The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume I Part 5
"This is an impartial though brief relation of the occasion of planting the colony; the particulars whereof, if they could be entertained, were clear enough to any indifferent judgment, that the suspicious and scandalous reports raised upon these gentlemen and their friends (as if, under the colour of planting a colony, they intended to raise a seminary of faction and separation), are nothing than the fruits of jealousy of some distempered mind or, which is worse, perhaps savour of a desperate malicious plot of men ill affected to religion, endeavouring, by casting the undertakers into the jealousy of the State, to shut them out of those advantages which otherwise they might expect from the countenance of authority. Such men would be entreated to forbear that base and unchristian course of traducing persons under these odious names of Separatists, and enemies of Church and State, for fear lest their own tongues fall upon themselves by the justice of His hand who will not fail to clear the innocency of the just, and to cast back into the bosom of every slanderer the filth that he rakes up to throw into other men's faces. As for men of more indifferent and better minds, they would be seriously advised to beware of entertaining or admitting, much more countenancing and crediting, such uncharitable persons as discover themselves by their carriage, and that in this particular to be men ill affected towards the work itself, if not to religion, at which it aims, and consequently unlikely to report any truths of such as undertake it."[54]
This language is very severe, not to say scurrilous; but it is the style of all Puritan historians and writers in regard to those who complained of the Puritan Government of Ma.s.sachusetts. Not even Messrs. Bancroft and Palfrey have thought it unworthy of their eloquent pages. But imputation of motives and character is not argument, is most resorted to for want of argument, much less is it a refutation of statements now universally known to be true. The venerable author of this "Planters'
Plea" denied in indignant terms that Endicot and his friends had become "Separatists" or "enemies of the Church" (he had doubtless been so a.s.sured); the very thing in which Endicot gloried--setting up a "Separatist" worship, forbidding the worship of "the Church," and banishing its members who resolved to continue the use of its Prayer Book, in public or in private.
This, however, is not all. Not only did the Company, in their letters to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, disdain to forbid anything like abolishing the Church of England and setting up a new Church, and the use of language offensive to their Sovereign and the Established Church; not only were there the most positive denials on both sides of the Atlantic that anything of the kind had been done by Endicot; but on the appointment of Winthrop to supersede Endicot as Governor, and on his departure with a fleet of eleven ships and three hundred "Adventurers"
and "Planters," as they were called, a formal and affectionate address to their "Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England" was published by Winthrop from his ship _Arabella_, disclaiming any acts of some among them (evidently alluding to what Endicot had been alleged to have done) hostile to the Church of England, declaring their obligation and attachment to it, their prayers for it, and entreating the prayers of its members for the success of their undertaking. This address is said to have been written by the Rev. John White, the "Patriarch of Dorchester," and prime mover of the whole Plantation enterprise. It is an imputation upon the integrity of the author, and upon all parties concerned in the address, and absurd in itself, to suppose that the prayers of the Church in England were solicited with a view to the abolition of its worship in Ma.s.sachusetts, and the establishment there of a "Separatist" Church. This address--not to be found in any modern history of the Ma.s.sachusetts Puritans--speaks for itself, and is given in a note as originally published.[55] It will be recollected that Winthrop and the other signers of this address had the Royal Charter with them, and now const.i.tuted the "princ.i.p.als" of the Company, whose authority in England now ceased, and was henceforth to be exercised at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay. They beg that the "disaffection or indiscretion" of some of the Company--evidently alluding to what Endicot was reported to have done--might not be imputed to "the princ.i.p.als and body of the Company." Their words are, addressing their Fathers and Brethren of the Church of England: "And howsoever your charity may have met with some occasional discouragement through the misreport of our intentions, or through the disaffection or indiscretion of some of us, or rather amongst us (for we are not of those who dream of perfection in this world); yet we desire you would look at the _princ.i.p.als and body of_ our _Company, as those who esteem it an honour to call the Church of England, whence we rise, our dear Mother," &c._
It is pa.s.sing strange that any man who respects himself could say, in the face of these words and of the whole address, that Mr. Winthrop and the "princ.i.p.als and body of the Company" did not profess to be members of the Church of England, and did not a.s.sure their "Fathers and Brethren in England" of their intention to remain so, and implore the prayers of their Fathers and Brethren for their success. No darker stigma could be inflicted upon the character of Winthrop and his Company, than the a.s.sertion that at the very moment of making and publishing these professions in England they intended to extinguish their "dear Mother"
in Ma.s.sachusetts, and banish every one from their Plantation who should use her Prayer Book, or worship as the "dear Mother" worshipped. Yet such is the theory, or fallacy, of some Puritan writers.
It has also been pretended that there was no Church of England in Ma.s.sachusetts, and therefore the planters were free to set up what form of worship they pleased. It may be asked in reply, what makes a Church but the presence of members of it? An early Christian writer says that "wherever there are two or three believers there is a Church." But were not Endicot, and Higginson, and Skelton as much members of the Church of England on their arrival at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay as when they left England?
And were not the two latter as much clergymen of the Church of England when they met Endicot at Naumkeag, or Salem, as when they engaged with the Company in England to go out as ministers to the new Plantation?
Does crossing the sea change or annihilate the churchmanship of the missionary, or the pa.s.senger, or the emigrant? There may not be a place of worship, or a minister, but there are the members of the Church. Is a missionary or agent of a Committee or Board of a particular Church in London, no longer a member of that Church when he reaches the foreign land to which he is sent because he finds no Church worship there, much less if he finds members of his own Church already there? Yet such are the pretences on which some Puritan writers, and even historians, attempt to justify the conduct of Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton! But, be it remembered, I make no objection to their renouncing their Church, and establishing for themselves and those who chose to follow them, a new Church confession and worship. The points of discussion are: 1. Was it honest for them to do so without consulting those who employed and settled them there, and provided for their religious instruction by clergymen of the Church of England? 2. Was it right or lawful, and was it not contrary to the laws of England, for them to abolish the worship of the Church of England and banish its members from the Plantation, as settlers, for continuing to worship according to the Church of England?
3. And can they be justified for denying to their friends in England, and their friends denying to the public and to the King, on their behalf and on their authority, what they had done, and what all the world now knows they had done, at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay? 4. And finally, was it not a breach of faith to their Sovereign, from whom they had received their Charter, and, as they themselves acknowledged, most kind treatment, to commence their settlement by abolishing the established religion which both the King and they professed when the Charter was granted, and when they left England, and banish from the territory which the King had granted them all settlers who would not renounce the form of worship established in England from the Reformation, and adopt a new form of worship, which was not then lawful in England?
The foregoing pages bear witness that I have not taken a sentence from any writer adverse to the Puritans. I have adhered to their own statements in their own words, and as printed in their Records. Their eloquent apologist and defender, Mr. Bancroft, says: "The Charter confers on the colonists the rights of English subjects; it does not confer on them new and greater rights. On the contrary, they are strictly forbidden to make laws or ordinances repugnant to the laws or statutes of the realm of England. The express concession of power to administer the oath of supremacy demonstrates that universal toleration was not designed; and the freemen of the Corporation, it should be remembered, were not at that time Separatists. Even Higginson, and Hooker, and Cotton were still ministers of the Church of England."[56]
From this acc.u.mulation of evidence--which might be greatly increased--I think it is as clear as day that the abolition of the worship of the Church of England, and the establishment of a new form of worship, and a new confession of faith, and a new ordination to the ministry at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay in 1629, was a violation of the Charter, an insult to the King, and a breach of faith with him, notwithstanding his acknowledged kindness to them, and a renunciation of all the professions which were made by the Company in England.
This was the first seed sown, which germinated for one hundred and thirty years, and then ripened in the American Revolution; it was the opening wedge which shivered the transatlantic branches from the parent stock. It was the consciousness of having abused the Royal confidence and broken faith with their Sovereign, of having acted contrary to the laws and statutes of England, that led the Government of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay to resist and evade all inquiries into their proceedings--to prevent all evidence from being transmitted to England as to their proceedings, and to punish as criminals all who should appeal to England against any of their proceedings--to claim, in short, independence and immunity from all responsibility to the Crown for anything that they did or might do.
Had Endicot and his party not done what they knew to be contrary to the loyal Charter and the laws of England, they would have courted inquiry, that the light of their fair and loyal acts might be manifest to all England, in refutation of all statements made against them. Had the Browns and their Church friends been permitted to worship after the manner of their fathers and of their childhood, while Endicot and his converts elected to worship in a new manner, there would have been no cause of collision, and no spirit of distrust and hostility between the Ma.s.sachusetts settlement and the King, any more than there was between either Charles the First or Second, and the settlements and separate Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, or Connecticut. But Endicot, in the spirit of tyranny and intolerance, would allow no liberty of worship not of his own establishment; and to maintain which in the spirit of proscription and persecution, caused all the disputes with the parent Government and all the persecutions and bloodshed on account of religion in Ma.s.sachusetts which its Government inflicted in subsequent years, in contradistinction to the Governments of Plymouth, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and even Maryland.[57]
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 44: The Company's Records on the whole affair are as follows:--
"Sept. 19, 1629.
"At this Court letters[45] were read from Mr. Endicot and others of New England. And whereas a difference hath fallen out betwixt the Governor there and John and Samuel Brown; it was agreed by the Court that, for the determination of those differences, John and Samuel Brown might choose out any three of the Company on their behalf to hear the said differences, the Company choosing as many."
From the Records of the Company, September 29, 1629:
"The next thing taken into consideration was the letters from John and Samuel Brown to divers of their private friends here in England, whether the same should be delivered or detained, and whether they should be opened and read, or not. And for that it was to be doubted by probable circ.u.mstances that they had defamed the country of New England, and the Governor and Government there, it was thought fit that some of the said letters should be opened and publicly read, which was done accordingly; and the rest to remain in the Deputy's house (Goffe's), and the parties to whom they are directed to have notice; and Mr. Governor and Mr.
Deputy, Mr. Treasurer, and Mr. Wright, or any two of them, are entreated to be at the opening and reading thereof, to the end that the Company may have notice if aught be inserted prejudicial to their Government or Plantation in New England. And it is also thought fit that none of the letters from Mr. Samuel Brown shall be delivered, but to be kept for use against him as occasion shall be offered." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp.
91, 92.)
"Upon the desire of John and Samuel Brown it is thought fit that they should have a copy of the accusation against them, to the end they may be better prepared to make answer thereto."
The accusation against the Browns seems to have been simply for sedition and seditious speeches--a charge brought by persecutors for religion against the persecuted since the days of our Lord and his Apostles--a charge for being the victims of which the Puritans in England had loudly complained in the reigns of James and Charles.
There is but one other record of the Company on the affair of Endicot and the Browns, but the suppression of their letters shows clearly that the publication of them would have been damaging to the Company.
The intercepting and seizure of private letters, after the example of the Company in seizing private letters of the Browns and punishing their authors, was reduced to a system by the Government of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, whose officers were commanded to inspect all letters sent by each vessel leaving their port, and to seize all suspected letters, which were opened, and, if found to contain any complaint or statement against the local authorities, were retained and the authors arraigned and punished.
Thus the Government and public in England were kept in perfect ignorance of what was transpiring at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, except what the local Government chose to communicate; and aggrieved persons in the Plantations were deprived of all means of appealing to the higher tribunals in England, and were condemned and punished for sedition in attempting to do so. This practice continued (as will be shown hereafter) until the death of King Charles and the usurpation of the regicides in England.
The following extract from the Company's Records seems to explain the manner in which the further proceedings of the Browns was stayed. In order to get some compensation for their losses, they seem to have agreed to the stipulations of the Company. But previous to this meeting of the Company, their Governor had written to Endicot, Higginson, and Skelton, in letters dated Oct. 18, 1629. These letters will be found in a note on a subsequent page. The extract from the Company's Records, dated February 10, 1630, is as follows:
"A writing of grievances of Samuel and John Brown was presented to the Court, wherein they desire recompense for loss and damage sustained by them in New England; and which this a.s.sembly taking into consideration, do think fit upon their submitting to stand to the Company's _final order for ending all differences between them (which they are to signify under their hands)_. Mr. Wright and Mr. Eaton are to hear their complaint, and to set down what they in their judgments shall think requisite to be allowed them for their pretended damage sustained, and so to make a final end with them accordingly." (Young's Chronicles, &c., p. 123.)]
[Footnote 45: Note by the compiler of the Records--"Those letters are unfortunately missing."]
[Footnote 46: The Company's letter to the Governor, dated October 16, 1629:--
"SIR,--We have written at this time to Mr. Skelton and Mr. Higginson touching the rumours of John and Samuel Brown, spread by them upon their arrival here, concerning some unadvised and scandalous speeches uttered by them in their public sermons or prayers, so have we thought meet to advertise you of what they have reported against you and them, concerning some rash innovations[47] begun and practised in the civil and ecclesiastical government. We do well to consider that the Browns are likely to make the worst of anything they have observed in New England, by reason of your sending them back, against their wills, for their _offensive behaviour_, expressed in a _general letter_ from the Company there;[48] yet--for we likewise do consider that you are in a government newly formed, and want that a.s.sistance which the weight of such a business doth require--we may have leave to think it is possible some _indigested counsels have too suddenly been put in execution, which may have ill construction with the State here, and make us obnoxious to any adversary_. Let it therefore seem good unto you to be _very sparing in introducing any laws or commands which may render yourself or us distasteful to the State here, to which we must and will have an obsequious eye. And as we make it our care to have the Plantation so ordered as may be most to the honour of G.o.d and of our gracious Sovereign, who hath bestowed many large privileges and royal favours upon this Company, so we desire that all such as shall by word or deed do anything to detract from G.o.d's glory or his Majesty's honour, may be duly corrected, for their amendment and the terror of others_. And to that end, if you know anything which hath been spoken or done, either by the ministers (whom the Browns do seem tacitly to blame for some things uttered in their sermons or prayers) or any others, we require you, if any such there be, that you form due process against the offenders, and send it to us by the first, that we may, as our duty binds us, use means to have them duly punished.
"So not doubting but we have said enough, we shall repose ourselves upon your wisdom, and do rest
"Your loving friends.
"To the Governor, Capt. Endicot."]
[Footnote 47: These innovations, I suppose, had reference princ.i.p.ally to the formation of the Church at Salem, the adoption of a confession of faith and covenant by the people, and their election and ordination of the ministers. Endicot, we know, sympathized fully with the Separatists of New Plymouth.--_Note by the Editor of the Records._]
[Footnote 48: This letter has always been missing.]
[Footnote 49: History of the United States, Vol. I., pp. 486, 487.]
[Footnote 50: The Company's letter to the Ministers:--
"REVEREND FRIENDS,--
There are lately arrived here, being sent from the Governor, Mr. John Endicot, as men of faction and evil-conditioned, John and Samuel Brown, being brethren who since their arrival have raised rumours (as we hear) of divers scandalous and intemperate speeches pa.s.sed from one or both of you in your public sermons and prayers in New England, as also of some innovations attempted by you. We have reason to hope that their reports are but slanders; partly, for your G.o.dly and quiet conditions are well known to some of us; as also, for that these men, your accusers, seem to be embittered against Captain Endicot for injuries which they have received from some of you there. Yet, for that we all know that the best advised may overshoot themselves, we have thought good to inform you of what we hear, and if you be innocent you may clear yourselves; or, if otherwise, you may be intreated to look back upon your miscarriage with repentance; or at least to notice that we utterly disallow any such pa.s.sages, and must and will take order for the redress thereof, as shall become us. But hoping, as we said, of your unblamableness herein, we desire only that this may testify to you and others that we are tender of the least aspersion which, either directly or obliquely, may be cast upon the State here; to whom we owe so much duty, and from whom we have received so much favour in this Plantation where you reside. So with our love and due respect to your callings, we rest,
Your loving friends,
R. SALTONSTALL, THO. ADAMS, ISA JOHNSON, SYM WHITCOMBE, MATT. CRADOCK, _Governor_, WM. Va.s.sAL, THOS. GOFFE, _Deputy_, WM. PYNCHION, GEO. HARWOOD, _Treasurer_, JOHN REVELL, JOHN WINTHROP, FRANCIS WEBB.
London, 16th October, 1629."]
[Footnote 51: Extract from Deputy Governor Dudley's letter to the Countess of Lincoln, dated November 12th, 1631:
"To increase the heap of our sorrows, we received from our friends in England, and by the reports of those who came hither in this ship [the _Charles_] to abide with us (who were about twenty-six), that they who went discontentedly from us last year, out of their evil affections towards us, have raised many false and scandalous reports against us, affirming us to be Brownists in religion, and ill affected to our State at home, and that these vile reports have won credit with some who formerly wished us well. But we do desire and cannot but hope that wise and impartial men will at length consider that such malcontents have ever pursued this manner of casting dirt, to make others seem as foul as themselves, and that our G.o.dly friends, to whom we have been known, will not easily believe that we are so soon turned from the profession we so long have made in our native country. And for our further clearing, I truly affirm that I know no one person, who came over with us last year, to be altered in judgment and affection, either in ecclesiastical and civil respects, since our coming hither. But we do continue to pray daily for our Sovereign Lord the King, the Queen, the Prince, the Royal blood, the Council and whole State, as duty binds us to do, and reason persuades us to believe. For how unG.o.dly and unthankful should we be if we should not do thus, who came hither by virtue of his Majesty's letters patent and under his gracious protection; under which shelter we hope to live safely, and from whose kingdom and subjects we now have received and hereafter expect relief. Let our friends therefore give no credit to such malicious aspersions, but be more ready to answer for us than we hear they have been." (Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 331, 332.)]
[Footnote 52: "'The Planters' Plea' was printed in London in 1630, soon after the sailing of Winthrop's fleet [with Dudley]. It has generally been ascribed to the Rev. John White, of Dorchester, England. 'The Planters' Plea' appears to have been unknown to our historians. Neither Mather, Prince, Hutchinson, Bancroft, nor Graham make any allusion to it." (Young's Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Ma.s.sachusetts, from 1623 to 1630, pp. 15, 16, in a note.)]
[Footnote 53: The _first_ emigration under the authority of the Ma.s.sachusetts Company was that under "Master Endicot, who was sent over Governor, a.s.sisted with a few men, and arriving in safety there in September, 1628, and uniting his own men with those who were formerly planted there into one body, they made up in all not much above fifty or sixty persons."
The second emigration was under Higginson, who says: "We brought with us about two hundred pa.s.sengers and planters more," arriving in June, 1629.
The third, or "great emigration," was under Winthrop, arriving in May, 1630.]
[Footnote 54: Young's Chronicles, &c., pp. 15, 16.]
[Footnote 55: This address is called "The humble Request of his Majesties loyall subjects, the Governor and the Company late gone for New England; to the rest of their Brethren in and of the Church of England," and is as follows;
"REVEREND FATHERS AND BRETHREN,--