The Balkcom Case (1782) and the Pietistic Theory of Separation of Church and State

Abstract

Fifty years before the date conventionally assigned for the separation of church and state in Massachusetts a court decision in effect disestablished the old Puritan ecclesiastical system. But the decision in the Balkcom Case, though recognized by the attorney general of the state and all others concerned as of crucial importance, has been almost totally neglected by historians. The Baptists in I783 publicly hailed the decision as the culmination of their long fight for religious liberty in New England. It preceded by three years the passage of Jefferson's famous bill for religious liberty in Virginia. Had the precedent set by the Balkcom Case been followed perhaps Isaac Backus and Massachusetts rather than James Madison and Virginia would now be enshrined in history books as the source of the unique American principle of separation. And perhaps the pietistic theory of separation would have prevailed over the deistic in American constitutional law. The reasons why this case should not have been neglected deserve some attention. The Balkcom Case was a test case under the newly adopted state constitution of I780. Unlike the famous Quok Walker Case, which now appears not to have been based upon constitutional issues,1 the Balkcom Case was acknowledged throughout to hinge upon the courts' interpretation of Article Three of the Declaration of Rights which was an integral part of the Massachusetts constitution. This article, which John Adams had found too difficult to write in his preliminary draft, concerned the role of religion in society and the relationship of one sect to another. It was a compromise article which attempted to satisfy both those who wanted to continue the old Puritan tradition of an established tax-supported church system and those who wanted a voluntaristic church system. It satisfied neither group and was the most hotly debated article in the newspaper