appearance of piety conceals an intemperate ambition and an intricate engine for intrigues, the game of which is only to increase their wealth and to establish or fortify the rule of the pope, or rather their own, in all the states of Europe; — that their schools are but the instruments of tyranny, — that they are too great enemies to tranquility to be hoped that they would not interfere in the affairs of my empire. I marvel that there are still courts in Europe whose eyes are not opened to them and to their deceitful conduct." 

And Joseph II (Emperor of Germany from 1765 to 1790) said of this godless mob in July, 1773: "The Jesuits brought upon Germany the calamity of the Thirty Years' War, — by their principles snatched the throne and life from Henry IV (of France); they were the authors of the appalling revocation of the Edict of Nantes."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 7  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It would seem that many in the LCMS and even the Wisconsin Synod should listen to the testimonies above who warned against blindness of the Jesuits' "deceitful conduct." — In the next Part 7 we see the intolerance in Europe spill over to America.

Intolerance5: Against Quakers, "witches"

      This continues from Part 4 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — In this segment, the Quakers are first covered, then the so-called "witches" among the Puritans of Massachusetts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

On July 11, 1656, two Quaker women, Anna Austin and Mary Fisher, came to Boston to preach, as they themselves confessed, their new doctrine. They were immediately imprisoned and their books were burned. Only after they had languished in prison for five weeks were they taken across the border. 

Sultan Mehmed IV; Mary Fisher before him

Mary Fisher then traveled to Adrianople and had an interview with the Grand Duke of the Turks [Sultan Mehmed IV]. Eight other Quakers who arrived [in Massachusetts] soon after were treated in the same way. *) The commissioners, at present assembled at Boston, recommended to all the New England colonies to prevent, by laws, the immigration of Quakers and other public heretics, and, if they should yet be recruited, to arrest and remove them. Laws to this effect were passed; only not in Rhode Island, which in its written answer rather stated that the Quakers would soon calm down, if one would only stop persecuting them; — that they had at first caused disturbances there, too, but now blasphemed Rhode Island as a country that gave them no opportunity to prove their "patient suffering". († Grahame's Hist. p. 240)

______________

*) Among them was a certain Marie Clarke, the wife of a tailor in London, who had left her husband and six children to carry to New England a message "which," as she asserted in her rapture, "she had received from heaven." (Grahame's Hist. p. 240.)

In Massachusetts it was forbidden, under severe penalty, to bring a Quaker into the country or to harbor him. If one of this "accursed sect" was found within the colony, he was to have one ear cut off; if he returned again, he was to lose the other; and if he was found a third time, his tongue was to be pierced with a red-hot iron. It really happened to three Quaker preachers that each of them had an ear cut off.

But it was just such laws that attracted the Quakers to Massachusetts; they wanted thereby to show their zeal, their courage of faith, and probably also to obtain the crown of martyrdom. They did not respect fines, public flogging and other torments. At last, the authorities went so far as to threaten with death those who would allow themselves to be caught for the second time <p. 32> within the borders of the colony. *) This did not help either!

_____________

*) This law, at first rejected by the representatives, at last passed by a majority of one vote at the close of 1659. (Grahame's Hist. p. 241.)

 

William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson were the first to be hanged because they were Quakers and would not shun the land. Mary Dyer stood under the gallows and rejoiced to be allowed to die for the sake of her faith. She was "pardoned" for this time, however, and taken across the border. Soon, however, "the spirit drove her back" and now she too was hanged. Before she died, she testified with great earnestness that she was suffering for the sake of her conscience. Not long after this William Leddra was also killed; but now the people began to murmur at such cruelties.

Wenlock Christison was also to die. But he told his judges that they had no right to kill him, and that by doing so they had transgressed the laws of England, for which reason they would have to expect temporal and eternal punishment. "And," said he at last, "it is all in vain, for everyone you kill there come five others. In my stead shall be ten, that ye shall have plague upon plague; that is your portion, for the wicked have no peace." Be it that the conscience of the authorities awoke, or that fear took possession of them, they let Christison out of prison with twenty-seven others, and contented themselves with having a man and a woman whipped through the streets. This remained the punishment of discovered Quakers for the next period, until finally King Charles II interceded for them and forbade further persecutions.

Christians of all denominations were tolerated in Rhode Island; only "Papists" were not allowed to be seen there. Cotton Mather therefore said (1655): "The colony of Rhode Island is a mixture of Antinomians, Fatalists, Anabaptists, Arminians, Socinians, Quakers, and everything but Romanists and true Christians; bona terra, mala gens (i.e. good land, bad people)." — They only tolerated preachers who wanted to work "for nothing"; they did not think much of "clergymen" at all; but young and old are said to have read the Bible diligently.

In order to sufficiently characterize the intolerant spirit of those Puritans in Massachusetts, it must also be mentioned that in 1692 various "witches" were found, forced to confess their sacrilege, and finally hanged. About fifty had to plead "guilty"; twenty were actually killed. One official, who had refused to arrest the accused at the very beginning of these atrocities, was himself seized and executed. The Rev. [George] Burroughs, who likewise rebuked the disgraceful proceedings, had to die, like the "witches," on the gallows. An old man who did not want to defend himself against the accusation of witchcraft, because he saw that every interrogation would end in condemnation anyway, was strangled in a barbaric way. 

The real author and emphatic promoter of these atrocities was the old "king's servant" Rev. Cotton Mather. When the legislature assembled in October, 1692, many petitions were presented to it for protection against the witch trials. This Mather feared, and therefore wrote a book ("The Wonders of the Invisible World"), in which he sought to prove that not only did the heinous sin of witchcraft exist among the people, but that the proper means had hitherto been taken to eradicate it. The legislature, however, abolished the special court which had conducted these witch trials, and the people further did not permit "witches" to be tried in the ordinary courts. Many of those who had acted in this terrible history later confessed their wrong; but Mather defended his conduct to the death. —

Even before the Revolutionary War, the Episcopalians in Massachusetts had been released from the maintenance of Congregationalist churches. Since they were scattered throughout the colony, they were allowed to form "poll-parishes," i.e., congregations consisting of scattered individuals who were not bounded by any geographical line. Only they and the Congregationalist congregations were considered rightfully existing corporations, and as late as 1811, the Massachusetts courts ruled that no one could pay the church tax required of him by law to any church other than an incorporated congregation. It was not until 1823 that these laws were completely repealed, and since then written certification that one belonged to any church was sufficient to be exempt from the support of the parochial church. But whoever could not produce such a certificate was still considered later as belonging to the Congregationalist congregation and therefore had to pay his church dues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 6  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

      The enemies of Christianity are quick to blame it for the wrongs of the famous witch trials of Salem, Massachusetts. But their condemnation means nothing compared to Lindemann's Christian judgment of these wrongs, that they were un-Christian to begin with and so cannot be held against the Christian faith. — Compared to the other colonies, Rhode Island was tolerant, but even that colony did not allow Papists. — It was notable in my research that no other modern histories mention what Lindemann reported, that the Quakers "blasphemed Rhode Island as a country that gave them no opportunity to prove their 'patient suffering.'"  Perhaps not all Quakers exhibited as much "patient suffering" as others. — In the next Part 6…

Intolerance4: Massachusetts Puritans; Anne Hutchinson – remarkable woman

      This continues from Part 3 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — The famous Puritan Roger Williams is introduced, then later a Puritan woman Anne Hutchinson, who Lindemann calls an ________ (read his text and footnote highlighted in green below). The bolding and underlining are Lindemann's emphasis.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann] 

In no other colony did greater religious intolerance prevail than in Massachusetts, where the union of church and state brought forth such “glorious (i.e., unfortunate) fruits”. This was early experienced by Roger Williams, who came to America in 1631. He had studied theology in England, and now maintained: "that the only duty of the human legislator is to regulate the conduct of the citizen against his fellow-citizens, — that God alone is the legislator over the religious thoughts and feelings of the heart, and over the worship of God, and that in these things every man's own conscience can be the only human tribunal." He therefore consequently rejected all those State laws by which the inhabitants of the colony were compelled to attend the public worship of the ruling church, to participate in prescribed ceremonies, and to pay taxes for the maintenance of the churches and preachers. 

Williams, a young and fiery man, had soon won the hearts of the citizens of Salem; while the mass of the people, especially the rulers, were opposed to him. Those at Salem appointed him their pastor; but the government forbade him to officiate there. He went to Plymouth, ministered there for two years, and now went again to Salem, where he was again received with joy. For this the state authorities fined the town, and when Williams wrote to the Christian congregations in the colony and openly stated how wrong he and his congregation were being treated, the town was deprived of all its political liberties until it repented.

Now many of Williams' former friends turned away from him; even his wife disagreed with him. But he declared before his judges that he was willing, for the sake of his principles, not only to endure imprisonment, but also to suffer death. These, agitated by C. Mather, banished him from the colony, and it was only because winter was already near that they allowed him, at his request, to remain till spring. His supporters rallied around him again. This made the government anxious, and they <page 31> sent a ship to take him at once to England. But he had already escaped, and was now wandering through the woods and snow-fields in the middle of winter, until at last he found reception and shelter among the Wampanoags Indians, and with their assistance founded Providence, the first settlement in Rhode Island. 

Soon after, however, Massachusetts had another opportunity to prove its intolerance. Under the administration of the learned Governor Henry Vane (1636), a woman, Anne Hutchinson, arose, who, according to the unfortunate opinion of the time, "beguiled" and "troubled" the hearts of the citizens with "new doctrine." For she asserted "that righteousness comes from faith and not from works, — that the divine life is found inwardly in the soul, and does not consist in outward gifts." At first she asserted this only in meetings of women; later she testified to it also before men. Some applauded her, and even Vane was one of her followers; others rejected her teaching, calling it haughty and ungodly. 

John Cotton, one of the most important preachers of the Puritans († 1652), tried to reconcile both parties with each other and claimed: "Common to them would be the one great goal: to praise and exalt divine grace; only (!) in this they would differ, that one part would seek this grace in itself, in the work of sanctification; while the other part would see it outside of itself, in justification.) (* Grahame's Hist. p. 231) The latter was the quite correct opinion of Hutchinson, who, however, after the manner of passionate women, probably did not always speak with calmness and wisdom, and besides may have asserted many a falsehood.

The preachers were almost all against her, for they believed that Hutchinson was out to rebuke their own proceedings. At that time, the pastors had preached diligently and zealously about sanctification, and had been especially concerned to "sanctify their own customs. They now felt struck, and bade the woman be silent. Hutchinson, however, was not silent; a bitter dispute arose, in the course of which she asserted, "Good works are not necessary; not even as evidences of faith." To all appearances she said this only with a view to justification, and then she was quite right. †) But the pietistic and Methodist-minded, works-driving preachers put it down as an antinomian (rejecting the law and works) doctrine, an abominable heresy. Nevertheless, she retained many followers; the whole colony was divided in their opinion, and it seemed as if the "beautiful peace" they had enjoyed until then was gone forever.

_____________

†) So far as the scanty news indicates, she was an orthodox Lutheran, though not free from a challenging temper and a little much womanly vanity.

Governor Vane was convinced that Hutchinson had not been dealt with properly, and he therefore defended her. But he only succeeded in turning the apparently "pious zeal" of all true Puritans against him. He who had so lately been the darling of the people, — who, when he had just come into the country, had been elected chief magistrate, — he was now condemned as a "hypocrite" and a "heretic."

In order to settle the doctrinal dispute, a synod was held in 1637. The teachings of the "arch-heretic" were terribly unanimously condemned; she herself and her staunchest supporters were "banished" from the colony. Anna Hutchinson, the once celebrated woman, now excluded from the church and hounded out of the country, fled first to Rhode Island, later to a Dutch family in the colony of New York, where she met her death in a night raid by the Indians. Vane thought it best to return to England. — Such was the state of religious freedom in the New England colonies at that time. —

Especially the Papists and the Quakers were hated there. Both were not to be tolerated under any circumstances.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 5  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I was surprised that Lindemann would call the Puritan woman Hutchinson an "orthodox Lutheran", but he had good reason to, for she apparently taught a doctrine of Justification that matches the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification.  And that is why she faced such persecution from her own Puritans who held too much to "works-driving" for Justification, instead of "Grace Alone". Lindemann shows here that he was a true Lutheran and a faithful student of Walther. Of course modern history attempts to use Hutchinson to promote "women in ministry", but that was not Hutchinson's teaching that got her in such controversy. The Quaker women "ministers" did not teach like Anne Hutchinson on this Christian doctrine. — In the next Part 5 we read about those Quakers.

Intolerance3: Carolinas; New England colonies

      This continues from Part 2 (Table of Contents in Part 1) in a series presenting J. C. W. Lindemann's essay "Religious Intolerance in America." — We move from Maryland to the Carolinas, then to New England.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Religious Intolerance in America.

[by J. C. W. Lindemann]

 

In Carolina, where many Huguenots had settled since 1685, but whose civil equality was disputed by the inhabitants of English descent, Holy Communion was administered for the first time in 1696. The Puritans in New England had formed a society "for the advancement of religion in the Southern States," and had sent some preachers there. The younger John Cotton had been working in Charlestown since 1698, where he built a church and had many visitors. At the close of the 17th century there were only three churches in all of South Carolina (one for the Presbyterians, one for the Episcopalians, and one for the Quakers), all located in Charlestown. In North Carolina, the first churches were built in 1705 and 1706.

The Presbyterians had the most influence at that time, although all Christian believers were promised free exercise of religion. In Charlestown, the Episcopal minister Marshall had gained general respect. Joseph Blake, then governor, a church-minded man, applied to the legislature to secure to the same not only £50 annually, but a house and other income. Out of benevolence towards Marshall's person, all the non-Episcopalians also voted for this motion, <pg 30> which now became law, and the beginning of a series of ordinances in favor of the "Church of England."

As early as 1702 another law was published, requiring £30 from each district for the maintenance of a preacher; and in 1704 the Episcopal party in the Legislature succeeded in having two new laws passed, which had no other object than the complete suppression of all other Christian denominations, and the sole favoring of the "Church of England." By one of these laws all non-Episcopalians were excluded from all civil rights; and by the other an ecclesiastical court was instituted, before which all religious questions and grievances should be brought, and which should provide for the preservation of religious uniformity. (* Grahame's Hist. p. 282) 

These unjust and most foolish laws, however, not only made bad blood in Carolina, but excited a storm of indignation in England. Even the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel," which consisted entirely of Episcopalians, declared that they would not send any preachers to Carolina until these laws were repealed. When Lord Granville [John Carteret] lost his ministry in 1706, that carnal religious zeal subsided somewhat in Carolina also. True, the Presbyterians, Quakers, etc., did not then regain the complete equality with the Episcopalians which they had originally had; but they were still tolerated. In 1707, South Carolina was divided by a new law into ten parishes, and in each of them the building of a church was ordered, in which the service was to be held according to the manner of the "Church of England. The churches were soon built and in 1707 the "Society for the Propagation of the Gospel" sent six preachers to take the well-supplied parishes.

Much as in Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, so in New York, where the Episcopal Church had been the only one recognized by the state authorities, the connection between church and state was severed. 

Only much later did this also happen in New England. There, only the Congregationalists were legally recognized; all other church denominations were only tolerated and, compelled by state law, had to help maintain churches, schools, pastors and school teachers. It was not until 1816 that the Episcopalians, Baptists, Methodists, Universalists, etc. in Connecticut succeeded in obtaining a majority in the legislature, and in repealing those perverse laws that weighed on the conscience. Instead of this, it was enacted that every taxpayer should support the parochial church or any other, according to his own choice. — New Hampshire and Maine proceeded in the same way. Vermont had already left it up to each citizen to decide which church he wanted to support. 

Massachusetts was the last state to give complete freedom to the church. — The founders of this colony had desired and aimed at a perfect theocracy (rule of God), and had boasted of the "union" which existed between "the vineyard of the Lord" and "the state”. They had "rested under the shadow of both" with great satisfaction, and knew much to say of the supposed "glorious fruits" of that union. Cotton Mather, for example, one of the most famous preachers of the "Puritans," said, "The ministers of the gospel would have bad times if they had to rely for their provision on voluntary contributions from the people." And likewise he said, "The laws of the province (Mass.) have received royal sanction, and are therefore royal laws. By these laws it is enacted that public worship shall be held in every establishment; that the person chosen by a majority of the inhabitants shall be considered as the pastor of the place; and that the salary of the same, to be determined by all, shall be raised by an equally distributed tax. Consequently, the pastor chosen by the people is not only Christ's, but also the king's servant; his salary is levied in the king's name, and is the king's benefit to him." (* Baird, p. 227.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -  Continued in Part 4  - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More about the famous events in Massachusetts in the next Part 4.