Posted on 07/07/2008 11:08:59 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Americans had won the war with England, written a Constitution under which they would be governed and eleven states had approved it. Virginia and New York approved it with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added. The Baptists in those states were the major promoters of a Bill of Rights to guarantee them and others added protection that they believed was missing from the Constitution.
The two recalcitrant states were North Caroline and Rhode Island who rejected the Constitution. In fact, neither state joined the Union until the new government was in operation (under the new Constitution). It took threats from Congress (that the two states would be treated as foreign nations and forced to pay duty on trade items) that made them “see the light” and brought them into the Union.
This young Republic was small with fewer than four million souls, 95 percent of whom lived on farms. America stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River and from Canada to Florida. We weren’t an awesome power yet, but we had made a believer out of King George III who was still licking his wounds, and trying to pay his war bills.
In keeping with various states’ desires and demands, the Bill of Rights was finally added to the Constitution, and therein lies an exciting tale. The fact is, we would not have the First Amendment (and probably the other nine) if it were not for the Baptists, especially those in Virginia and Massachusetts.
Thomas Jefferson prepared his Act for Religious Freedom which passed the Virginia General Assembly in 1786 and the Establishment fell! The Church of England lost its stranglehold on Virginia. Dr. F. L. Hawks, the historian of the Episcopal Church (Church of England) wrote in his Ecclesiastical Contributions: “The Baptists were the principal promoters of this work, and in truth aided more than any other denomination in its accomplishment.” Not bad when your “enemy” gives you credit for religious freedom!
Virginia Baptists sent Pastor John Leland to New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and other states to preach religious liberty and raise support for the Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution. Madison was a strong proponent of the Constitution but was not convinced of the need for a Bill of Rights until confronted by the Virginia Baptists. He was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives after pledging to support the Baptist position.
After Madison’s election, he suggested that the Baptists consult President Washington on their chief concern, the need for the Bill of Rights. The Baptists met in Richmond on August 8, 1789 and sent Washington a lengthy commendation for his service and a request for support of their cause.
They wrote in part: “When the Constitution first made its appearance in Virginia, we, as a society, feared that the liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured. Perhaps our jealousies were heightened by the usage we received in Virginia, under the regal government, when mobs, fines, bonds and prisons were our frequent repast….” (Notice that they said that liberty of conscience was more important than their property or life. It is my opinion that few Baptists and few Christians believe that today.)
President Washington sent a gracious reply saying: “I have often expressed my sentiments that any man, conducting himself as a good citizen and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” He then promised his “endeavors to advance their prosperity.”
James Madison submitted twelve Constitutional amendments to the Congress about a month after Washington promised his help to the Baptists. Two amendments were rejected but the ten original amendments were approved on September 23, 1789 after much opposition and were then submitted to the states for ratification.
The eleventh state had approved them by December 15, 1791 and America became the most unique nation on the face of the earth! We became a nation that guaranteed the people their God-given rights and limited the power of government, and we did it with a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.
When Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, etc., pass a Baptist church, they should doff their hats in respect and whisper a word of thanks for the freedom everyone is guaranteed because of our Baptist forefathers. Even non-Baptists agree that the Bill of Rights was a fantastic achievement in the annals of government.
Cathcart tells us in his Centennial Offering that “Denominationally, no community asked for this change in the Constitution but the Baptists….The Baptists asked for it through Washington; the request commended itself to his judgment and to the generous soul of Madison; and to the Baptists, beyond a doubt, belongs the glory of engrafting its best articles on the noblest Constitution ever framed for the government of mankind.”
Bacon, in A History of American Christianity, wrote of the Baptists: “….that we are chiefly indebted for the final triumph, in this country, of that principle of the separation of church and state, which is one of the largest contributions of the New World to civilization….” High praise indeed and well deserved.
The smallest Baptist church in America can swell with justified pride and appreciation of Baptist forefathers who believed in personal liberty for everyone–even the right to be wrong!
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and the United States of America became the first country in the world to guarantee absolute religious freedom for its citizens.
Of course now, the first Admendment means you are free to practice your religion in the privacy of your bedroom and are free to practive your sexual immorality in public.
Talk about slathering it on with a trowel.
As if Methodists, Presbyterians and Catholics weren't just as involved in the fight for freedom of religion as Baptists were.
bookmark
North Carolina did not "refuse to ratify." It adjourned its ratification convention until the Bill of Rights had been proposed. Then, its convention reconvened, and voted yes.
Rhode Island, then in the grip of the Levelers. holding power with semi-annual elections (yes, twice a year) refused to appoint delegates to go to Philadelphia. Then, they refused to elect a ratification convention. Finally, threatened with "taxes" on their exports to and imports from the United States, they relented, and ratified.
I hate to see sloppy work concerning the Constitution.
John / Billybob
what a load of cr—!
“When Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, etc., pass a Baptist church, they should doff their hats in respect and whisper a word of thanks for the freedom everyone is guaranteed because of our Baptist forefathers...”
Yes, these denominations and many others were involved in the fight for freedom of religion. All wanted religious liberty for themselves, many were willing to extend this freedom to other like denominations and a few wished to see it extended to all Christian denominations. Only a couple wanted to see freedom of religion extended to all religions. But only the Baptists held total religious liberty as doctrine.
If you look at the first constitutions of the states, you will see that most states favored one religion over another. This was done through oaths of office, declarations of official religions and various other means. This is not so unusual when you consider at the the time in most all countries church and state were intertwined to some degree.
The majority of denominations were happy with this arrangement so long as they had a slice of the American pie and could freely practice their religion in one or more of the thirteen states. But extending freedom of Religion to all religions came close or was considered heretical by many of these denominations. Had Rhode Island and North Carolina (at the urging of Baptists) not held out or delayed signing the constitution until their concerns for religious liberty were addressed, the nations religious landscape would have been very different.
B - Bible as the Sole Authority
A - Autonomy of the Local Church
P - Priesthood of Every Believer
T - Two Scriptural Offices, the Pastor and the Deacon
I - Immersion Baptism
S - Separation of Church and State
T - Two Scriptural Ordinances, Baptism and the Lord's Supper
Religious liberty was key to the early Baptists and even today 'separation of church and state' can be found in many of the Baptist churches' statements of faith.
I guess it’s technically true that the United States extended to the Mississippi since Kentucky was added in 1792 and Tennessee in 1796. Florida wasn’t ceded to the United States until 1819.
It was Jefferson’s opinion that Rhode Island would eventually be annexed by Connecticut - he thought that Connecticut didn’t have enough good ports and that Rhode Island was too small to be a state.
It was not intended to be historical instead the anagram was to illustrated what followed "even today 'separation of church and state' can be found in many of the Baptist churches' statements of faith."
and your historical claims are distorted.
I wasn't writing a history book and while I did use generalizations for brevity it was not a distortion.
In the Treaty of Paris (1783), England relinquished the Ohio Country to the United States. This extended our western border to the Mississippi. The Confederation Congress implemented the Ordinance of 1784 and the Land Ordinance of 1785 which called for the land north of the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River to be divided into ten separate states and establish how the government would distribute the land and how the territory would be settled.
This separation doctrine is nowhere to be found in either of the London Baptist Confessions or in the Westminster Confession that many Baptist confessional statements are adaptations of.
I wasn't writing a history book and while I did use generalizations for brevity it was not a distortion.
Your argument is that Baptists in Rhode Island and North Carolina were the parties that were instrumental in the passage of the Bill of Rights - a Bill of Rights which your cited source says were passed against "much opposition."
In reality plenty of Americans from all states and denominations wanted the First Amendment in the Constitution.
RI and NC had a number of reasons besides the Bill of Rights to hang back from ratification as long as they did. Both ratified well before the Bill of Rights were even voted on in Congress.
The Bill of Rights met no significant opposition in Congress and was passed the day after it was proposed.
The Baptists do not have a simon pure record in colonial history as regards religious freedom either.
The Catholics of Maryland extended religious freedom to all Christians just a few years after the Baptists of RI extended religious freedom to all Rhode Islanders.
However, in 1652 the Congregationalists and Baptists of Maryland, having grown to a majority thanks to the tolerance of the original Catholic colonists, reversed the religious freedom of Maryland and made Reformed Christianity the only official religion of the colony.
The fact is that each major denomination in colonial America came to realize that religious freedom was best for all Americans. This realization was not the result of Baptist preaching - which was notoriously inconsistent on the topic - but to the experience of life in multi-denominational communities and a horror of the confessional wars of Europe.
No, they do not. To include such a thing as separation of church and state would only invite more prosecution for Baptists in England where the Anglican church held much power.
Your argument is that Baptists in Rhode Island and North Carolina were the parties that were instrumental in the passage of the Bill of Rights - a Bill of Rights which your cited source says were passed against "much opposition."
My argument is that Baptists were the protagonists of religious liberty for everyone. There was much opposition for all of the components of the Bill of Rights. Most of them, including freedom of religion were put forth to be included in the constitution during Constitutional Convention, but were soundly defeated.
RI and NC had a number of reasons besides the Bill of Rights to hang back from ratification as long as they did. Both ratified well before the Bill of Rights were even voted on in Congress.
RI and NC were not the only holdouts they were just the last of the holdouts. Several states refused to ratify the constitution without a bill of rights. These states demanded a bill of rights as their price of moderating their heated opposition to its adoption. To win ratification, Madison promised to propose a bill of rights in the First Congress. The bill of rights was a compromise to insure ratification of the constitution by those states seeking greater protections from the federal government.
However, in 1652 the Congregationalists and Baptists of Maryland, having grown to a majority thanks to the tolerance of the original Catholic colonists, reversed the religious freedom of Maryland and made Reformed Christianity the only official religion of the colony.
This was quite a feat for Baptists considering the first Baptist church in Maryland wasn't even established until 1701 and the first Baptist church built there in 1742. This is not only a distortion of historical facts, it also slanders Baptists undeservedly.
In Rhode Island there was religious freedom for all, in Maryland toleration for all Christians. The toleration act was a far cry from freedom of religion, but a step in the right direction.
The First London Baptist Confession was written when anti-Anglican forces held the city and the Baptist star was in the ascendant.
The Second London Baptist Confession was written afetr the passage of The Act Of Toleration (by an Anglican parliament) which guaranteed freedom of religion to Baptists in England.Most of them, including freedom of religion were put forth to be included in the constitution during Constitutional Convention, but were soundly defeated
False.
the first Baptist church in Maryland wasn't even established until 1701
Any student of the Baptist movement knows that until 1689 the distinctions between Baptists/Puritans/Congregationalists were relatively fluid.
It was the Second London Baptist Confession that drew the hard lines between Westminster Congregationalism and Baptist Confessionalism.
It was at this point - the years 1690-1700 - that congregations began to separate out into "Particular Baptist" organizations and it wasn't until 1707 and the Philadelphia Baptist revival that this distinction became a hard and fast one in America.
There were plenty of Marylanders in the 1650s who could be characterized as adherents of the 1644 Confession.
It all depends on which ancestors a modern Baptist chooses to acknowledge and which he doesn't.
1701 is an arbitrary date.
That's exactly what I posted.
It was the Second London Baptist Confession that drew the hard lines between Westminster Congregationalism and Baptist Confessionalism.
It was at this point - the years 1690-1700 - that congregations began to separate out into "Particular Baptist" organizations and it wasn't until 1707 and the Philadelphia Baptist revival that this distinction became a hard and fast one in America.
There were plenty of Marylanders in the 1650s who could be characterized as adherents of the 1644 Confession.
It all depends on which ancestors a modern Baptist chooses to acknowledge and which he doesn't.
To put this in fewer words: some had Baptists tendencies and some, in the future, would evolve into Baptists.
Yet knowing this, you still chose to lay the blame squarely on the shoulders of Congregationalists and Baptists, not pre Baptists and not those that are like Baptists. Interesting that you would paint Baptists with such a broad brush when it is detrimental, but deny any paint at all when it is beneficial.
If one is going to lay claim to Roger Williams as a Baptist forebear, one must also acknowledge the Baptist confessors of Maryland.
One cannot pick and choose which supporters of the 1644 Confession one wants to be associated with and which ones one doesn't want to be associated with.
One must also recognize the thinking which motivated Williams to establish religious freedom.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.