XI. The Fight against the Assessment Bill Continues; The Virginia Act for Religious Liberty, Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, Passes instead; Thomas Jefferson’s Unswerving Position on Religious Liberty, All Vestiges of the Establishment Removed


A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry



Jerald Finney
Copyright © March 5, 2018


Virginia Bill For Religious Freedom -Passed in 1786. Click above image to go to the online PDF.

The people were against the assessment bill, and the Presbyterians reversed their position, opposed the bill, and for the first time, on August 10, 1785, the whole Presbyterian body supported Jefferson’s “Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom,” “although that bill had been before the Legislature since June 1779.” The Baptists asked all counties which had not yet prepared a petition to do so and agreed to prepare a remonstrance and petition against the assessment. Thus the Presbyterians and Baptists stood together, but for different motives. Mr. Madison’s opinion was that the Presbyterians were “moved by either a fear of their laity or a jealousy of the Episcopalians. The mutual hatred of these sects has been much inflamed by the late act incorporating the latter…. Writings of Madison, I., 175.”[1]

Patrick Henry, the leading proponent of the assessment bill was elected governor, “depriving the bill of its ablest legislative leader.” The Memorial and Remonstrance had received wide distribution. At the next session, the General Assembly was flooded with petitions and memorials from all parts of the State, overwhelmingly against the bill. The bill was defeated by three votes.

On January 16, 1786, the Virginia Act for Religious Liberty, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, was passed instead. That bill provided for religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Click here to see the entire PDF of the Bill. It stated, in part:

  • “I. Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord of both body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do;
  • that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such, endeavoring to impose them on others hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;
  • that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, … that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than [on] our opinions in physics or geometry;
  • that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; …
  • that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with, or differ from his own;
  • that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt [open, or public] acts against peace and good order; …
  • “II. Be it enacted by the General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
  • “III. And though we well know that this assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to her own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet, as we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural right of mankind, and that if any act shall hereafter be passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural rights.”[2]

The act included three factors: church, state, and individual. It protected the individual from loss at the hands of the state incursion into his church affiliation, and implicitly banned church establishment. “It did not attempt to define the relations between Church and State except in terms of the individual.”[3]

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the above bill, never swerved from his devotion to the complete independence of church and state. He wrote:

  • “The care of every man’s soul belongs to himself. But what if he neglect the care of it? Well, what if he neglect the care of his health or estate, which more clearly relate to the state. Will the magistrate make a law that he shall not be poor or sick? Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. God himself will not save men against their wills.”[4]
  • “But our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God….
  • “Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.”[5]

The Baptists continued their struggle to remove all vestiges of the establishment until 1802 when the glebes were sold and all religious societies were placed on equal footing before the law. The glebes were tracts of land and buildings built thereon for the accommodation of the minister and his family, all at the expense of the people within the parish. The Baptists fought to have the act incorporating the Episcopal church repealed. Reuben Ford and John Leland attended the first 1787 assembly meeting as agents in behalf of the Baptist General Committee.[6] On August 10, 1787, the act incorporating the Episcopal church was repealed, and until 2001—when Jerry Falwell and trustees of the Thomas Road Baptist Church, who were joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenged the Virginia Constitutional provision forbidding the incorporation of churches in federal district court—no church in Virginia could be incorporated.[7]

“The Baptists continued to memorialize the Legislature … and in 1799 that body passed an act entitled ‘An Act to Repeal Certain Acts, and to Declare the Construction of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution Concerning Religion,’ which act declared that no religious establishment had legally existed since the Commonwealth took the place of the regal government, repealed all laws giving to the Protestant Episcopal church any special privileges, and declared that ‘the act establishing religious freedom’ contains the true construction of the Bill of Rights and of the Constitution; but no order was given for the sale of the glebes.”[8]

As the Anglican establishment in Virginia yielded to pressure from Baptists [and to a much lesser extent Presbyterians] so that religious liberty was established in that state, “[t]he same pressure, reinforced by the conditions of frontier living, ended the Anglican establishment in the Carolinas and Georgia…. [T]he conditions which made establishment possible never existed in the states admitted after Vermont, nor in the territories with the exception of unique Utah.”[9]

By the time the Constitutional Convention convened in 1787, “three states, Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia granted full religious freedom. Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Maryland demanded in different degrees adherence to Christianity. New Jersey, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia demanded Protestantism.”[10]


Endnotes

[1] Lenni Brenner, editor, Jefferson and Madison on Separation of Church and State (Fort Lee, NJ: Barricade Books, Inc, 2004), p. 74 (letter dated August 20, 1785); Charles F. James, Documentary History of the Struggle for Religious Liberty in Virginia (Harrisonburg, VA.: Sprinkle Publications, 2007; First Published Lynchburg, VA.: J. P. Bell Company, 1900), p p. 134-139. Madison’s quote was from a letter to Mr. Jefferson.

[2] Cited in Norman Cousins, In God We Trust (Kingsport, Tennessee: Kingsport Press, Inc., 1958), pp. 125-127; see also, for an edited version, Living American Documents, Selected and edited by Isidore Starr, Lewis Paul Todd, and Merle Curti, (New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Burlingame: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1961), pp. 67-69.

[3] William H. Marnell, The First Amendment: Religious Freedom in America from Colonial Days to the School Prayer Controversy (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1964), pp. 96-97.

[4] Leo Pfeffer, Church, State, and Freedom (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1953), p. 94, citing Saul K. Padover, The Complete Jefferson (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943), p. 943. Keep in mind that although Pfeffer’s quotes of Jefferson and others often spoke of God and His sovereignty and freedom of conscience, Pfeffer passes over God as though he had not been mentioned.

[5] Pfeffer, citing Joseph L. Blau, Cornerstones of Religious Freedom in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1949), pp. 78-79.

[6] James, pp. 142-146.

[7] See Falwell v. Miller, 203 F. Supp. 2d 624 (W.D. Va. 2002).

[8] James, pp. 142-145.

[9] Marnell, p. 130.

[10] Ibid., p. 98.

VII. The Revival Dies; Separate Churches Die; Baptist Denomination Grows; Formation of the Warren Association in 1770 To Obtain Religious Liberty; Isaac Backus’s Efforts; An Appeal to the Public

 


A Publication of Churches Under Christ Ministry



Jerald Finney
Copyright © February 28, 2018


The revival died out almost as fast as it had appeared. Conversions became rare. People turned their attention to politics and controversy. The Separate churches and groups either died, or found their way into the Baptist camp. The Baptist denomination experienced an unprecedented growth. In 1740 no more than six Calvinistic Baptist churches existed in New England; but by 1800 there were more than 325 Baptist churches, most of them Calvinistic.[1]

The Warren Association, an association of Baptist churches, was formed in 1770. The main goal was to obtain religious liberty. This marked an important movement in the history of New England. An advertisement to all Baptists in New England was published requesting them to bring in exact accounts of their cases of persecution to the first annual meeting on September 11, 1770. The establishment feared the association and countered by dealing deceitfully with it and spreading lies about the association.[2]

Isaac Backus was the key member of the grievance committee of the Warren Association in September 1771. “[He soon] became the principal spokesman for the Baptists in their efforts to disestablish the Puritan churches. As such he did more than any other man to formulate and publicize the evangelical position on Church and State which was ultimately to prevail throughout America.”[3]

“An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty Against the Oppression of the Present Day” was the most important of the 37 tracts which Backus published during his lifetime and was central to the whole movement for separation of church and state in America. “It remains the best exposition of the 18th century pietistic concept of separation.”[4] In that tract, Backus argued, among other things:

  • “Basic to the Baptist position was the belief that all direct connections between the state and institutionalized religion must be broken in order that America might become a truly Christian country. Backus, like Jefferson and Madison, believed that ‘Truth is great and will prevail’—but by ‘Truth’ he meant the revealed doctrines of grace. His fundamental assumption was that ‘God has appointed two different kinds of government in the world which are different in their nature and ought never to be confounded together; one of which is called civil, the other ecclesiastical government.’ The two had been ‘confounded together’ by the Emperor Constantine and the Papacy and had ultimately been brought to New England by the Puritans ‘who had not taken up the cross so as to separate from the national church before they came away.’ A ‘Brief view of how civil and ecclesiastical affairs are blended together among us [in 1773] to the depriving of many of God’s people of that liberty of conscience which he [God] has given us’ utilized also the long–forgotten arguments of Roger Williams to defend the doctrines of separation.”[5]

Amidst persecutions of Baptists for failing to pay ministerial taxes, the association met on September 1773 and voted to refrain from giving any more certificates for tax exemption to pay the established minister. Backus listed the reasons why they would no longer obey “a law requiring annual certificates to the other denomination.” “Jefferson in his preamble to the Religious Liberty Act of Virginia and Madison in his famous Remonstrance of 1785 utilized essentially deistic arguments based upon reason and natural law. Backus’s arguments were pure pietism[:]”[6]

  • [To get a certificate] “implies an acknowledgement that religious rulers had a right to set one sect over another, which they did not have.” 2. Civil rulers have no right to impose religious taxes. 3. Such practice emboldens the “actors to assume God’s prerogative.” 4. For the church, which is presented as a chaste virgin to Christ, to place her trust and love upon others for temporal support is playing the harlot. 5. “[B]y the law of Christ every man is not only allowed but also required to judge for himself concerning the circumstantials as well as the essentials of religion, and to act according to the full persuasion of his own mind.” The practice tends to envy, hypocrisy, and confusion, and the ruin of civil society.[7]

An Appeal to the Public was pietistic America’s declaration of spiritual independence. Like Jefferson’s Declaration three years later, it contained a legal brief against a long train of abuses, a theoretical defense of principle, and a moral argument for civil disobedience.”[8] No answer was ever given to “An Appeal to the Public” which was published in Boston. The collection of taxes for support of the established religion continued with confiscation of property and imprisonments occurring.[9]


Endnotes

[1] William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Foundations in the South (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2006), p. 20.

[2] Isaac Backus, A History of New England With Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, Volume 2 (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, Previously published by Backus Historical Society, 1871), pp. 154-156; pp. 408-409 of A History of New England… gives more on the formation of the Warren Association.

[3] William G. McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Piestic Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), p. 109.

[4] Ibid., p. 123. The entire contents of the tract are in Isaac Backus on Church, State, and Calvinism, Pamphlets, 1754-1789, Edited by William G. McLoughlin (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 303-343.

[5] Ibid., pp. 123-124.

[6] Ibid., p. 126.

[7] Backus, Volume 2, p. 178, citing “An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty.”

[8] McLoughlin, Isaac Backus and the American Piestic Tradition, p. 127.

[9] Backus, Volume 2, pp. 178-182. Christian, Volume I, p. 388.

Reply to man who inquired regarding “the only reason [he has] been exploring actually starting a Church is to find a way to allow the tax deduction to donors,” “organizing and operation as a non-tax exempt church or a tax paying church,” “full blown” lone wolf “ministry,” etc.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO
LETTERS AND QUESTIONS FROM PASTORS AND OTHERS ANSWERED

My Reply follows the E-mail inquiry

E-mail Inquiry

On Friday, March 1, 2019, 12:35:10 PM CST, _______________________ <______________________> wrote:

Dear Brother Finney:

I have been studying the articles, opinions, legal issues, etc. on your website.  As far as planting a church is concerned, I agree with nearly everything you propose. If I should ultimately decide to form a church, I will be calling on you for assistance.  However, should a great number of churches begin to follow your lead, I would be surprised if the government did not seek another way to crush that movement.  Being right would not make much difference.

I did also find very interesting the articles regarding organizing and operation as a non-tax exempt church or a tax paying church.  If I read you correctly, short of forming as an NT church, a church, by choosing to initially organize or switch to a tax paying church status, avoids restrictions imposed by the government regarding campaigning or preaching against law or public policy.  Correct me if I am wrong.

The only thing I am not convinced of at this point is that any ministry should or must grow out of or be attached to the Church, NT church or not.  In my case, I believe I have been called to evangelism.  As I believe the Spirit stated it, “I mean a full blown ministry.  Don’t think small.”  The only reason I have been exploring actually starting a Church is to find a way to allow the tax deduction to donors, as a ministry outside a Church has to have 501(c)(3) exemption for that to be possible.   I have almost come to the conclusion to operate a a tax paying ministry to avoid government restrictions on what I can or cannot say.  If some potential donors won’t donate due to lack of a deduction, so be it.  I would not enter into this if I was interested in getting rich.  Even as a for profit, tax paying ministry, it would be my sincere intent to use nearly all income to the ministry for promoting the gospel and saving souls, which is as it should be.

Oh.  I see I left out my main complaints with most Churches in general:  They don’t teach the full Gospel.  They use watered down translations/versions of the Bible.  They often speak against listening to anyone that might be preaching on TV.  Although I certainly do not accept all that may be heard there, I have found that some on TV actually teach more of the KJB than I ever heard in Church.  At this point, I wonder how many other poor slobs have been shorted on the truth of the full Gospel.

I know you are a busy man, Sir, but if you find the time, any comment from you would be valued.

Thank you.
_______________________


My reply

Jerald Finney jerald.finney@sbcglobal.net To: ___________________ Mar 2 at 12:30 PM

Dear __________________________________,

I could write many pages or even a book addressing your e-mail. I will briefly but humbly and in love answer some of the matters raised in your e-mail. “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful” (Proverbs 27.6).

Let me just say a few relevant things. The purpose of this ministry is to help otherwise properly ordered churches (according to the KJB) organize according to New Testament church doctrine, no matter what positions civil government or church/state establishment takes on the matter. Fortunately, churches in America can organize according to Bible principles without persecution. This is because of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and corresponding state constitutional provisions. Of course we can see the writing on the wall – the day will come when Christ’s remnant churches in America will have no choice but to go underground.

There is no such thing as tax paying status for a church. A New Testament church (a First Amendment church) is non-taxable. A 501c3 or 508 church is tax exempt. I have explained this in online essays and books. I do not have time to explain it in this e-mail. The real reason churches seek tax exempt status is so that contributions are tax deductible. This means that people give for a tax deduction, not because they love the Lord, the latter being the only reason God will honor anything one gives.

First Amendment churches are non-taxable and submit themselves to no federal government rules (that is, if they are not incorporated under state law or have become a type of legal entity other than a corporation). Churches are not businesses. Unlike churches, businesses are not protected by the First Amendment. The only way that a church can become taxable is for the government to pass a law stating that churches are taxable. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from passing any such law.

The First Amendment states: “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof.” Nonetheless, the federal government passed laws, Sections 501(c)(3) and 508 of the Internal Revenue Code which apply not only to non-church organizations but which also “respecting an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Churches can choose to apply for 501(c)(3) status or claim 508 status, but they are not required to do so because of the First Amendment. If they choose to do so, they submit to the Internal Revenue Service rules that come with 501(c)(3) and 508 status.

I would also give conclusory answers to some other issues you raised that can be verified with a lengthy, Holy Spirit led KJB New Testament study:

  • God ordained His churches, not ministries outside His churches. Ministry is to be under the authority of a visible New Testament ordered church under Christ and Christ alone, not government (or any other entity) or Christ and another entity. Lone wolf ministries are not in God’s perfect will. I understand from experience that the Holy Spirit may call a church member to initiate a ministry which the church will not support since most pastors and churches are locked into their traditions of supporting only certain ministries; most restrict the working of the Spirit. Most do not understand that the Holy Spirit lives in, comforts, instructs, and directs every believer according to his gift(s) and calling. In that case, the member may have no other choice but to go it alone.
  • The New Testament principle and model for an evangelist is for him to be ordained and sent out from a local New Testament church.
  • God has principles for His churches which you do  not understand, as proven by your e-mail.
  • You wish to establish for an extra-biblical organization which will ultimately do much harm to the cause of Christ.

Question: Where did the Holy Spirit state:

“”I mean a full blown ministry.  Don’t think small.”?

What do you mean by small? A Bible principle is:

“Little is much when God is in it. Much is Satanic when God is not in it.” God’s Word makes clear that few enter God’s gate (the narrow way) and many enter Satan’s ways (the broad way). For example, mega churches think big in the worldly fleshly sense but minimize or eliminate the eternal and spiritual because doing otherwise means persecution or rejection by the multitudes of lost people and spiritual babies who fill their coliseums and contribute to their temporal earthly goals and ambitions.

I agree with you that few, if any, churches preach the whole Gospel. Even relatively good pastors fear touching some essential doctrines including the doctrines of church, government, and separation of church and state. Many are heretical. Most are apostate. They are not churches under Christ. They are not Christ’s churches.

Believers should proceed in knowledge, understanding and wisdom. One can start a church, but he cannot start a church under Christ outside His guidelines. Christ’s churches are built by Him and are under Him in all things. He has an order for church planting. Any church started, organized, and operated outside His plan is not His church. It may be a church (an ekklesia, an assembly of people) but it is not His church.

God bless.
Brother Jerald Finney