Protestant Means Protestant

Or; the Independent Theological Judgment of the Magistrate in America

John Thaxter, Jr. (1755-1791) is not a household name. Born in Hingham, graduated Harvard in 1774, and was first cousin to Abigail Adams. He read law under John Adams, hence the correspondence on the case under review below, tutored the Adams sons, and was his personal secretary in Europe. Thereafter, he practiced law in Haverhill and, apparently, died young, not yet 40. There’s tons of correspondence between Thaxter and various of the Adams family.

In one letter to John Adams in 1785, Thaxter reports on a “trial” in the supreme judicial court convened in Ipswich. One John Murray (1741-1815), known as “Salvation Murray,” was the accused. Murray is, apparently, the founder of American Universalism. (That’s what you get with Anglican-Presbyterian mixed marriage parents, I guess.) Murray wasn’t just soteriologically heterodox, he also espoused a brand of theistic modalism.

Once an acolyte of George Whitefield, Murray was excommunicated for his heterodoxy, Murray spread his gospel up and down the eastern seaboard before finally landing in Gloucester, Massachusetts in 1774 and set up the first Universalist in America. (His legal case isn’t mentioned on his Wikipedia page. Universalist Church dissolved in the early 1960s. What’s the point if everyone is going to heaven? But an even stronger hydra emerged: Unitarian Universalist Church)

The issue was that Murray’s congregation had no charter to incorporate from the state of Massachusetts. It was, of course, permitted to meet as a voluntary society. The question was whether it qualified as a church for purposes of Article III of the 1789 Declaration of Rights whereby churches received tax benefits. Was an unrecognized, voluntary society qualified? For that matter, was Murray even ordained? Murray sued the First Parish of Gloucester for tax revenue. We might say, since Article III provided for the “maintenance” of “Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality,” the question was whether Murray was Protestant.

According to Thaxter, the jury ended up deciding in Murray’s favor even though the judges instructed them not to. (Another suit from the sheriff of Essex against Murray over his questionable ordination did not cut in Murray’s favor and he ended up fleeing the country in 1788 to avoid fines). In the meantime, the General Court (legislature) passed a law confirming the status of existing parishes but said nothing of new “voluntary” societies (i.e., unrecognized churches). The point, however, is not the results of Murray’s litigation, but what Thaxter relates regarding the authority and reasoning of the court, and arguments of the lawyers, in the initial contest with Gloucester.

Notably, two of the lawyers involved were big names: William Tudor and Theophilus Parsons, the former representing Murray—Rufus King had initially taken the case but moved to New York before trial—and the latter, who would end up on the bench of the same court, represented the town. (Parsons was the law tutor for John Quincy—the world was even smaller back then.)

After Tudor’s opening, Parsons turned to the real issue. He questioned Murray on his doctrine—it’s almost impossible to imagine such a scenario now. In response, Tudor tried to convince the court that doctrine was irrelevant since all sects in the commonwealth were generally agreed on religious tenets and only differed on church government and the sacraments.

“Parsons in reply argued, that this Action was grounded upon the third Article of the Bill of Rights, and that he had put that question to determine whether Mr. Murray was a protestant Teacher within the Sense of that Article—that mere profession was not sufficient in this Case.”

The court agreed. To succeed on an Article III claim, Murray had to prove he was, in fact, a Protestant teacher, for only Protestant teachers (i.e., preachers) could receive the benefit. Again, imagine if such cases were still ordinary in our day. What a time to be alive.

“After this determination, a number of questions were put to the Witness on the Stand, to wit, whether Mr. Murray did not deny a state of future punishments? Whether he did not preach Salvation in its most universal Sense? Whether he did not refuse to administer the Ordinance of Baptism to Infants? The Witness was very cautious in his Answers, except as to the Matter of Infant Baptism, which he said Mr. Murray did not administer— With this Exception, little could be collected from him but by Implication— He said, Mr. Murray had affirmed according to Scripture that Christ died for all Men—that the Plaster was as large as the Sore—that as we all died in Adam, so we were all made alive in Christ—but not a word about all being necessarily saved— The Witness appeared to be tolerably well read in Scripture, and to have retained in his Memory those Passages which Universalists quote in their Support— While he answered in the Language of Scripture, he was perfectly safe—he felt his Security, and was crafty enough to avoid being entangled.”

Murray’s craftiness is probably what saved him. He made the appearance of a regular, Bible thumping Protestant. But notice that infant baptism was even brought up as a marker of Protestantism in Massachusetts.

The second chair for the town opened the defense’s case proper, inter alia, arguing that Murray wasn’t a Protestant under Article III and that, basically, his church was fake.

“With regard to the Words “protestant teacher” a question arose, who were Protestants and from whence did Protestantism originate— It was observed by the Counsel for the Defendants, that it sprung from a Protest against the fundamental Errors of the Romish Church signed at Smalfa, a Town in Germany.”

Thaxter probably means to refer to the Schmalkald Articles from Luther here. Either the court or he bungled the name, probably running the Schmalkaldic League and Wittenburg together. In any case, it’s correct, in my opinion, to begin Protestantism there—that’s where the moniker ultimately came from.

Debate ensued between the lawyers on this point as to whether Protestantism was ultimately a doctrinal or “civil” (political) manifestation, or both. How would law schools even prepare students for this now?

The lawyers for the town ultimately argued that because Murray denied a future state of reward and punishment—see most of the colonial oaths of office—he was not a Protestant. Meaning, Universalism is inherently not Protestant. To be clear, this is lawyers making and expecting the court to adopt a theological determination for civil purposes. The court wasn’t asked to make a theological judgment in the ultimate sense, but only definitionally and politically. The implications of universalism were bad for society—practical atheism (vice would run rampant, etc.). And a constitutional definition was in play.

The court in Murray’s case made clear that only incorporated churches (i.e., those recognized by the government) were intended in the constitution, and Thaxter agreed in an aside with this construction. Not just anyone calling themselves a minister and “preaching” could get tax support. The intent of the framers was more specific, and meant to filter out wildcards.

Thaxter says that the judges were unanimously in favor of Gloucester. It was—you guessed it—a Baptist on the jury that, apparently, convinced eight jurors who had initially sided with the defendant to vote for Murray. How Thaxter came to know that is unclear. The case was reviewed and affirmed later. Murray’s ultimate fate has already been noted. (All this reminds me of the Barnes case I’ve written on before.)

To highlight again what is important: the court was willing and able to define Protestantism to some degree doctrinally, at least in a broad, ecumenical sense. Had sappy Baptist jurors not ruined the party, the result would’ve been different. (Murray’s lawyers had argued at one point that the demarcation of Protestantism advocated by the defense and favored by the judges would exclude Baptists and Quakers—an obvious appeal to the jury but probably textually correct.) I am glad to see some Baptists coming around these days and, to be clear, I think Baptists are Protestants. (You really must read Brandon Corley’s excellent piece at American Reformer this week on Baptist establishment. Very good primer on important Protestant distinctives of political theology. If you have a lot of time on your hands, go read his brutal, multi-part critique of Harrison Perkins’ new book, Righteous by Design.)

Magistrates, secular government must, at some point, and inevitably exercise theological judgment. For civil purposes, they are not left to the mercy of clergy, or whoever pretends to be a clergy. As the court in Murray’s case said, evidence of mere profession was irrelevant. The duty to care for public religion lies with magistrates and they must be able and willing to draw lines—who’s in and who’s out. At one point in America, this was still exercised if, in the case of Murray, unsuccessfully. Maybe jury trials were never a good idea, but that’s a subject for another time. Happy Fourth! Don’t forget what they took from you.