DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE DISCUSSED. 492-517
The Author's sympathy with the Colonists, and advocacy
of their rights as British subjects, and their right to
defend them by force of arms 492
Preliminary remarks on the impolicy and injustice to
many thousands on both sides of the Atlantic of the
Declaration of Independence 493
The pure and exalted character of the advocates of
Colonial rights, and high eulogy upon them and their
descendants, by the Earls of Chatham and Shelburne,
both of whom were opposed to the separation of the Colonies
from the mother country 494
Homage to the motives and patriotism of the fathers
of American Independence; the provocation which they
had received; the successes of the Colonists on the
field of battle before the Declaration of Independence,
and their disasters afterwards; but for having committed
themselves to such Declaration, they would to all appearance
have obtained within a twelvemonth all they had desired,
without the shedding of blood, without the unnatural alliance
with France, much less a war of seven years 495
I. The Declaration of Independence a renunciation of
all the principles on which the General Congress,
Provincial Legislatures and Convention professed to
act from the beginning of the contest; proofs and
illustrations 496
II. The Declaration of Independence was a violation of
good faith to those statesmen and numerous other parties in
England who had, in and out of Parliament, defended and
supported the rights and character of the Colonies during
the whole contest; proofs and illustrations 499
III. The Declaration of Independence was also a violation,
not only of good faith, but of justice to the numerous
Colonists who adhered to connexion with the mother country;
proofs and illustrations 501
IV. The Declaration of the 4th of July, 1776, was the
commencement of persecutions and proscriptions and confiscation
of property against those who refused to renounce the oaths
which they had taken, as well as the principles and traditions
which had until then been professed by their persecutors and
oppressors as well as by themselves; proofs and illustrations 504
The plea of tyranny (in a note) 504
Numbers, character, and position of Loyalists at the time,
as stated by American writers; laws passed against them 504
The beneficial results of the Congress had it adhered to
the former principles of its members, and acted justly
to all parties 507
V. The Declaration of Independence was the commencement
of weakness in the army of its authors, and of defeats
in their field of battle; proofs and illustrations 508
VI. The Declaration of Independence was the avowed
expedient and prelude for an alliance with France and
Spain against the Mother Country; proofs and illustrations;
the secret and double game played between the Congress and
France, both before and after the Declaration of Independence 513
LOYALISTS OF AMERICA
AND
THEIR TIMES.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION.--TWO CLASSES OF EMIGRANTS--TWO GOVERNMENTS FOR SEVENTY
YEARS--THE "PILGRIM FATHERS"--THEIR PILGRIMAGES AND SETTLEMENT.
In proceeding to trace the development and characteristics of Puritanism
in an English colony, I beg to remark that I write, not as an
Englishman, but as a Canadian colonist by birth and life-long residence,
and as an early and constant advocate of those equal rights, civil and
religious, and that system of government in the enjoyment of which
Canada is conspicuous.
In tracing the origin and development of those views and feelings which
culminated in the American Revolution, in the separation of thirteen
colonies from Great Britain, it is necessary to notice the early
settlement and progress of those New England colonies in which the seeds
of that revolution were first sown and grew to maturity.
The colonies of New England resulted from two distinct emigrations of
English Puritans; two classes of Puritans; two distinct governments for
more than sixty years. The one class of these emigrants were called
"Pilgrim Fathers," having first fled from England to Holland, and thence
emigrated to New England in 1620, in the _Mayflower_, and called their
place of settlement "New Plymouth," where they elected seven Governors
in succession, and existed under a self-constituted government for
seventy years. The other class were called "Puritan Fathers;" the first
instalment of their emigration took place in 1629, under Endicot; they
were known as the Massachusetts Bay Company, and their final capital was
Boston, which afterwards became the capital of the Province and of the
State.
The characteristics of the separate and independent government of these
two classes of Puritans were widely different. The one was tolerant and
non-persecuting, and loyal to the King during the whole period of its
seventy years' existence; the other was an intolerant persecutor of all
religionists who did not adopt its worship, and disloyal from the
beginning to the Government from which it held its Charter.
It is essential to my purpose to compare and contrast the proceedings of
these two governments in relation to religious liberty and loyalty. I
will first give a short account of the origin and government of the
"_Pilgrim_ Fathers" of New Plymouth, and then the government of the
"_Puritan_ Fathers" of Massachusetts Bay.[1]
In the later years of Queen Elizabeth, a "fiery young clergyman," named
Robert Brown, declared against the lawfulness of both Episcopal and
Presbyterian Church government, or of fellowship with either
Episcopalians or Presbyterians, and in favour of the absolute
independence of each congregation, and the ordination as well as
selection of the minister by it. This was the origin of the Independents
in England. The zeal of Brown, like that of most violent zealots, soon
cooled, and he returned and obtained a living again in the Church of
England, which he possessed until his death; but his principles of
separation and independence survived. The first congregation was formed
about the year 1602, near the confines of York, Nottingham, and
Leicester, and chose for its pastor John Robinson. They gathered for
worship secretly, and were compelled to change their places of meeting
in order to elude the pursuit of spies and soldiers. After enduring many
cruel sufferings, Robinson, with the greater part of his congregation,
determined to escape persecution by becoming _pilgrims_ in a foreign
land. The doctrines of Arminius, and the advocacy and sufferings of his
followers in the cause of religious liberty, together with the spirit of
commerce, had rendered the Government of Holland the most tolerant in
Europe; and thither Robinson and his friends fled from their persecuting
pursuers in 1608, and finally settled at Leyden. Being Independents,
they did not form a connection with any of the Protestant Churches of
the country. Burke remarks that "In Holland, though a country of the
greatest religious freedom in the world, they did not find themselves
better satisfied than they had been in England. There they were
tolerated, indeed, but watched; their zeal began to have dangerous
languors for want of opposition; and being without power or consequence,
they grew tired of the indolent security of their sanctuary; they chose
to remove to a place where they should see no superior, and therefore
they sent an agent to England, who agreed with the Council of Plymouth
for a tract of land in America, within their jurisdiction, to settle in,
and obtained from the King (James) permission to do so."[2]
During their twelve years' _pilgrimage_ in Holland they were good
citizens; not an accusation was brought against any one of them in the
courts; they were honourable and industrious, and took to new trades for
subsistence. Brewster, a man of property, and a gentleman in England,
learned to be a printer at the age of forty-five. Bradford, who had been
a farmer in England, became a silk-dyer. Robinson became noted as a
preacher and controversialist against Arminianism.
Bradford, the historian of their colony and its Governor for eleven
years, gives the chief reasons for their dispute in Holland and of their
desire to remove to America.[3]
As to what particular place these Pilgrims should select for settlement
in America, some were for Guiana, some for Virginia; but they at length
obtained a patent from the second or Northern Virginia Company for a
settlement on the northern part of their territory, which extended to
the fortieth degree of North latitude--Hutchinson Bay. "The Dutch
laboured to persuade them to go to the Hudson river, and settle under
the West India Company; but they had not lost their affection for the
English, and chose to be under their government and protection."[4]
Bancroft, after quoting the statement that "upon their talking of
removing, sundry of the Dutch would have them go under them, and made
them large offers," remarks: "But the Pilgrims were attached to their
nationality as Englishmen, and to the language of their times. A secret
but deeply-seated love of their country led them to the generous purpose
of recovering the protection of England by enlarging her dominions. They
were restless with the desire to live once more under the government of
their native land."[5] It appears from Bradford's History, as well as
from his Letter Book, and other narratives, that there were serious
disputes and recriminations among the Pilgrim exiles and their friends
in England, before matters could be arranged for their departure. But
only "the minor part [of Robinson's congregation], with Mr. Brewster,
their elder, resolved to enter upon this great work." They embarked at
Delft Haven, a seaport town on the River Maeser, eight miles from Delft,
fourteen miles from Leyden, and thirty-six miles from Amsterdam. The
last port from which they sailed in England was Southampton; and after a
tempestuous passage of 65 days, in the _Mayflower_, of 181 tons, with
101 passengers, they spied land, which proved to be Cape Cod--about 150
miles north of their intended place of destination. The pilot of the
vessel had been there before and recognised the land as Cape Cod; "the
which," says Bradford, "being made and certainly known to be it, they
were not a little joyful."[6] But though the Pilgrims were "not a
little joyful" at safely reaching the American coast, and at a place so
well known as Cape Cod; yet as that was not their intended place of
settlement, they, without landing, put again to sea for Hudson river
(New York), but were driven back by stress of weather, and, on account
of the lateness of the season, determined not to venture out to sea
again, but to seek a place of settlement within the harbour.
As the Pilgrims landed north of the limits of the Company from which
they received their patent, and under which they expected to become a
"body politic," it became to them "void and useless." This being known,
some of the emigrants on board the _Mayflower_ began to make "mutinous
speeches," saying that "when they came ashore they would use their own
liberty, for none had power to command them." Under these circumstances
it was thought necessary to "begin with a combination, which might be as
firm as any patent, and in some respects more so." Accordingly, an
agreement was drawn up and signed in the cabin of the _Mayflower_ by
forty-one male passengers, who with their families constituted the whole
colony of one hundred and one.[7] Having thus provided against disorder
and faction, the Pilgrims proceeded to land, when, as Bradford says,
they "fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven who had
brought them over the vast and furious ocean, and delivered them from
all the perils and miseries thereof, again to set their feet on the
firm and stable earth, their proper element."[8] Of the manner of their
settlement, their exposures, sufferings, labours, successes, I leave the
many ordinary histories to narrate, though they nearly all revel in the
marvellous.[9]
I will therefore proceed to give a brief account of the Plymouth
government in relation to religious liberty within its limits and
loyalty to the Mother Country.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 1: From the nature of the facts and questions discussed, the
following history is largely _documentary_ rather than popular; and the
work being an _historical argument_ rather than a popular narrative,
will account for repetitions in some chapters, that the vital facts of
the whole argument may be kept as constantly as possible before the mind
of the reader.]
[Footnote 2: Burke's (the celebrated Edmund) Account of European
Settlements in America. Second Edition, London, 1758, Vol. II., p. 143.]
[Footnote 3: Bradford's History of Plymouth Plantation, pp. 22-24.
Massachusetts Historical Collection, 4th Series, Vol. III.]
[Footnote 4: History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., pp. 11, 12.]
[Footnote 5: History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 304.]
[Footnote 6: Many American writers and orators represent the Pilgrims as
first finding themselves on an unknown as well as inhospitable coast,
amidst shoals and breakers, in danger of shipwreck and death. But this
is all fancy; there is no foundation for it in the statement of Governor
Bradford, who was one of the passengers, and who says that they were
"not a little joyful" when they found certainly that the land was Cape
Cod; and afterwards, speaking of their coasting in the neighbourhood,
Bradford says, "They hasted to a place that their pilot (one Willm.
Coppin, _who had been there before_) did assure them was a good harbour,
which he had been in." (History of Plymouth Plantation, p. 86.) They did
not even go ashore on their first entrance into Cape Cod harbour; but,
as Bradford says, "after some deliberation among themselves and with the
master of the ship, they _tacked about_ and resolved to stand for the
_southward, to find some place about Hudson river for their
habitation_." (_Ib._, p. 117.) "After sailing southward half a day, they
found themselves suddenly among shoals and breakers" (a ledge of rocks
and shoals which are a terror to navigators to this day); and the wind
shifting against them, they scud back to Cape Cod, and, as Bradford
says, "thought themselves happy to get out of those dangers before night
overtook them, and the next day they got into the Cape harbour, where
they rode in safety. Being thus arrived in a good harbour, and brought
safe to land, they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of heaven,"
&c.
The selection, before leaving England, of the neighbourhood of the
Hudson river as their location, showed a worldly sagacity not to be
exceeded by any emigrants even of the present century. Bancroft
designates it "the best position on the whole coast." (History of the
United States, Vol. I., p. 209.)]
[Footnote 7: The agreement was as follows:--"In the name of God, Amen.
We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread
Sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain,
France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c., having undertaken,
for the glory of God and advancement of the Christian faith, and honour
of our King and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the
northern parts of [then called] Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly
and mutually, in the presence of God and of one another, covenant and
combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better
ordering and preservation, and furthermore of the ends aforesaid; and by
virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just laws,
ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as
shall be thought most mete and convenient for the general good of the
colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In
witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the
11th of November, in the 18th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord
King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of
Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Dom. 1620." Mr. John Carver was chosen
Governor for one year.
This simple and excellent instrument of union and government, suggested
by apprehensions of disorder and anarchy, in the absence of a patent for
common protection, has been magnified by some American writers into an
almost supernatural display of wisdom and foresight, and even the
resurrection of the rights of humanity. Bancroft says, "This was the
birth of popular constitutional liberty. The middle ages had been
familiar with charters and constitutions; but they had been merely
compacts for immunities, partial enfranchisements, patents of nobility,
concessions of municipal privileges, or the limitations of sovereign in
favour of feudal institutions. In the cabin of the _Mayflower_ humanity
recorded its rights, and instituted a government on the basis of 'equal
laws' for the 'general good.'" (History of the United States, Vol. I, p.
310.)
Now, any reader of the agreement will see that it says not a word about
"popular constitutional liberty," much less of the "rights of humanity."
It was no Declaration of Independence. Its signers call themselves
"loyal subjects of the King of England," and state one object of their
emigration to be the "honour of our King and country." The Pilgrim
Fathers did, in the course of time, establish a simple system of popular
government; but from the written compact signed in the cabin of the
_Mayflower_ any form of government might be developed. The good sense of
the following remarks by Dr. Young, in his _Chronicles of the Pilgrims
of Plymouth_, contrast favourably with the fanciful hyperboles of
Bancroft: "It seems to me that a great deal more has been discovered in
this document than the signers contemplated. It is evident that when
they left Holland they expected to become a body politic, using among
themselves civil government, and to choose their own rulers from among
themselves. Their purpose in drawing up and signing this compact was
simply, as they state, to restrain certain of their number who had
manifested an unruly and factious disposition. This was the whole
philosophy of the instrument, whatever may have since been discovered
and deduced from it." (p. 120.)]
[Footnote 8: Bradford's History of the Plymouth Plantation, p. 78. "The
31st of December (1620) being Sabbath, they attended Divine service for
the first time on shore, and named the place _Plymouth_, partly because
this harbour was so called in Capt. John Smith's map, published three or
four years before, and partly in remembrance of very kind treatment
which they had received from the inhabitants of the last port of their
native country from which they sailed." (Moore's Lives of the Governors
of Plymouth, pp. 37, 38.)
The original Indian name of the place was _Accomack_; but at the time
the Pilgrims settled there, an Indian informed them it was called
_Patuxet_. Capt. John Smith's Description of New England was published
in 1616. He says, "I took the description as well by map as writing, and
called it New England." He dedicated his work to Prince Charles
(afterwards King Charles II.), begging him to change the "barbarous
names." In the list of names changed by Prince Charles, _Accomack_ (or
Patuxet) was altered to _Plymouth_. Mr. Dermer, employed by Sir F.
Gorges and others for purposes of discovery and trade, visited this
place about four months before the arrival of the Pilgrims, and
significantly said, "I would that Plymouth [in England] had the like
commodities. I would that the first plantation might here be seated if
there come to the number of fifty persons or upward."]
[Footnote 9: See following Note:--
NOTE _on the Inflated American Accounts of the Voyage and Settlement of
the Pilgrim Fathers_.--Everything relating to the character, voyage, and
settlement of the Pilgrims in New England has been invested with the
marvellous, if not supernatural, by most American writers. One of them
says, "God not only sifted the three kingdoms to get the seed of this
enterprise, but sifted that seed over again. Every person whom He would
not have go at that time, to plant the first colony of New England, He
sent back even from mid-ocean in the _Speedwell_." (Rev. Dr. Cheever's
Journal of the Pilgrims.)
The simple fact was, that the _Mayflower_ could not carry any more
passengers than she brought, and therefore most of the passengers of the
_Speedwell_, which was a vessel of 50 tons and proved to be unseaworthy,
were compelled to remain until the following year, and came over in the
_Fortune_; and among these Robert Cushman, with his family, one of the
most distinguished and honoured of the Pilgrim Fathers. And there was
doubtless as good "seed" in "the three kingdoms" after this "sifting" of
them for the New England enterprise as there was before.
In one of his speeches, the late eloquent Governor Everett, of
Massachusetts, describes their voyage as the "long, cold, dreary
autumnal passage, in that one solitary, adventurous vessel, the
_Mayflower_ of forlorn hope, freighted with prospects of a future state,
and bound across the unknown sea, pursuing, with a thousand misgivings,
the uncertain, the tedious voyage, suns rise and set, and winter
surprises them on the deep, but brings them not the sight of the
wished-for shore. The awful voice of the storm howls through the
rigging. The labouring masts seem straining from their base; the dismal
sound of the pumps is heard; the ship leaps, as it were, madly from
billow to billow; the ocean breaks, and settles with engulfing floods
over the floating deck, and beats with deadening, shivering weight
against the staggering vessel."
It is difficult to imagine how "winter" could surprise passengers
crossing the ocean between the 6th of September and the 9th of
November--a season of the year much _chosen_ even nowadays for crossing
the Atlantic. It is equally difficult to conceive how that could have
been an "unknown sea" which had been crossed and the New England coasts
explored by Gosnold, Smith, Dermer and others (all of whom had published
accounts of their voyage), besides more than a dozen fishing vessels
which had crossed this very year to obtain fish and furs in the
neighbourhood and north of Cape Cod. Doubtless often the "suns rose and
set" upon these vessels without their seeing the "wished-for shore;" and
probably more than once, "the awful voice of the storm howled through
their rigging," and "the dismal sound of their pumps was heard," and
they "madly leaped from billow to billow," and "staggered under the
deadening, shivering weight of the broken ocean," and with its
"engulfing floods" over their "floating decks." The _Mayflower_ was a
vessel of 180 tons burden--more than twice as large as any of the
vessels in which the early English, French, and Spanish discoverers of
America made their voyages--much larger than most of the vessels
employed in carrying emigrants to Virginia during the previous ten
years--more than three times as large as the ship _Fortune_, of 53 tons,
which crossed the ocean the following year, and arrived at Plymouth also
the 9th of November, bringing Mr. Cushman and the rest of the passengers
left by the _Speedwell_ the year before. Gosnold had crossed the ocean
and explored the eastern coasts of America in 1602 in a "small bark;"
Martin Pring had done the same in 1603 in the bark _Discovery_, of 26
tons; Frobisher, in northern and dangerous coasts, in a vessel of 25
tons burden; and two of the vessels of Columbus were from 15 to 30 tons
burden, and without decks on which to "float" the "engulfing floods"
under which the _Mayflower_ "staggered" so marvellously. All these
vessels long preceded the _Mayflower_ across the "unknown ocean;" but
never inspired the lofty eloquence which Mr. Everett and a host of
inferior rhapsodists have bestowed upon the _Mayflower_ and her voyage.
Bancroft fills several pages of his elaborate history to the same
effect, and in similar style with the passages above quoted. I will give
a single sentence, as follows:--"The Pilgrims having selected for their
settlement the country near the Hudson, the best position on the whole
coast, were conducted to the most barren and inhospitable part of
Massachusetts." (History of the United States, Vol. 1., p. 309.)
There was certainly little self-abnegation, but much sound and worldly
wisdom, in the Pilgrims selecting "the best position on the whole coast"
of America for their settlement; and there is as little truth in the
statement, though a good antithesis--the delight of Mr. Bancroft--that
the Pilgrims were conducted to "the most barren and inhospitable part of
Massachusetts" for "actual settlement," as appears from the descriptions
given of it by Governors Winslow and Bradford and other Pilgrim Fathers,
written after the first and during the subsequent years of their
settlement. I will give but two illustrations. Mr. Winslow was one of
the passengers in the _Mayflower_, and was, by annual election, several
years Governor of the Plymouth colony. It has been stated above that the
ship _Fortune_, of 53 tons burden, brought in the autumn of 1621 the
Pilgrim passengers who had been left in England the year before by the
sea-unworthiness of the _Speedwell_. The _Fortune_ anchored in Plymouth
Bay the 9th of November--just a year from the day on which the
_Mayflower_ spied the land of Cape Cod. Mr. Winslow prepared and sent
back by the _Fortune_ an elaborate "Relation" of the state and prospects
of the colony, for the information of the merchant adventurers and
others in England. He describes the climate, soil, and all the resources
of the colony's means of support, together with the process and result
of the first year's labour. I will simply give his account of the manner
in which they celebrated what in England would be called a "Harvest
Home." He says: "Our harvest being got in, our Governor sent four men on
fowling, that so we might, after a more special manner, rejoice together
after we had gathered the fruit of our labours. They four in a day
killed as much fowl as, with little help besides, served the company
almost a week; at which time, amongst other recreations, we exercised
our arms. Many of the Indians came amongst us, and amongst the rest
their greatest king, Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three
days we entertained and feasted; and they went out and killed fine deer,
which they brought to the Plantation, and bestowed them on our Governor,
and upon the Captain and others; and although it be not always so
plentiful with us, we are so far from want that we _often wish you
partakers of our plenty_."
Governor Bradford, writing in 1646, twenty-five years after this feast,
and referring to it, says: "Nor has there been any general want of food
amongst us since to this day." (Morton's Memorials, p. 100.)
Such was the result of the first year's experience in this chosen place
of settlement by the first New England colony, as stated by the most
distinguished of its founders. During the winter of this year more than
half the pioneer settlers had died of a prevalent sickness,--not owing
to the climate, but their sea voyage, their want of experience, and to
temporary circumstances, for not a death occurred amongst them during
the three succeeding years. As great as was the mortality amongst the
noble colonists of New England, it was far less, comparatively, than
that which fell upon the first colonists of Virginia, who were, also,
more than once almost annihilated by the murderous incursions of the
Indians, but from whom the Pilgrim Fathers did not suffer the loss of a
life.
In his "true and brief Relation," Mr. Winslow says: "For the temper of
the air here, it agreeth well with that in England; and if there be any
difference at all, this is somewhat hotter in summer. Some think it
colder in winter, but I cannot out of experience say so. The air is very
clear and foggy, not as hath been reported. I never in my life remember
a more seasonable year than we have here enjoyed."
Mr. Winslow's doubt as to whether the cold of his first winter in New
England exceeded that of the ordinary winters which he had passed in
England, refutes the fictitious representations of many writers, who to
magnify the virtues and merits of the Plymouth colonists, describe them
as braving, with a martyr's courage, the appalling cold of an almost
Arctic winter--a winter which enabled the new settlers to commence their
gardens the 16th of March, and they add in their Journal: "Monday and
Tuesday, March 19th and 20th, proved fair days. We digged our grounds
and _sowed our garden seeds_."
Not one of the American United Empire Loyalists--the Pilgrim Fathers of
Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick--could tell of a winter in the
countries of their refuge, so mild, and a spring so early and genial, as
that which favoured the Pilgrim Fathers of New England during their
first year of settlement; nor had any settlement of the Canadian Pilgrim
Fathers been able to command the means of celebrating the _first_
"Harvest Home" by a week's festivity and amusements, and entertaining,
in addition, ninety Indians for three days.]
CHAPTER II.
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PILGRIM[10] FATHERS DURING SEVENTY YEARS, FROM
1620 TO 1692, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE PURITAN FATHERS.
TWO GOVERNMENTS.--_Difference between the Government of the Pilgrims and
that of the Puritans_.--Most historians, both English and American, have
scarcely or not at all noticed the fact that within the present State of
Massachusetts two separate governments of Puritan emigrants were
established and existed for seventy years--two governments as distinct
as those of Upper and Lower Canada from 1791 to 1840--as distinct as
those of any two States of the American Republic. It is quite natural
that American historians should say nothing of the Pilgrim government,
beyond the voyage and landing of its founders, as it was a standing
condemnation of the Puritan government, on which they bestow all their
eulogies. The two governments were separated by the Bay of
Massachusetts, about forty miles distant from each other by water, but
still more widely different from each other in spirit and character. The
government of the Pilgrims was marked from the beginning by a full and
hearty recognition of franchise rights to all settlers of the Christian
faith; the government of the Puritans denied those rights to all but
Congregational Church members for sixty years, and until they were
compelled to do otherwise by Royal Charter in 1692. The government of
the Pilgrims was just and kind to the Indians, and early made a treaty
with the neighbouring tribes, which remained inviolate on both sides
during half a century, from 1621 to 1675; the government of the
Puritans maddened the Indians by the invasion of their rights, and
destroyed them by multitudes, almost to entire extermination. The
government of the Pilgrims respected the principles of religious liberty
(which they had learned and imbibed in Holland), did not persecute those
who differed from it in religious opinions,[11] and gave protection to
many who fled from the persecutions of neighbouring Puritans'
government, which was more intolerant and persecuting to those who
differed from it in religious opinions than that of James, and Charles,
and Laud had ever been to them. The government of the Pilgrims was frank
and loyal to the Sovereign and people of England; the government of the
Puritans was deceptive and disloyal to the Throne and Mother Country
from the first, and sedulously sowed and cultivated the seeds of
disaffection and hostility to the Royal government, until they grew and
ripened into the harvest of the American revolution.
These statements will be confirmed and illustrated by the facts of the
present and following chapters.
The compact into which the Pilgrims entered before landing from the
_Mayflower_, was the substitute for the body politic which would have
been organized by charter had they settled, as first intended, within
the limits of the Northern Virginia Company. The compact specified no
constitution of government beyond that of authority on the one hand, and
submission on the other; but under it the Governors were elected
annually, and the local laws were enacted during eighteen years _by the
general meetings of the settlers_, after which a body of elected
representatives was constituted.
The first _official record_ of the election of any Governor was in 1633,
thirteen years after their settlement at Plymouth; but, according to the
early history of the Pilgrims, the Governors were elected annually from
1620. The Governors of the colony were as follows:--
1. John Carver, in 1620, who died a few months afterwards;
2. William Bradford, 1621 to 1632, 1635, 1637, 1639 to 1643, 1645 to
1656;
3. Edward Winslow, 1633, 1636, 1644;
4. Thomas Prince, 1634, 1638, 1657 to 1672;
5. Josiah Winslow, 1673 to 1680;
6. Thomas Hinckley, 1681 to 1692;[12]
when the colony of Plymouth[13] (which had never increased in population
beyond 13,000) was incorporated with that of Massachusetts Bay, under
the name of the Province of Massachusetts, by Royal Charter under
William and Mary, and by which religious liberty and the elective
franchise were secured to all freeholders of forty shillings per annum,
instead of being confined to members of the Congregational Churches, as
had been the case down to that period under the Puritans of
Massachusetts Bay--so that equal civil and religious liberty among all
classes was established in Massachusetts, not by the Puritans, but by
Royal Charter, against the practice of the Puritans from 1631 to 1692.
The government of the Pilgrims was of the most simple kind. At first the
Governor, with one assistant, was elected annually by general suffrage;
but in 1624, at the request of Governor Bradford, a Council of five
assistants (increased to seven in 1633) was annually elected. In this
Court, or Executive Council, the Governor had a double vote. In the
third year, 1623, trial by jury was established. During eighteen years,
from 1620 to 1638, the legislative body, called the General Court, or
Court of Associates, was composed of the whole body of freemen. It was
not until 1639 that they established a House of Representatives. The
qualifications of a _freeman_ were, that he "should be twenty-one years
of age, of sober, peaceable conversation, orthodox in religion [which
included belief in God and the Holy Scriptures, but did not include any
form of Church government], and possess rateable estate to the value of
twenty pounds."
In 1636--sixteen years after their landing at New Plymouth--the laws
which they had enacted were first collected, prefaced by a declaration
of their right to enact them, in the absence of a Royal Charter. Their
laws were at various times revised and added to, and finally printed in
1671, under the title of "Their Great Fundamentals." They recognized the
general laws of England, and adopted local statutes or regulations
according to what they considered their needs.[14] Of their sense of
duty as British subjects, and of the uniform mutual relations of
friendship existing between them and their Sovereigns, their records and
history furnish abundant proofs. The oath required of their Governors
commenced in the following words: "You shall swear to be truly loyal to
our Sovereign Lord King Charles, his successors and heirs." "At the
Court held," (says the record,) "at Plymouth, the 11th of June, 1664,
the following was added, and the Governor took the oath thereunto: 'You
shall also attend to what is required by His Majesty's Privy Council of
the Governors of the respective colonies in reference unto an Act of
Parliament for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and
navigation, bearing date from the 1st of December, 1660.'"
The oath of a freeman commenced with the same words, as did the oath of
the "Assistants" or Executive Councillors, the oath of constables and
other officers in the colony. It was likewise ordered, "That an oath of
allegiance to the King and fidelity to the Government and to the several
colonies [settlements] therein, be taken of every person that shall live
within or under the same." This was as follows: "You shall be truly
loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King and his heirs and successors: and
whereas you make choice at present to reside within the government of
New Plymouth, you shall not do or cause to be done any act or acts,
directly or indirectly, by land or water, that shall or may tend to the
destruction or overthrow of the whole or any of the several colonies
[settlements] within the said government that are or shall be orderly
erected or established; but shall, contrariwise, hinder, oppose and
discover such intents and purposes as tend thereunto to the Governor for
the time being, or some one of the assistants, with all convenient
speed. You shall also submit unto and obey such good and wholesome laws,
ordinances and officers as are or shall be established within the
several limits thereof. So help you God, who is the God of truth and
punisher of falsehood."
The Government of Plymouth prefaced the revised collection of their laws
and ordinances as follows:
"A form to be placed before the records of the several inheritances
granted to all and every of the King's subjects inhabiting with the
Government of New Plymouth:
"Whereas John Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, William
Brewster, Isaack Alliston and divers others of the subjects of our late
Sovereign Lord James, by the Grace of God, King of England, Scotland,
France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., did in the eighteenth
year of his reigne of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland the
fifty-four, which was the year of our Lord God 1620, undertake a voyage
into that part of America called Virginia or New England, thereunto
adjoining, there to erect a plantation and colony of English, intending
the glory of God and the enlargement of his Majesty's dominions, and the
special good of the English nation."
Thus the laws and ordinances of the Plymouth Government, and the oaths
of office from the Governor to the constable, freeman and transient
resident, recognize their duty as British subjects, and breathe a spirit
of pure loyalty to their Sovereign. The only reference I find in their
records to the Commonwealth of England is the following declaration,
made in 1658, the last year of Cromwell's government. It is the preface
to the collection of the General Laws, revised and published Sept. 29,
1658, and is as follows:
"We, the associates of New Plymouth, coming hither as freeborn subjects
of the State of England, endowed with all the privileges belonging to
such, being assembled, do ordain, constitute and enact that no act,
imposition, laws or ordinances be made or imposed on us at present or to
come, but such as shall be made and imposed by consent of the body of
the associates or their representatives legally assembled, which is
according to the free libertie of the State of England."
At the first annual meeting of the Plymouth House of Representatives
after the restoration of Charles the Second, the following declaration
and order was made:
"Whereas we are certainly informed that it hath pleased God to establish
our Sovereign Lord King Charles the Second in the enjoyment of his
undoubted rights to the Crowns of England, Scotland, France and Ireland,
and is so declared and owned by his good subjects of these kingdoms; We
therefore, his Majesty's loyal subjects, the inhabitants of the
jurisdiction of New Plymouth, do hereby declare our free and ready
concurrence with such other of his Majesty's subjects, and to his said
Majesty, his heirs and successors, we do most humbly and faithfully
submit and oblige ourselves for ever. God save the King.
"June the fifth, Anno Dom. 1661.
"The fifth day of June, 1661, Charles the Second, King of England,
Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly proclaimed at Plymouth,
in New England, in America." (This the Puritan Government of
Massachusetts Bay refused to do.)
On the accession of James the Second we find the following entry in the
Plymouth records: "The twenty fourth of April, 1685, James the Second,
King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, &c., was solemnly
proclaimed at Plymouth according to the form required by his Majesty's
most honourable Privy Council."
After the Revolution of 1688 in England, there is the following record
of the proceedings of the Legislature of the Plymouth colony--proceedings
in which testimony is borne by the colonists of the uniformly kind
treatment they had received from the Government of England, except during
a short interval under the three years' reign of James the Second:
"At their Majesties' General Court of Election, held at Plymouth on the
first Tuesday in June, 1689.
"Whereas, through the great changes Divine Providence hath ordered out,
both in England and in this country, we the loyal subjects of the Crown
of England are left in an unsettled estate, destitute of government and
exposed to the ill consequences thereof: and _having heretofore enjoyed
a quiet settlement of government in this their Majesties' colony of New
Plymouth for more than threescore and six years, without any
interruptions; having also been by the late kings of England from time
to time, by their royal letters, graciously owned and acknowledged
therein_: whereby, notwithstanding our late unjust interruption and
suspension therefrom by the illegal arbitrary power of Sir Edmond
Andros, now ceased, the General Court held there in the name of their
present Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c.,
together with the encouragement given by their said Majesties' gracious
declarations and in humble confidence of their said Majesties' good
liking: do therefore hereby resume and declare their reassuming of their
said former way of government, according to such wholesome
constitutions, rules and orders as were here in force in June, 1686, our
title thereto being warranted by prescription and otherwise as
aforesaid; and expect a ready submission thereunto by all their
Majesties' good subjects of this colony, until their Majesties or this
Court shall otherwise order; and that all our Courts be hereafter held
and all warrants directed and officers sworn in the name of their
Majesties William and Mary, King and Queen of England, &c.
"The General Court request the Honourable Governor, Thomas Hinckley,
Esq., in behalf of said Court and Colony of New Plymouth, to make their
address to their Majesties the King and Queen of England, &c., for the
re-establishment of their former enjoyed liberties and privileges, both
sacred and civil."
We have thus the testimony of the Plymouth colony itself that there was
no attempt on the part of either Charles the First or Second to
interfere with the fullest exercise of their own chosen form of worship,
or with anything which they themselves regarded as their civil rights.
If another course of proceedings had to be adopted in regard to the
Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay, it was occasioned by their own
conduct, as will appear hereafter. Complaints were made by colonists to
England of the persecuting and unjust conduct of the Puritan Government,
and inquiries were ordered in 1646, 1664, 1678, and afterwards. The
nature and result of these inquiries will be noticed hereafter. At
present I will notice the first Commission sent out by Charles the
Second, in 1664, and which was made general to the several colonies, to
avoid invidious distinction, though caused by complaints against the
conduct of the Puritan Government of Massachusetts Bay. The
Commissioners proposed four questions to the Governments of the several
colonies of New England. I will give the questions, or rather
propositions, and the answers to them on the part of the Pilgrim
Government of Plymouth, as contained in its printed records:--
"_The Propositions made by His Majesty's Commissioners to the General
Court of (New Plymouth), held at Plymouth, for the jurisdiction of New
Plymouth, the 22nd of February, Anno Dom. 1665._
"1. That all householders inhabiting in the colony take the oath of
allegiance, and the administration of justice be in his Majesty's name.
"2. That all men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of
different judgments, may be admitted to be freemen, and have liberty to
choose and to be chosen officers, both civil and military.
"3. That all men and women of orthodox opinions, competent knowledge and
civil lives (not scandalous), may be admitted to the sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, and their children to baptism if they desire it; either
by admitting them into the congregation already gathered, or permitting
them to gather themselves into such congregations, where they may have
the benefit of the sacraments.
"4. That all laws and expressions in laws derogatory to his Majesty, if
any such have been made in these late troublesome times, may be
repealed, altered, and taken off from the file."
THE COURT'S ANSWER.
"1. To the first we consent, it _having been the practice of this
Court_, in the first place, _to insert in the oath of fidelity required
of every householder, to be truly loyal to our Sovereign Lord the King,
his heirs and successors. Also to administer all acts of justice in his
Majesty's name_.
"2. To the second we also consent, _it having been our constant practice
to admit men of competent estates and civil conversation, though of
different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to be freemen, and
to have liberty to choose and be chosen officers, both civil and
military_.
"3. To the third, we cannot but acknowledge it to be a high favour from
God and from our Sovereign, that we may enjoy our consciences in point
of God's worship, the main end of transplanting ourselves into these
remote corners of the earth, and should most heartily rejoice that all
our neighbours so qualified as in that proposition would adjoin
themselves to our societies, according to the order of the Gospel, for
enjoyment of the sacraments to themselves and theirs; but if, through
different persuasions respecting Church government, it cannot be
obtained, we could not deny a liberty to any, according to the
proposition, that are truly conscientious, although differing from us,
especially where his Majesty commands it, they maintaining an able
preaching ministry for the carrying on of public Sabbath worship, which
we doubt not is his Majesty's intent, and withdrawing not from paying
their due proportions of maintenance to such ministers as are orderly
settled in the places where they live, until they have one of their own,
and that in such places as are capable of maintaining the worship of God
in two distinct congregations, we being greatly encouraged by his
Majesty's gracious expressions in his letter to us, and your Honours'
further assurance of his Royal purpose to continue our liberties, that
where places, by reason of our paucity and poverty, are incapable of
two, it is not intended, that such congregations as are already in being
should be rooted out, but their liberties preserved, there being other
places to accommodate men of different persuasions in societies by
themselves, which, by our known experience, tends most to the
preservation of peace and charity.
"4. To the fourth, we consent that all laws and expressions in laws
derogatory to his Majesty, if any sect shall be formed amongst us, which
at present we are not conscious of, shall be repealed, altered, and
taken off from the file.
"By order of the General Court
For the jurisdiction of New Plymouth,
Per me, NATHANIEL MORTON, _Secretary_."
"The league between the four colonies was not with any intent, that ever
we heard of, to cast off our dependence upon England, a thing which we
utterly abhor, intreating your Honours to believe us, for we speak in
the presence of God."
"NEW PLYMOUTH, May 4th, 1665.
"The Court doth order Mr. Constant Southworth, Treasurer, to present
these to his Majesty's Commissioners, at Boston, with all convenient
speed."
The above propositions and answers are inserted, with some variations,
in Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts, Vol. I., p. 214. The remark
respecting the union between the colonies is not on the colony
records--it was inserted at the close of the copy delivered to the
Commissioners, in conformity to a letter from the Commissioners, written
to Governor Prince after they had left Plymouth. The conditions
expressed in the answer to the third proposition appeared so reasonable
to the Commissioners, that when they afterward met the General Assembly
of Connecticut, in April, 1663, their third proposition is qualified, in
substance, conformably to the Plymouth reply. (Morton's Memorial, Davis'
Ed., p. 417.)
It is thus seen that there was not the least desire on the part of King
Charles the Second, any more than there had been on the part of Charles
the First, to impose the Episcopal worship upon the colonists, or to
interfere in the least with their full liberty of worship, according to
their own preferences. All that was desired at any time was toleration
and acknowledgment of the authority of the Crown, such as the Plymouth
colony and that of Connecticut had practised from the beginning, to the
great annoyance of the Puritans of Massachusetts.
Several letters and addresses passed between Charles the Second and the
Pilgrim Government of Plymouth, and all of the most cordial character on
both sides; but what is given above supersedes the necessity of further
quotations.[15]
It was an object of special ambition with the Government of Plymouth to
have a Royal Charter like those of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and
Rhode Island, instead of holding their land, acting under a Charter from
the Plymouth Council (England) and Charles the Second. In his last
address to Mr. Josiah Winslow, their Governor promised it to them in
most explicit terms; but there was a case of _quo warranto_ pending in
the Court of King's Bench against the Puritan Government for the
violation of their Charter, which delayed the issuing of a Royal Charter
to Plymouth. Charles died soon after;[16] the Charter of the
Massachusetts Corporation was forfeited by the decision of the Court,
and James the Second appointed a Royal Governor and a Royal
Commissioner, which changed for the time being the whole face of things
in New England.
It, however, deserves notice, that the Massachusetts Puritans, true to
their instinct of encroaching upon the rights of others, whether of the
King or of their neighbours, white or tawny, did all in their power to
prevent the Pilgrims of Plymouth--the pioneers of settlement and
civilization in New England--from obtaining a Royal Charter. This they
did first in 1630, again in the early part of Charles the Second's
reign, and yet again towards its end. Finally, after the cancelling of
the Massachusetts Charter, and the English Revolution of 1688, the
agents of the more powerful and populous Massachusetts colony succeeded
in getting the colony of Plymouth absorbed into that of Massachusetts
Bay by the second Royal Charter granted by William and Mary in 1692.
"The junction of Plymouth with Massachusetts," says Moore, "destroyed
all the political consequence of the former. The people of Plymouth
shared but few favours which the new Government had to bestow, and it
was seldom indeed that any resident of what was termed the old colony
obtained any office of distinction in the Provisional Government, or
acquired any influence in its councils."[17]
This seems a melancholy termination of the Government of the
Pilgrims--a princely race of men, who voluntarily braved the sufferings
of a double exile for the sake of what they believed to be the truth and
the glory of God; whose courage never failed, nor their loyalty wavered
amidst all their privations and hardships; who came to America to enjoy
religious liberty and promote the honour of England, not to establish
political independence, and granted that liberty to others which they
earned and had suffered so much to enjoy themselves; who were honourable
and faithful to their treaty engagements with the aborigines as they
were in their communications with the Throne; who never betrayed a
friend or fled from an enemy; who left imperishable footprints of their
piety and industry, as well as of their love of liberty and law, though
their self-originated and self-sustained polity perished at length, by
royal forgetfulness and credulity, to the plausible representations and
ambitious avarice of their ever aggressive Massachusetts Puritan
neighbours.
While the last act of the Pilgrims before leaving the _Mayflower_, in
the harbour of Cape Cod, was to enter into a compact of local
self-government for common protection and interests, and their first act
on landing at New Plymouth was, on bended knees, to commend themselves
and their settlement to the Divine protection and blessing, it is a
touching fact that the last official act of the General Assembly of the
colony was to appoint a day of solemn fasting and humiliation on the
extinction of their separate government and their absorption into that
of Massachusetts Bay.
It was among the sons and daughters of the Plymouth colony that almost
the only loyalty in New England during the American Revolution of the
following century was found. Most of the descendants of Edward Winslow,
and of his more distinguished son, Josiah Winslow, were loyalists during
that revolution.[18] In the councils of the mother country, the merits
of the posterity of the Pilgrims have been acknowledged; as in her
service some of them, by their talents and courage, have won their way
to eminence. Among the proudest names in the British navy are the
descendants of the original purchaser of Mattapoisett, in Swansey
(William Brenton, afterwards Governor of Rhode Island);[19] to the
distinguished title of one of the English peerage is attached the name
of one of the early settlers of Scituate, in the Plymouth colony
(William Vassall, who settled there in 1635.)[20]
"In one respect," says Moore, "the people of the Old Colony present a
remarkable exception to the rest of America. They are the purest English
race in the world; there is scarcely an intermixture even with the
Scotch or Irish, and none with the aboriginals. Almost all the present
population are descended from the original English settlers. Many of
them still own the lands which their early ancestors rescued from the
wilderness; and although they have spread themselves in every direction
through this wide continent, from the peninsula of Nova Scotia to the
Gulf of Mexico, some one of the family has generally remained to
cultivate the soil which was owned by his ancestors. The fishermen and
the navigators of Maine, the children of Plymouth, still continue the
industrious and bold pursuits of their forefathers. In that fine
country, beginning at Utica, in the State of New York, and stretching to
Lake Erie, this race may be found on every hill and in every valley, on
the rivers and on the lakes. The emigrant from the sandbanks of Cape Cod
revels in the profusion of the opulence of Ohio. In all the Southern and
South-Western States, the natives of the "Old Colony," like the
Arminians of Asia, may be found in every place where commerce and
traffic offer any lure to enterprise; and in the heart of the peninsula
of Michigan, like their ancestors they have commenced the cultivation of
the wilderness--like them originally, with savage hearts and savage men,
and like them patient in suffering, despising danger, and animated with
hope."[21]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 10: "The term PILGRIMS belongs exclusively to the Plymouth
colonists." (Young's Chronicles of the Pilgrims, p. 88, note.)]
[Footnote 11: The only exception was by Prence, when elected Governor in
1657. He had imbibed the spirit of the Boston Puritans against the
Quakers, and sought to infuse his spirit into the minds of his
assistants (or executive councillors) and the deputies; but he was
stoutly opposed by Josias Winslow and others. The persecution was short
and never unto death, as among the Boston Puritans. It was the only
stain of persecution upon the rule of the Pilgrims during the seventy
years of their separate government, and was nobly atoned for and effaced
by Josias Winslow, when elected Governor in the place of Prence.]
[Footnote 12: Massachusetts Historical Collections, 3rd Series, Vol.
II., p. 226.]
[Footnote 13: "The colony of Plymouth included the present counties of
Plymouth, Barnstaple, and Bristol, and a part of Rhode Island. All the
Providence Plantations were at one time claimed by Plymouth. The
boundaries between Plymouth and Massachusetts were settled in 1640 by
commissioners of the united colonies." (_Ib._, p. 267.)]
[Footnote 14: The laws they intended to be governed by were the laws of
England, the which they were willing to be subject unto, though in a
foreign land, and have since that time continued of that mind for the
general, adding only some particular municipal laws of their own,
suitable to their constitution, in such cases where the common laws and
statutes of England could not well reach, or afford them help in
emergent difficulties of place. (Hubbard's "General History of New
England, from the Discovery to 1680." Massachusetts Historical
Collection, 2nd Series, Vol. I., p. 62.)
Palfrey says: "All that is extant of what can properly be called the
legislation of the first twelve years of the colony of Plymouth,
suffices to cover in print only two pages of an octavo volume." (History
of New England, Vol. I., pp. 340, 341.)]
[Footnote 15: "Their residence in Holland had made them acquainted with
the various forms of Christianity; a wide experience had emancipated
them from bigotry; and they were never betrayed into the excesses of
religious persecution, though they sometimes permitted a disproportion
between punishment and crime." (Bancroft's History of the United States,
Vol. I., p. 322.)
"The Plymouth Church is free from blood." (Elliott's History of New
England, Vol. I., p. 133.)]
[Footnote 16: "Charles the Second, with a spirit that does honour to his
reign, at that time meditated important plans for the reformation of New
England." (Annals of the Colonies, pp. 88, 89.)]
[Footnote 17: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, p. 228.
The contest between the Pilgrims of Plymouth and the Puritans of
Massachusetts, in regard to granting a separate charter to the former,
was severe and bitter. The Plymouth Government, by its tolerance and
loyalty, had been an "eyesore" to the other intolerant and disloyal
Puritans of Massachusetts. Perhaps the Imperial Government of the day
thought that the fusion of the two Governments and populations into one
would render the new Government more liberal and loyal; but the result
proved otherwise.]
[Footnote 18: "Most of his descendants were loyalists during the
American Revolution. One of them was the wife of John S. Copley, the
celebrated painter, and father of the late Lord Lyndhurst" (Moore.)]
[Footnote 19: Jahleel Brenton, grandson of Governor Wm. Brenton, had
twenty-two children. His fourth son, born Oct. 22, 1729, entered the
British navy when a youth, distinguished himself and rose to the rank of
Admiral. He died in 1802. "His son Jahleel was bred to the sea, rose to
be an Admiral, and was knighted in 1810." (Moore's Lives of the
Governors of New Plymouth, p. 229.)]
[Footnote 20: In 1650 he removed to the West Indies, where he laid the
foundation of several large estates, and where he died, in Barbadoes, in
1655. (Moore, p. 126.) "Thomas Richard, the third Lord Holland, married
an heiress by the name of Vassall, and his son, Henry Richard Fox
Vassall, is the present Lord Holland, Baron Holland in Lincolnshire, and
Foxley in Wilts." (Playfair's British Family Antiquities, Vol. II., p.
182.)]
[Footnote 21: Moore's Lives of the Governors of New Plymouth, pp.
228-230.]
CHAPTER III.
THE PURITANS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY COMPANY AND THEIR GOVERNMENT,
COMMENCING IN 1629.
PART I.
FIRST SETTLEMENT--ROYAL CHARTER GRANTED.
English Puritanism, transferred from England to the head of
Massachusetts Bay in 1629, presents the same characteristics which it
developed in England. In Massachusetts it had no competitor; it
developed its principles and spirit without restraint; it was absolute
in power from 1629 to 1689, and during that sixty years it assumed
independence of the Government to which it owed its corporate existence;
it made it a penal crime for any emigrant to appeal to England against a
local decision of Courts or of Government; it permitted no oath of
allegiance to the King, nor the administration of the laws in his name;
it allowed no elective franchise to any Episcopalian, Presbyterian,
Baptist, Quaker, or Papist. Every non-member of the Congregational
Churches was compelled to pay taxes and bear all other Puritan burdens,
but was allowed no representation by franchise, much less by eligibility
for any office.
It has been seen that the "_Pilgrim_ Fathers" commenced their settlement
at New Plymouth in 1620--nine years before the "_Puritan_ Fathers"
commenced their settlement on the opposite side of Massachusetts Bay,
making Boston their ultimate seat of government. The Pilgrim Fathers and
their descendants were professedly congregational separatists from the
Church of England; they had fled by stealth, under severe sufferings,
from persecution in England to Holland, where they had resided eleven
years and upwards, and where they had learned the principles of
religious toleration and liberty--the fruit of Dutch Arminian advocacy
and suffering. The Puritans of the Massachusetts Bay Company emigrated
directly from England, on leaving which they professed to be members of
the Church of England; their emigration commenced in 1628, the very year
that Charles the First, having quarrelled with and dissolved the last of
three Parliaments in less than four years, commenced his eleven years'
rule without a Parliament. During that eleven years a constant current
of emigration flowed from England to Massachusetts Bay, to the extent of
13,000, including no less than seventy clergymen of the Church of
England, and many men of rank, and wealth to the amount of some
£300,000. All these emigrants, or "adventurers," as they were called,
left England with a stinging sense of royal and episcopal despotism, and
with a corresponding hatred of royalty and episcopacy, but with no
conception of the principles of religious toleration or liberty beyond
themselves.
During the eight years' interval between the settlement of the Pilgrims
at New Plymouth to that of the Puritans at Salem and Boston, trade had
largely increased between England and Massachusetts Bay,[22] and the
climate, fisheries, furs, timber, and other resources of northern New
England became well known, and objects of much interest in England.
King James had divided all that part of North America, 34° and 45° of
North latitude, into two grand divisions, bestowing the southern part
upon a London Company, and the northern part upon a Company formed in
Plymouth and Bristol. The Northern Company resolved to strengthen their
interests by obtaining a fresh grant from the King. A new patent was
issued reorganizing the Company as the Council for the Affairs of New
England, the corporate power of which was to reside at Plymouth, west of
England, under the title of the "Grand Council of Plymouth," with a
grant of three hundred square miles in New England. The Company formed
projects on too large a scale, and did not succeed; but sold that
portion of its territory which constituted the first settlements of the
Massachusetts Bay Company to some merchants in the west of England, who
had successfully fished for cod and bartered for furs in the region of
Massachusetts Bay, and who thought that a plantation might be formed
there. Among the most active encouragers of this enterprise was the Rev.
John White, a clergyman of Dorchester, a maritime town, which had been
the source of much commercial adventure in America.[23] One special
object of Mr. White was to provide an asylum for the ministers who had
been deprived and silenced in England for nonconformity to the canons
and ceremonies imposed by Laud and his associates. Through Mr. White the
guarantees became acquainted with several persons of his religious
sympathies in London, who first associated with them, and afterwards
bought rights in their patent. Among these was Matthew Cradock, the
largest stockholder in the Company, who was appointed its first
president, with eighteen associates, including John Winthrop, Isaac
Johnson, Sir Richard Saltonstall, and other persons of "like quality."
The chief object of these gentlemen in promoting a settlement in New
England was to provide a retreat where their co-religionists of the
Church of England could enjoy liberty in matters of religious worship
and discipline. But the proposed undertaking could not be prosecuted
with success without large means; in order to secure subscriptions for
which the commercial aspect of it had to be prominently presented.
The religious aspect of the enterprise was presented under the idea of
connecting and civilizing the idolatrous and savage Indian tribes of New
England. There was no hint, and I think no intention, of abolishing and
proscribing the worship of the Church of England in New England; for Mr.
White himself, the projector and animating spirit of the whole
enterprise, was a conformist clergyman.[24] It was professedly a
religio-commercial undertaking, and combined for its support and
advancement the motives of religion and commerce, together with the
enlargement of the Empire.
For greater security and more imposing dignity, the "adventurers"
determined to apply for a Royal Charter of incorporation. Their
application was seconded by Lord Dorchester and others near the Throne;
and Charles the First, impressed with the novel idea of at once
extending religion, commerce, and his Empire, granted a Royal Patent
incorporating the Company under the name of "The Governor and Company of
Massachusetts Bay, in New England." But several months before the Royal
Charter was obtained, or even application for it made, Endicot, one of
the stockholders, was sent out with a ship of one hundred emigrants,
and, in consequence of his favourable report, application was made for a
Royal Charter.[25]
It was the conduct of Endicot, a few months after his arrival at
Massachusetts Bay--first condemned and afterwards sustained and
justified by the Directors of the Corporation in London--that laid the
foundation of the future Church history of New England, and of its
disputes with the mother country. Endicot and his one hundred emigrant
adventurers arrived in the summer of 1628, and selected Naumkeag, which
they called Salem, as their place of settlement, the 6th of September.
Endicot was sent, with his company, by the Council for New England, "to
supersede Roger Conant at Naumkeag as local manager."[26] "The colony,
made up of two sources, consisted of not much above fifty or sixty
persons, none of whom were of special importance except Endicot, who was
destined to act for nearly forty years a conspicuous part in New England
history."[27] The Royal Charter passed the seals the 4th of March, 1629,
with Mr. Cradock as the first Governor of the Company. "The first step
of the new Corporation was to organize a government for its colony. It
determined to place the local administration in the hands of thirteen
councillors, to retain their office for one year. Of these, seven,
besides the Governor (in which office Endicot was continued), were to be
appointed by the Company at home; these eight were to choose three
others; and the whole number was to be made up by the addition of such
as should be designated by the persons on the spot at the time of
Endicot's arrival, described as "old planters."[28] A second embarkation
of planters and servants was ordered by the Company at a meeting, April
30, 1629, shortly after its incorporation by Royal Charter. Five ships
were provided for this embarkation; and four ministers were
provided--Francis Higginson, Samuel Skelton, Francis Bright, and Ralph
Smith.[29] Mr. Higginson says in his journal that he sailed from the
Isle of Wight the 11th of May, and arrived at Cape Ann the 27th of June,
and at Naumkeag (Salem) the 29th. They found at Naumkeag about one
hundred planters and houses, besides a fair house built for Mr. Endicot.
The old and new planters together were about three hundred, of whom one
hundred removed to Charlestown, where there was a house built; the rest
remained at Salem.
"Mr. Endicot had corresponded with the settlers at Plymouth, who
satisfied him that they were right in their judgments of the outward
form of worship, being much like that of the Reformed Churches of
France, &c. On the 20th of July, Mr. Higginson and Mr. Skelton, after
fasting and prayer, were first elected by the Company for their
ministers--the first, teacher; the other, pastor. Each of them, together
with three or four grave members, lay their hands on each and either,
with solemn prayer. Nothing is said of any Church being formed; but on
the 6th of August, the day appointed for the choice and ordination of
elders and deacons, thirty persons entered into a covenant in writing,
which is said to be the beginning of the Church, and that the ministers
were ordained or instituted anew. The repetition of this form they
probably thought necessary, because the people were not in a Church
state before. It is difficult to assign any other reason. Messengers or
delegates from the Church of Plymouth were expected to join with them,
but contrary winds hindered them, so that they did not arrive until the
afternoon, but time enough to give the right hand of fellowship.
"Two of the company, John and Samuel Brown, one a lawyer, the other a
merchant, both men of good estates, and of the first patentees of the
Council, were dissatisfied. They did not like that the Common Prayer and
service of the Church of England should be wholly laid aside, and
therefore drew off, with as many as were of their sentiments, from the
rest, and set up a separate society. This offended the Governor, who
caused the two members of his Council to be brought before him; and
judging that this practice, together with some speeches they had
uttered, tended to sedition, he sent them back to England. The heads of
the party being removed, the opposition ceased."[30]
PART II.
THE QUESTION INVOLVING THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION, THE
SETTING UP OF A NEW FORM OF WORSHIP, AND ABOLISHING AND PROSCRIBING THAT
OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND; THE FACTS ANALYZED AND DISCUSSED; INSTRUCTIONS
AND OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ORDERED BY THE LONDON COMPANY AND DISREGARDED BY
THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
As the whole question of the future Church-state in Massachusetts, and
the future relations of the colony to England, is involved in and
resulted from this proceeding, it is necessary to examine it thoroughly
in relation both to the state of things in the mother country and in the
colony, as well as the provisions of the Royal Charter. To do this,
several things are to be considered: 1. With what views was the Royal
Charter granted, and with what professed views did the first Governor
and his associates leave England under the provisions of the Charter,
and carrying it with them to Massachusetts Bay? 2. What were the
provisions of the Charter itself on the subject of religion? 3. What
were the powers claimed and exercised under it by the Massachusetts
Puritans? 4. How far the proceedings of the Massachusetts Puritans were
consistent with their original professions, with good faith towards the
Mother Country, and with the principles of civil and religious liberty
in the colony?
A careful recollection of the collateral events in England and those of
the colony, at the time and after granting the Royal Charter, is
requisite to a correct understanding of the question, and for the
refutation of those statements by which it was misrepresented and
misunderstood.
1. The first question is, with what views was the Royal Charter granted,
and with what professed views did the Governor and his associates leave
England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them
to Massachusetts Bay?
The theory of some New England historians is, that Puritanism in England
was opposed to the Church of England, and especially to its Episcopal
government--a theory true as respects the Puritanism of the Long
Parliament after the second year of its existence, and of the
Commonwealth and Cromwell, but which is entirely at variance with facts
in respect to the Puritanism professed in England at the time of
granting the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Company in 1620, and for
twelve years afterwards. In the Millenary Petition presented by the
Puritan party in the Church to James the First, on his coming to the
throne, presbytery was expressly disclaimed; and in the first three
Parliaments of Charles the First, during which all the grievances
complained of by the Puritans were stated and discussed in the Commons,
not the slightest objection was made to Episcopacy, but, on the
contrary, reverence and fidelity in regard to it was professed without
exception; and when the Long Parliament first met, eleven years after
the granting of the Royal Charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company,
every member but one professed to be an Episcopalian, and the Holy
Communion, according to the order of the Church, was, by an unanimous
vote of the Commons, ordered to be partaken by each member. In all the
Church, as well as judicial and political, reforms of this Parliament
during its first session, Episcopacy was regarded and treated as
inviolate; and it was not until the following year, under the promptings
of the Scotch Commissioners, that the "root and branch" petition was
presented to Parliament against Episcopacy and the Prayer Book, and the
subject was discussed in the Commons. The theory, therefore, that
Puritanism in England was hostile to the Church at the period in
question is contradicted by all the "collateral" facts of English
history, as it is at variance with the professions of the first
Massachusetts Puritans themselves at the time of their leaving England.
This is true in respect to Endicot himself, who was appointed manager of
the New England Company, to succeed Roger Conant, and in charge of one
hundred "adventurers" who reached Naumkeag (which they called Salem) in
September, 1628--seven months before the Royal Charter granted by
Charles the First passed the seals. Within two months after the Royal
Charter was granted, another more numerous party of "adventurers"
embarked for New England, and among these two gentlemen, original
patentees and members of the Council--John and Samuel Brown, and four
ministers--Higginson, Skelton, Bright, and Smith. During the winter of
1628-9 much sickness prevailed among the emigrants who accompanied
Endicot, who sent for a physician to the Plymouth settlement of the
Pilgrim Fathers. A Doctor Fuller was sent, who, while he prescribed
medicine for the sick of the newly-arrived emigrants, converted Endicot
from Episcopalianism to Congregationalism--at least from being a
professed Churchman to being an avowed Congregationalist. This is
distinctly stated by all the historians of the times.[31]
It is therefore clear that Endicot had imbibed new views of Church
government and form of worship, and that he determined not to perpetuate
the worship of the Church of England, to which he had professed to
belong when he left England, but to form a new Church and a new form of
worship. He seems to have brought over some thirty of the new emigrants
to his new scheme; and among these were the newly-arrived ministers,
Higginson and Skelton. They were both clergymen of the Puritan
school--professing loyalty to the Church, but refusing to conform to the
novel ceremonies imposed by Laud and his party.[32] But within two
months after their arrival, they entered into the new views of Endicot
to found a new Church on the Congregational system. Their manner of
proceeding to do so has been stated above (p. 29.) Mr. Hutchinson
remarks--"The New England Puritans, when at full liberty, went the full
length which the Separatists did in England. It does not follow that
they would have done so if they had remained in England. In their form
of worship they universally followed the New Plymouth Church."[33]
The question is naturally suggested, could King Charles the First, in
granting the Charter, one declared object of which was converting the
Indians, have intended or contemplated the superseding the Church for
whose episcopacy he perished on the scaffold, by the establishment of
Congregationalism in New England? The supposition is absurd, and it is
equally unreasonable to suppose that those who applied for and obtained
the Charter contemplated anything of the kind, as will appear presently.
It can hardly be conceived that even among the newly-arrived emigrants
on the shores of Massachusetts, such a revolution as the adoption of a
new form of worship could be accomplished without doing violence to the
convictions and endeared associations of some parties. However they
might have objected to the ceremonies and despotic acts of the Laudian
school in England, they could not, without a pang and voice of
remonstrance, renounce the worship which had given to England her
Protestantism and her liberties, or repudiate the book which embodied
that form of worship, and which was associated with all that had exalted
England, from Cramner and Ridley to their own day. Congregationalism
had done nothing for the Protestantism or liberties of England, and it
would have been strange indeed had there not been some among the
emigrants who would not consider their change of latitude and longitude
as destroying their Church membership, and sundering the additional ties
which connected them with their forefathers and the associations of all
their past life. Endicot, therefore, with all his authority as local
Governor, and all his energy and zeal, and canvassing among the two or
three hundred new emigrants for a new Church, had not been able to get
more than thirty of them, with the aid of the two newly-arrived
ministers, to unite in the new Covenant Confession; but he had got the
(if not coerced) majority of the local Councillors to join with him, and
therefore exercised absolute power over the little community, and
denounced and treated as mutinous and factious all who would not
renounce the Church of their fathers and of their own profession down to
that hour, and adopt the worship of his new community.
As only thirty joined with Endicot in the creation of his new Church
organization and Covenant, it is obvious that a majority of the
emigrants either stood aloof from or were opposed to this extraordinary
proceeding. Among the most noted of these adherents to the old Church of
the Reformation were two brothers, John and Samuel Brown, who refused to
be parties to this new and locally-devised Church revolution, and
resolved, for themselves, families, and such as thought with them, to
continue to worship God according to the custom of their fathers and
nation.
It is the fashion of several American historians, as well as their
echoes in England, to employ epithets of contumely in regard to those
men, the Browns--both of them men of wealth--the one a lawyer and the
other a private gentleman--both of them much superior to Endicot himself
in social position in England--both of them among the original patentees
and first founders of the colony--both of them Church reformers, but
neither of them a Church revolutionist. It is not worthy of Dr. Palfrey
and Mr. Bancroft to employ the words "faction" and "factionists" to the
protests of John and Samuel Brown.[34]
What is stated by Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft more than refutes and
condemns the opprobrious epithets they apply to the Browns. On pages 29
and 30 I have given, in the words of Mr. Hutchinson, the account of the
formation of the new Church, and the expulsion of the Browns for their
refusal to conform to it. Dr. Palfrey states the transaction between
Endicot and the Browns in the following words:
"The transaction which determined the religious constitution of New
England gave offence to two of the Councillors, John and Samuel Brown.
Considering the late proceedings, _as well they might do_, to amount to
a _secession from the national Establishment_, they, with some others of
the same mind, set up a separate worship, conducted according to the
Book of Common Prayer. Endicot and his friends were in no mood to
tolerate this schism. The brothers, brought before the Governor, said
that the ministers 'were Separatists, and would be Anabaptists.' The
ministers replied that 'they came away from the Common Prayer and
ceremonies, and had suffered much for their nonconformity in their
native land, and therefore, being placed where they might have their
liberty, they neither could nor would use them, because they judged the
imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions of God's worship.'
There was no composing such strife, and 'therefore, finding these two
brothers to be of high spirits, and their speeches and practice tending
to mutiny and faction, the Governor told them that New England was no
place for such as they, and therefore he sent them both back for England
at the return of the ships the same year.'"[35]
Mr. Bancroft says: "The Church was self-constituted. It did not ask the
assent of the King or recognize him as its head; its officers were set
apart and ordained among themselves; it used no Liturgy, and it rejected
unnecessary ceremonies; and reduced the simplicity of Calvin to a still
plainer standard." "There existed even in this little company a few
individuals to whom the new system was unexpected; and in John and
Samuel Brown they found able leaders. Both were members of the Colonial
Council, and they had been favourites of the Corporation in England; and
one of them, an experienced and meritorious lawyer, had been a member of
the Board of Assistants in London. They declared their dissent from the
Church of Higginson; and at every risk of union and tranquillity, they
insisted upon the use of the English Liturgy." "Finding it to be a vain
attempt to persuade the Browns to relinquish their resolute opposition,
and _believing_ that their speeches _tended_ to produce _disorder_ and
dangerous feuds, Endicot sent them back to England in the returning
ships; and _faction_, deprived of its leaders, died away."[36]
It is clear from these statements--partial as they are in favour of
Endicot and against the Browns--that Endicot himself was the innovator,
the Church revolutionist and the would-be founder of a new Church, the
real schismatic from the old Church, and therefore responsible for any
discussions which might arise from his proceedings; while the Browns and
their friends were for standing in the old ways and walking in the old
paths, refusing to be of those who were given to change. Mr. Bancroft
says that "the _new system_ was _unexpected_" to them. Mr. Palfrey says
that "John and Samuel Brown, considering the late proceedings, _as well
they might_, to amount to a _secession from the national Establishment_,
they, with some others of the same mind, set up a separate worship
conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer." Or, more properly,
they _continued_ the worship according to the Book of Common Prayer,
which they and their fathers had practised, as well as Endicot and
Higginson themselves up to that day, refusing to leave the old Church of
the Reformation, and come into a new Church founded by joining of hands
of thirty persons, in a new covenant, walking around the place of the
old town-pump of Salem. Mr. Endicot is sent from England as the manager
of a trading Company, and invested with powers as their local temporary
Governor, to manage their business and remove persons that might disturb
or interfere with its operations; and he becomes acquainted with a
Doctor Fuller, a deacon of a Congregational Church at New Plymouth, and
imbibes his views; and forthwith sets himself to abolish the old Church,
and found a new one, and proceeds at length to banish as seditious and
mutinous those who would not forsake the old way of worship and follow
him in his new way of worship.
Some of the above quoted language of Dr. Palfrey and Mr. Bancroft
implies improper conduct on the part of the brothers Brown, for which
they were banished. Even if that were so, their position of unchangeable
loyalty to their post and of good faith to their Company might be
pleaded in justification of the strongest language on their part. But
such was not the fact; it was their _position_, and not their language
or tempers. Mr. Bancroft himself says, in the American edition of his
History, that "the Browns were banished _because they were Churchmen.
Thus was Episcopacy professed in Massachusetts, and thus was it exiled.
The blessings of the promised land were to be kept for Puritan
dissenters_."[37] This statement of Mr. Bancroft is confirmed and the
conduct of Endicot more specifically stated by earlier New England
historians. In the "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," reprinted
by the Massachusetts Historical Society, the whole affair is minutely
related. The following passages are sufficient for my purpose:
"An opposition of some consequence arose from several persons of
influence, who had been active in promoting the settlement of the place.
At the head of this were Mr. Samuel Brown and Mr. John Brown, the one a
lawyer and the other a merchant, who were attached to the form and usage
of the Church of England. The ministers [Higginson and Skelton],
assisted by Mr. Endicot, endeavoured to bring them over to the practice
of the Puritans, but without success." "These gentlemen, with others,
were conscientious Churchmen, and desired to use the Liturgy, and for
this purpose met in their own houses. The magistrates, or rather Mr.
Endicot, sent to demand a reason for their separation. They answered,
that as they were of the Church established by law in their native
country, it was highly proper they should worship God as the Government
required, from whom they had received their Charter. Surely they might
be allowed that _liberty of conscience_ which all conceived to be
reasonable when they were on the other side of the water. But these
arguments were called _seditious_ and _mutinous_."
"Mr. Bentley imputes the errors of the ministers to the temper of
Endicot, who was determined to execute his own plan of Church
government. Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to
consult even his friends, he was resolved to suffer no opposition; and
as the Salem Church had disdained the authority of the Church of
England, his feelings were hurt and his temper raised against those who
preferred a Liturgy, and whose object might be, as he conceived, to
cause a schism in the community."[38]
The Mr. Bentley referred to above was the historian of the town of
Salem, in a book entitled "Description and History of Salem, by the Rev.
William Bentley," and reprinted in the "Collection of the Massachusetts
Historical Society," Vol. VI., pp. 212-277. Referring to Endicot's
conduct to the Browns, Mr. Bentley says:
"Endicot had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the
Browns. He was determined to execute his own plan of Church government.
Inexperienced in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even
his friends, he was resolved to admit of no opposition. They _who could
not be terrified into silence_ were _not commanded to withdraw, but they
were seized and banished as criminals_. The fear of injury to the colony
induced its friends in England to give private satisfaction, and then to
write a reproof to him who had been the cause of the outrages; and
Endicot never recovered his reputation in England." (p. 245.)
It is thus clear beyond reasonable doubt that the sole offence of the
Browns, and those who remained with them, was that they adhered to the
worship which they had always practised, and which was professed by all
parties when they left England, and because they refused to follow Mr.
Endicot in the new Church polity and worship which he adopted from the
Congregational Plymouth physician, after his arrival at Salem, and which
he was determined to establish as the only worship in the new
Plantation. It was Endicot, therefore, that commenced the change, the
innovation, the schism, and the power given him as Manager of the
trading business of the Company he exercised for the purpose of
establishing a Church revolution, and banishing the men who adhered to
the old ways of worship professed by the Company when applying for the
Royal Charter, and still professed by them in England. It is not
pretended by any party that the Browns were not interested in the
success of the Company as originally established, and as professed when
they left England; it is not insinuated that they opposed in any way or
differed from Endicot in regard to his management of the general affairs
of the Company; on the contrary, it is manifest by the statement of all
parties that the sole ground and question of dispute between Endicot and
the Browns was the refusal of the latter to abandon the Episcopal and
adopt the Congregational form of worship set up by Endicot and thirty
others, by joining of hands and subscribing to a covenant and confession
of faith around the well-pump of Naumkeag, then christened Salem.
The whole dispute, then, narrowed to this one question, let us inquire
in what manner the Browns and their friends declined acting with Endicot
in establishing a new form of worship instead of that of the Church of
England?
It does not appear that Endicot even consulted his local Council, much
less the Directors of the Company in England, as to his setting up a new
Church and new form of worship in the new Plantation at Salem. Having
with the new accession of emigrants received the appointment of
Governor, he appears to have regarded himself as an independent ruler.
Suddenly raised from being a manager and captain to being a Governor, he
assumed more despotic power than did King Charles in England, and among
the new emigrants placed under his control, and whom he seems to have
regarded as his subjects--himself their absolute sovereign, in both
Church and State. In his conferences with Fuller, the Congregational
doctor from New Plymouth, he found the Congregational worship to answer
to his aspirations as in it he could on the one hand gratify his hatred
of King and Church, and on the other hand become the founder of the new
Church in a new Plantation. He paused not to consider whether the
manager of a trading Company of adventurers had any authority to abolish
the worship professed by the Company under whose authority he was
acting; how far fidelity required him to give effect to the worship of
his employers in carrying out their instructions in regard to the
religious instruction of their servants and the natives; but he
forthwith resolved to adopt a new confession of faith and to set up a
new form of worship. On the arrival of the first three chaplains of the
Company, in June of 1629, several months after his own arrival, Endicot
seems to have imparted his views to them, and two of them, Higginson and
Skelton, fell in with his scheme; but Mr. Bright adhered to his Church.
It was not unnatural for Messrs. Higginson and Skelton to prefer
becoming the fathers and founders of a new Church than to remain
subordinate ministers of an old Church. The Company, in its written
agreement with them, or rather in its instructions accompanying them to
Endicot, allowed them discretion in their new mission field as to their
mode of teaching and worship; but certainly no authority to ignore it,
much less authority to adopt a new confession of faith and a new form of
worship.
Within three months after the arrival of these chaplains of the Company
at Salem, they and Endicot matured the plan of setting up a new Church,
and seemed to have persuaded thirty-one of the two hundred emigrants to
join with them--a minority of less than one-sixth of the little
community; but in that minority was the absolute Governor, and against
whose will a majority was nothing, even in religious matters, or in
liberty of conscience. Government by majorities and liberty of
conscience are attributes of freedom.
Let it be observed here, once for all, that Endicot and his friends are
not, in my opinion, censurable for changing their professed religious
opinions and worship and adopting others, if they thought it right to do
so. If, on their arrival at Massachusetts Bay, they thought and felt
themselves in duty bound to renounce their old and set up a new form of
worship and Church discipline, it was doubtless their right to do so;
but in doing so it was unquestionably their duty not to violate their
previous engagements and the rights of others. They were not the
original owners and occupants of the country, and were not absolutely
free to choose their own form of government and worship; they were
British subjects, and were commencing the settlement of a territory
granted them by their Sovereign; they were sent there by a Company
existing and acting under Royal Charter; Endicot was the chief agent of
that Company, and acting under their instructions. As such, duty
required him to consult his employers before taking the all-important
step of setting aside the worship they professed and establishing a new
one, much less to proscribe and banish those who had adventured as
settlers upon the old professed worship, and declined adopting the new.
And was it not a violation of good faith, as well as liberty of
conscience, to deny to the Browns and their friends the very worship on
the profession of which by all parties they had embarked as settlers in
New England? To come to New England as Churchmen, and then abolish the
worship of the Church and set up a new form of worship, without even
consulting his employers, was what was done by Endicot; and to come as
Churchmen to settle in New England, and then to be banished from it for
being Churchmen, was what was done to the Browns by Endicot.
This act of despotism and persecution--apart from its relations to the
King, and the Company chartered by him--is the more reprehensible from
the manner of its execution and the circumstances connected with it.
It appears from the foregoing statements and authorities, that the
Browns were not only gentlemen of the highest respectability, Puritan
Churchmen, and friends of the colonial enterprise, but that when Endicot
resolved upon founding a new Church and worship, they did not interfere
with him; they did not interrupt, by objection or discussion, his
proceedings around the well-pump of Salem in organizing a new Church and
in heretofore professing clergymen of the Church of England, and with
its vows upon them, and coming as chaplains of a Church of England
Corporation, submitting to a new ordination in order to exercise
ecclesiastical functions. The Browns and their friends seem to have been
silent spectators of these proceedings--doubtless with feelings of
astonishment if not of grief--but determined to worship in their
families and on the Sabbath in their old way. But in this they were
interrupted, and haled before the new Governor, Endicot, to answer for
their not coming to his worship and abandoning that which they and their
fathers, and Endicot himself, had practised; were called "Separatists,"
for not acting as such in regard to their old way of worship; and were
treated as "seditious and mutinous," for justifying their fidelity to
the old worship before the new "Star Chamber" tribunal of Endicot. The
early New England ecclesiastical historian above quoted says: "The
magistrates, or rather Endicot, _sent to demand a reason_[39] for their
separation. They _answered_ that as they were of the Church established
by law in their native country, it was highly proper they should worship
God as the Government required from whom they had received their
Charter. Surely they might be allowed that liberty of conscience which
all conceived to be reasonable when they were on the other side of the
water." But their arguments were called "seditious and mutinous." The
first Congregational historian of Salem, above quoted, says: "Endicot
had been the cause of all the rash proceedings against the Browns. He
was determined to execute his plan of Church government. Inexperienced
in the passions of men, and unaccustomed to consult even his friends, he
was resolved to admit of no opposition. They who could not be terrified
into silence _were not commanded to withdraw_, but were _seized_ and
_transported as criminals_."[40]
Such are the facts of the case itself, as related by the New England
Puritan writers themselves. I will now for a short time cross the
Atlantic, and see what were the professions and proceedings of the
Council or "Grand Court" of the Company in England in regard to the
chief objects of establishing the Plantation, their provision for its
religious wants, and their judgment afterwards of Endicot's proceedings.
In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot and his
Council, dated the 17th of April, 1629, they remind him that the
propagation of the Gospel was the primary object contemplated by them;
that they had appointed and contracted with three ministers to promote
that work, and instructed him to provide accommodation and necessaries
for them, according to agreement. They apprise him also of his
confirmation as "Governor of _our_ Plantation," and of the names of the
Councillors joined with him.[41] In their letter to Endicot, they call
the ministers sent by them "your ministers," and say: "For the manner of
exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the
Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word
the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their
duties." Such instructions and directions have doubtless been given by
the Managing Boards of many Missionary Societies to missionaries whom
they sent abroad; but without the least suspicion that such missionaries
could, in good faith, on arriving at their destination, ignore the
Church and ordination in connection with which they had been employed,
and set up a new Church, and even be parties to banishing from their new
field of labour to which they had been sent, the members of the Church
of which they themselves were professed ministers when they received
their appointment and stipulated support.
Six weeks after transmitting to Endicot the letter above referred to,
the Company addressed to him a second general letter of instructions.
This letter is dated the 28th of May, 1629, and encloses the official
proceedings of the Council or "General Court" appointing Endicot as
Governor, with the names of the Councillors joined with him, together
with the form of _oaths_ he and the other local officers of the Company
were to take.[42] The oath required to be taken by Endicot and each
local Governor is very full and explicit.[43] It is also to be observed
that these two letters of instructions, with forms of oaths and
appointments of his Council, were sent out three months before Endicot,
Higginson, and Skelton proceeded to ignore and abolish the Church
professed by the Company and themselves, and set up a new Church.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 22: Two years after the Plymouth settlement, "Thirty-five
ships sailed this year (1622) from the west of England, and two from
London, to fish on the New England coasts, and made profitable voyages."
(Holmes' Annals of America, Vol. I., p. 179.) In a note on the same page
it is said: "Where in Newfoundland they shared six or seven pounds for a
common man, in New England they shared fourteen pounds; besides, six
Dutch and French ships made wonderful returns in furs."]
[Footnote 23: "The Council of New England, on the 19th of March (1627),
sold to Sir Henry Rowsell, Sir John Young, and four other associates,
[Thomas Southwood, John Humphrey, John Endicot, and Simeon Whitcombe,]
in the vicinity of Dorchester, in England, a patent for all that part of
New England lying between three miles to the northward of Merrimack
River, and three miles to the southward of Charles River, and in length
within the described breadth from the Atlantic Ocean to the South Sea."
(Holmes' Annals, Vol. I., p. 193.)]
[Footnote 24: The zeal of White soon found other powerful associates in
and out of London--kindred spirits, men of religious fervour, uniting
emotions of enthusiasm with unbending perseverance in action--Winthrop,
Dudley, Johnson, Pynchon, Eaton, Saltonstall, Bellingham, so famous in
colonial annals, besides many others, men of fortune and friends to
colonial enterprise. Three of the original purchasers parted with their
rights; Humphrey and Endicot retained an equal interest with the
original purchasers. (Bancroft's United States, Vol. I., pp. 368, 369.)]
[Footnote 25: Bancroft says: "Endicot, a man of dauntless courage, and
that cheerfulness which accompanies courage, benevolent though austere,
firm though choleric, of a rugged nature, which the sternest forms of
Puritanism had not served to mellow, was selected as a fit instrument
for this wilderness work.' (History of the United States, Vol. I., pp.
369, 370.)
"When the news reached London of the safe arrival of the emigrants
(under Endicot), the number of the adventurers had already enlarged. The
Puritans throughout England began to take an interest in the efforts
which invited the imagination to indulge in delightful visions. Interest
was also made to obtain a Royal Charter, with the aid of Bellingham and
White, an eminent lawyer, who advocated the design. The Earl of Warwick
had always been a friend to the Company; and Lord Dorchester, then one
of the Secretaries of State, is said to have exerted a powerful
influence in behalf of it. At last [March 4th, 1629], after much labour
and large expenditures, the patent for the Company of Massachusetts Bay
passed the seals." (_Ib._, p. 379.)]
[Footnote 26: The precursor of this Company was a Joint Stock
Association, established at Dorchester under the auspices of the Rev.
Mr. White, "patriarch of Dorchester," and called the "Dorchester
Adventurers," with a view to fishing, farming, and hunting; but the
undertaking was not successful, and an attempt was made to retrieve
affairs by putting the colony under a different direction. The
Dorchester partners heard of some religious and well-affected persons
that were lately removed out of New Plymouth, out of dislike of their
principles of rigid separation, of which Mr. Roger Conant was one--a
religious, sober, and prudent gentleman. (Hubbard's History of New
England, Chap. xviii.) The partners engaged Conant to be their Governor,
with the charge of all their affairs, as well fishing as planting. The
change did not produce success. The Association sold its land, shipping,
&c.; and Mr. Endicot was appointed under the new _regime_. (Palfrey's
Hist. of New England, Vol. I., pp. 285-8.)]
[Footnote 27: Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 289.]
[Footnote 28: _Ib._, p. 292.]
[Footnote 29: Mr. Bright, one of these ministers, is said by Hubbard to
have been a Conformist. He went, soon after his arrival, to Charlestown,
and tarried about a year in the country, when he returned to England.
Ralph Smith was required to give a pledge, under his hand, that he would
not exercise his ministry within the limits of the patent, without the
express leave of the Governor on the spot. Mr. Smith seems to have been
of the separation in England, which occasioned the caution to be used
with him. He was a little while in Nantasket, and went from thence to
Plymouth, where he was their minister for several years. (Hutchinson's
History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 10, 11.)]
[Footnote 30: Hutchinson's History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp.
11, 12.]
[Footnote 31: How much of the Church system thus introduced had already
been resolved upon before the colonists of the Massachusetts Company
left England, and how long a time, if any, previous to their emigration
such an agreement was made, are questions which we have probably not
sufficient means to determine. Thus much is certain--that when Skelton
and Higginson reached Salem, they found Endicot, who was not only their
Governor, but one of the six considerable men who had made the first
movement for a patent, fully prepared for the ecclesiastical
organization which was presently instituted. In the month before their
arrival, Endicot, in a letter [May 11, 1629] to Bradford thanking him
for the visit of Fuller, had said: 'I rejoice much that I am by him
satisfied touching your judgments of the outward form of God's
worship.'--Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, First
Series, Vol. III., p. 65.]
[Footnote 32: Cotton Mather relates that, taking the last look at his
native shore, Higginson said, 'We will not say, as the Separatists say,
"Farewell, Babylon; farewell, Rome;" but we will say, "Farewell, dear
England; farewell, Church of God in England, and all the Christian
friends there. We do not go to New England as separatists from the
Church of England, though we cannot but separate from the corruptions of
it. But we go to practise the positive part of Church reformation, and
propagate the gospel in America.'"--Magnalia, Book III., Part II., Chap.
i., quoted by Palfrey, Vol. I., p. 297, in a note.
"They were careful to distinguish themselves from the Brownist and other
Separatists. Had they remained in England, and the Church been governed
with the wisdom and moderation of the present day, they would have
remained, to use their own expression, 'in the bosom of the Church where
they had received their hopes of salvation.'"--Hutchinson's History of
Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 417.
Note by Mr. Hutchinson: "The son of one of the first ministers, in a
preface to a sermon preached soon after the Revolution, remarks that 'if
the bishops in the reign of King Charles the First had been of the same
spirit as those in the reign of King William, there would have been no
New England.'"]
[Footnote 33: History of Massachusetts Bay, Vol. I., Chap, iv., p. 418.]
[Footnote 34: "The Messrs. Brown went out with the second emigration, at
the same time as Messrs. Higginson and Skelton, a few months after
Endicot, and while he was the local Governor, several months before the
arrival of the third emigration of eleven ships with Governor Winthrop.
In the Company's first letter of instructions to Endicot, dated the 17th
of April, 1629, they speak of and commend the Messrs. Brown in the
following terms:
"'Through many businesses we had almost forgot to recommend to you two
brethren of our Company, Mr. John and Mr. Samuel Brown, who though they
be no adventurers in the general stock, yet are they men we do much
respect, being fully persuaded of their sincere affections to the good
of our Plantation. The one, Mr. John Brown, is sworn assistant here, and
by us chosen one of the Council there; a man experienced in the laws of
our kingdom, and such an one as we are persuaded will worthily deserve
your favour and furthermore, which we desire he may have, and that in
the first division of lands there may be allotted to either of them two
hundred acres.'" (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony
of Massachusetts Bay, from 1623 to 1636, p. 168.)]
[Footnote 35: History of New England, Vol. I., p. 298.]
[Footnote 36: Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. I., p. 379.]
[Footnote 37: History of the United States, Am. Ed. 8vo, Vol. I., p.
350. These three sentences are not found in the British Museum (English)
Edition of Mr. Bancroft's History, but are contained in Routledge's
London reprint of the American Edition.]
[Footnote 38: "Ecclesiastical History of Massachusetts," in the
Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol. IX., pp. 3-5.]
[Footnote 39: It is clear, from these and other corresponding
statements, that the Messrs. Brown had had no controversy with Endicot;
had not in the least interfered with _his_ proceedings, but had quietly
and inoffensively pursued their own course in adhering to the old
worship; and only stated their objections to his proceedings by giving
the reasons for their own, when arraigned before his tribunal to answer
for their not coming to his worship, and continuing in that of their own
Church. The reasonings and speeches thus drawn from them were deemed
"seditious and mutinous," and for which they were adjudged "criminals'"
and banished. Looking at all the facts of the case--including the want
of good faith to the Browns and those who agreed with them--it exceeds
in inquisitorial and despotic prescriptive persecution that which drove
the Brownists from England to Holland in the first years of James the
First.]
[Footnote 40: Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society.
Mr. F.M. Hubbard, in his new edition of Belknap's American Biography,
iii. 166, referring to Endicot, says: "He was of a quick temper, which
the habit of military command had not softened; of strong religious
feelings, moulded on the sternest features of Calvinism; resolute to
uphold with the sword what he had received as gospel truth, and fearing
no enemy so much as a gainsaying spirit. Cordially disliking the English
Church, he banished the Browns and the Prayer Book; and averse to all
ceremonies and symbols, the cross on the King's colours was an
abomination he could not away with. He cut down the Maypole on Merry
Mount, published his detestation of long hair in a formal proclamation,
and set in the pillory and on the gallows the returning Quakers."]
[Footnote 41: The words of the Company's letter are as follows:
"And for that the propagating of the Gospel is the thing we do profess
above all to be our aim in settling this Plantation, we have been
careful to make plentiful provision of godly ministers, by whose
faithful preaching, godly conversation, and exemplary life, we trust not
only those of our own nation will be built up in the knowledge of God,
but also the Indians may, in God's appointed time, be reduced to the
obedience of the Gospel of Christ. One of them, viz., Mr. Skelton, whom
we have rather desired to bear a part in this work, for that we have
been informed yourself formerly received much good by his ministry.
Another is Mr. Higgeson (Higginson), a grave man, and of worthy
commendations. The third is Mr. Bright, sometimes trained up under Mr.
Davenport. We pray you, accommodate them all with necessaries as well as
you may, and in convenient time let there be houses built for them,
according to the agreement we have made with them, copies whereof, as of
all others we have entertained, shall be sent you by the next ships,
time not permitting now. We doubt not these gentlemen, your ministers,
will agree lovingly together; and for cherishing of love betwixt them,
we pray you carry yourself impartially to all. For the manner of
exercising their ministry, and teaching both our own people and the
Indians, we leave that to themselves, hoping they will make God's Word
the rule of their actions, and mutually agree in the discharge of their
duties.
"We have, in prosecution of that good opinion we have always had of you,
confirmed you Governor of our Plantation, and joined in commission with
you the three ministers--namely, Mr. Francis Higginson, Mr. Samuel
Skelton, and Mr. Francis Bright; also Mr. John and Samuel Brown, Mr.
Thomas Groves, and Mr. Samuel Sharpe."--The Company's First General
Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, the 17th of April,
1629. (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of
Massachusetts Bay, pp. 142-144.)
"A form of an oath for a Governor beyond the seas, and of an oath for
the Council there, was drawn and delivered to Mr. Humphrey to show to
the (Privy) Council." (Company's Records, Young, &c., p. 69.)]
[Footnote 42: The following is an extract of the Company's Second
General Letter of Instructions to Endicot and his Council, dated London,
28th May, 1629:
"We have, and according as we then advised, at a full and ample Court
assembled, elected and established you, Captain John Endicot, to the
place of Governor in our Plantation there, as also some others to be of
the Council with you, as more particularly you will perceive by an Act
of Court herewith sent, confirmed by us at a General Court, and sealed
with our common seal, to which Act we refer you, desiring you all
punctually to observe the same, and that the _oaths_ we herewith send
you (which have been penned by learned counsel, to be administered to
each of you in your several places) may be administered in such manner
and form as in and by our said order is particularly expressed; and that
yourselves do frame such other oaths as in your wisdom you shall think
fit to be administered to your secretary or other officers, according to
their several places respectively." (Young's Chronicles, &c., p. 173.)]
[Footnote 43: The form of oath, which had been prepared under legal
advice, submitted to and approved of by the King's Privy Council, was as
follows: