THE SETTLERS OF NEW ENGLAND. 507 which they were placed. The followers of John Robinson, who settled Plymouth, were Independents. Their cardinal principles were, first that the local Church is clothed with complete powers of self-government, in the sense that no Synod or Council has any jurisdiction over it; and secondly, that none are to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, except on the credible profession of inward piety; that is, that the Church should be composed of true believers only. The liberal and philosophical mind of Robinson had attained to principles which approach, though they do not reach, the modern doctrine of toleration and of the limited sphere of the State. He has sagacious observations on the inexpediency and mischievous consequences of coercion by the magistrate in matters of religion, and confutes the popular argument for it, which was founded on the example of the Hebrew kings. He shrewdly comments on the difference in the sentiment respecting toleration, which is felt by the adherents of a creed when they are in power, from that which they feel when they form an oppressed minority.1 The colony of Plymouth was honorably distinguished from the other New England governments — with the exception of Rhode Island — by a greater liberality in the treatment of religious dissent. The settlers of Massachusetts Bay were not Separatists, like the Leyden immigrants, who had preceded them; but still the settlers of Massachusetts, finding themselves on ground of their own, and at liberty to shape their polity to suit their preferences, established the system of Congregationalism, in full agreement with the Church constitution of Plymouth. But Massachusetts set up a sort of theocratical system, in which members of churches were endued with the exclusive privilege of holding civil offices and exercising the right of suffrage; in which, moreover, the civil authority was authorized and obliged to punish 1 Works of Robinson (Boston, 1851), i. 40. heresy and schism, and to secure uniformity in worship and in the public profession of religion. The same system was established in the colony of New Haven; but in Connecticut, civil rights were not thus limited to church members. The principle of the independence of the local Church as to government, one of the two cardinal elements of the creed of the Independents, was retained in the Congregational churches of New England, as far as the relation of one church to other churches is concerned. The office of other churches was limited to giving counsel. But the autonomy of the local Church was materially abridged in another direction, in the coercive power granted to the civil magistracy, and the intimate union of Church and State. Roger Williams brought forward the new doctrine as to the State, which limits the function of the magistrate to the cognizance of offenses against the second table of the law. This doctrine involves the toleration of all forms of religious belief and worship, as far as they do not directly disturb the peace of society, or impinge on the authority of the magistrate in his own proper sphere. The principle of religious liberty, which Williams asserted in Massachusetts, was incorporated in the government of the colony which he founded in Rhode Island, and is the principle to which the American systems of government have gradually conformed.1 In this country, nothing of the nature of an establishment now exists. But with regard to the relation of the civil authority to Christianity, a distinction is to be made between the Federal Government, and the several States, especially the older States, that compose the Republic. The General Government was created artificially, for certain purposes, and with a 1 In Maryland, founded by Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic (1632), although there was religious freedom for all "who believe in Christ," there was an establishment. Such a colony, subject to England, would have brought ruin on itself by attempting to persecute Protestants. But its professed principles were truly liberal for that age. See Bancroft, Hist. of the United States, i. 242, 254, Hildreth, Hist. of the United States, i. 348. THE CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES. 509 defined circle of powers. The National Constitution contains no explicit recognition of Christianity, and lends no special sanction to any form of religion. On the contrary, a general recognition of Christianity lingers in the constitutions of many of the older States, at least, and is implied in various statutes; so that Christianity must be considered, in some sense, a part of their public law. Both the Episcopal and the Presbyterian Churches, as organized in this country, modify respectively their early formularies, so that the control of the magistracy in respect to synods and ecclesiastical affairs generally, is left out; and the governing bodies in these denominations are free, of course, to exercise Church authority, independently of the State. The Roman Catholic Church, in the United States, is consistent with its dogmas and traditions in advocating the distinction between Church and State. So far, the American system may be, and is, approved and lauded by theologians of that body. They join with American Protestants in opposing religious establishments, such as exist in other Protestant countries. They do not, however, renounce the old doctrine of the subordination of the State to the Church, and of the authority of the latter in matters of civil government and legislation. So far from this, the right of the Roman Catholic Church to exercise this sort of control is frankly and boldly asserted.1 1 See, for example, the first article in "The Catholic World" for July, 1872. The writer says: "With the means of instant intelligent communication and rapid transportation, it is not an impossibility to hope that the head of the Church may again become the acknowledged head of the re-united family of Christian nations; the arbiter and judge between princes and peoples, between government and government, the exponent of the supreme justice and the highest law, in all important questions affecting the rights, the interests, and the welfare of communities and individuals." The right of the Church to regulate education and marriage is affirmed. "While the State has rights, she has them only in virtue and by permission of the superior authority, and that authority can only be expressed through the Church; that is, through the organic law, infallibly announced and unchangeably asserted, regardless of temporal consequences." This ideal supremacy of the Church, it is said, "it is within the power of the ballot, wielded by Catholic hands," to establish. CHAPTER XV. THE RELATION OF PROTESTANTISM TO CULTURE AND CIVILIZATION. In order to judge rightly of the tendencies of Protestantism in relation to culture and civilization, or to compare Protestantism, in this respect, with the Church of Rome, something more is requisite than a bare enumeration of historical facts. Facts in this case can form the basis of induction, only so far as they are fairly traceable to the intrinsic character of the respective systems. It is the genius of the systems respectively, as it has revealed itself in their actual operation, which we have to investigate. Protestantism and the Church of Rome have stood face to face, now for more than three hundred years. We can look at the history and at the condition of the Protestant nations and of the Roman Catholic nations. The immediate impression made by a general comparison of this sort upon a candid observer is difficult to be resisted. What this impression is, may be stated in the language of two modern English historians, who at least are warped by no partisan attachment to the dogmatic system of the Protestant churches. Macaulay, while conceding that the Church of Rome conferred great benefits on society in the Middle Ages, by instructing the ignorant, by curbing the passions of tyrannical civil rulers, and by affording protection to their subjects, places in strong contrast the influence of the Church of Rome during the last three centuries, when she has been struggling to per PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC NATIONS COMPARED. 511 petuate a sway which the developed intelligence of mankind had outgrown. "The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been turned by skill and industry into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation; the elevation of Holland, in spite of many natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes in Germany from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of civilization. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far behind them the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity and enterprise. The French have doubtless shown an energy and an intelligence which, even when misdirected, have justly entitled them to be called a great people. But this apparent exception, when examined, will be found to confirm the rule; for in no country that is called Roman Catholic has the Roman Catholic Church during several generations, possessed so little authority as in France." Carlyle, in his quaint 1 History of England (Harpers' ed.), i. 45. |