Unitarianism and henry ware and jared sparks and constitution of 1780 and nonsubordination clause and declaration of rights

The only reason I am writing on this subject is that I started reading Edward White's biography of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and the first chapter is so inadequate in dealing with the deep history of religious issues in early 19th century MA that I decided I had to go sort things out for myself. That, ironically, is the virtue of a partially-bad chapter: you have to do what you really have to do anyway when you learn, which is to learn things for yourself. So, thank you, Professor White, for enhancing my learning.

Holmes and his father were Unitarians. I had, prior to today, known many things about the origins of Unitarianism, especially as it centered around Henry Ware's appointment to the Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard in 1805 and William Ellery Channing's throwing down the Unitarian gauntlet at Jared Sparks' ordination in Baltimore in 1819, but I really had never sorted out some difficult religious establishment issues in MA history culminating in the famous "Dedham decision" of 1820, which was seen as a triumph for the Unitarians over the Orthodox Congregationalists. Let this and the next two essays be my attempt to explain some of these issues. I found John Cushing's "Notes on Disestablishment in MA, 1780-1833" in the William & Mary Quarterly 26 (1969), 169-90, to be particularly helpful.

Religious Liberty in MA before Statehood

While MA's history with Europeans in control goes back to the early days of the 17th century, the significant date for understanding the "modern" approach to religion in the Bay Colony was 1692. In that year a new royal charter was granted to the Colony which assured religious liberty to all Protestant sects (Catholics were not so privileged). However, this liberty was not to be construed as tantamount to societal support. Each family was taxed to support the ministry of the "Standing Order"--i.e., the Congregational Church. The local minister was selected by an agreement of the parish and the Congregational church within the parish. A parish was the town considered as a religious society (thus a geographical concept) while the church was a collection of people who had made a profession of faith in Christ and covenanted to abide by the rules of the church. That is, membership in the parish consisted of many people who might not have been church members, while many church members (i.e., women) would not have been voting members in the parish. Yet, the tensions between church and parish were minimal and, if ever they clashed --possibly on the issue of pastoral selection--an ecclesiastical council helped iron out difficulties.

In 1727, for the first time, the General Court of MA allowed another Protestant group (Anglicans) to apply to the parish authorities so that their share of the ministry tax might support their own church. As mentioned, though there was religious liberty for Protestants prior to this, the religious tax went to support the Congregational Church. In the next year this privilege was extended to Baptists and Quakers, the other two Protestant denominations represented in MA. Yet, problems in the implementation of the law resulted in representatives of the latter groups having to present certificates from their pastors/religious leaders attesting to their good standing in the group in order to have their taxes defrayed to those churches. This situation was met with chagrin from the Congregationalists, who felt that money they had grown to expect was gradually being siphoned off from them in order to support dissenting denominations.

The MA Constitution of 1780

This unsatisfactory (to the Congregationalists) situation continued until the framing of the MA Constitution, adopted during the Revolutionary War. Ambiguities run through the religious clauses, with Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Declaration of Rights seemingly supporting the Standing Order while the rest of Article 3 supporting the dissenting churches. Articles 2 and 3 of the Declaration of Rights deal with issues of establishment and freedom of religion. Article 2 is derived from the language of the Charter of 1692:

"It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great creator and preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience."

A good freedom of conscience article, even if freedom doesn't reach as far as freedom not to believe.

But then, Article 3 contained a tortured collection of provisions in five paragraphs. Let's march through the paragraphs. The first, after a sort of preamble statement declaring that the happiness of people depends upon "piety, religion, and morality," which cannot be "generally diffused" without public worship of God and instruction in the aforementioned piety, religion and morality, states:

"Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies-politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of GOD, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily."

Important to note here is the legislative authorization to "require" towns to make provision, at their own expense, for worship and for payment of "public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality." Notoriously ambiguous is whether the towns are to make provision for one protestant teacher; or one per denomination; or several teachers. Courts could easily construe this paragraph, as they soon would, to be a unilateral declaration of support for the Standing Order. Unclear also is whether or not a teacher is an ordained minister whose ordination must be recognized under the Cambridge Platform of 1648 (an internal church document on ecclesiastical belief and government). The courts would also have sort this question out in the future.

The other paragraphs of Article 3 are briefer. The second authorizes the legislature to "enjoin" all subjects to attend the instruction of the "public teachers aforesaid," but with the proviso that attendance is conditioned upon whether the people "can conscientiously and conveniently attend." The third links us back to the first paragraph by providing that the several towns shall have "the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance." This heightens the interpretive issue in paragraph one, mentioned above. Paragraph 4 seems to clean up some unclarities in the first paragraph by providing that these monies paid for support of public worship may, if an individual require it, be "uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided that there be any on whose instruction he attends." This may sound clear, but payment may hinge on the town's recognizing the "legitimacy" of a teacher/minister's ordination and teaching. A parish/town may not feel it is obliged to recognized a "non-corporate" church or a non-regular ordination. Money not going to the support of these "outside" teachers will be given to the local parish. Finally, paragraph five is the "nonsubordination" clause, which provides that any group of Christians comporting themselves peaceably, shall be equally under the protection of the laws and shall not be subordinated to any other denomination.

The next essay shows how the courts construed some of these provisions.

1402