The Loyalists of America and Their Times Volume I Part 3

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 abolis.h.i.+ng and proscribing the wors.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 s.h.i.+p 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 pa.s.sed 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 s.h.i.+ps 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 inst.i.tuted anew. The repet.i.tion of this form they probably thought necessary, because the people were not in a Church state before. It is difficult to a.s.sign 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 fellows.h.i.+p.

"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 WORs.h.i.+P, AND ABOLIs.h.i.+NG AND PROSCRIBING THAT OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND; THE FACTS a.n.a.lYZED AND DISCUSSED; INSTRUCTIONS AND OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE ORDERED BY THE LONDON COMPANY AND DISREGARDED BY THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL AT Ma.s.sACHUSETTS BAY.

As the whole question of the future Church-state in Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 a.s.sociates leave England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them to Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Ma.s.sachusetts Puritans? 4. How far the proceedings of the Ma.s.sachusetts 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 a.s.sociates leave England under the provisions of the Charter, and carrying it with them to Ma.s.sachusetts 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 Ma.s.sachusetts Company in 1620, and for twelve years afterwards. In the Millenary Pet.i.tion 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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" pet.i.tion 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 Ma.s.sachusetts 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 pa.s.sed 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 wors.h.i.+p, and that he determined not to perpetuate the wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p. 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 sh.o.r.es of Ma.s.sachusetts, such a revolution as the adoption of a new form of wors.h.i.+p could be accomplished without doing violence to the convictions and endeared a.s.sociations 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 wors.h.i.+p which had given to England her Protestantism and her liberties, or repudiate the book which embodied that form of wors.h.i.+p, and which was a.s.sociated 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 lat.i.tude and longitude as destroying their Church members.h.i.+p, and sundering the additional ties which connected them with their forefathers and the a.s.sociations of all their past life. Endicot, therefore, with all his authority as local Governor, and all his energy and zeal, and canva.s.sing 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p G.o.d according to the custom of their fathers and nation.

It is the fas.h.i.+on 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 const.i.tution 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 G.o.d's wors.h.i.+p.'

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 s.h.i.+ps the same year.'"[35]

Mr. Bancroft says: "The Church was self-const.i.tuted. It did not ask the a.s.sent 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 a.s.sistants 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 s.h.i.+ps; 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 wors.h.i.+p conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer." Or, more properly, they _continued_ the wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p and follow him in his new way of wors.h.i.+p.

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 Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 Ma.s.sachusetts," reprinted by the Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, the whole affair is minutely related. The following pa.s.sages 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], a.s.sisted 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 wors.h.i.+p G.o.d 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 pa.s.sions 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 ent.i.tled "Description and History of Salem, by the Rev.

William Bentley," and reprinted in the "Collection of the Ma.s.sachusetts 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 pa.s.sions 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p which he adopted from the Congregational Plymouth physician, after his arrival at Salem, and which he was determined to establish as the only wors.h.i.+p 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 establis.h.i.+ng a Church revolution, and banis.h.i.+ng the men who adhered to the old ways of wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 establis.h.i.+ng a new form of wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 a.s.sumed 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p professed by the Company under whose authority he was acting; how far fidelity required him to give effect to the wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p. 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 wors.h.i.+p; but certainly no authority to ignore it, much less authority to adopt a new confession of faith and a new form of wors.h.i.+p.

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 wors.h.i.+p and adopting others, if they thought it right to do so. If, on their arrival at Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, they thought and felt themselves in duty bound to renounce their old and set up a new form of wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p; 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 wors.h.i.+p they professed and establis.h.i.+ng a new one, much less to proscribe and banish those who had adventured as settlers upon the old professed wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p of the Church and set up a new form of wors.h.i.+p, 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 circ.u.mstances 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 wors.h.i.+p, 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p; and were treated as "seditious and mutinous," for justifying their fidelity to the old wors.h.i.+p 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 wors.h.i.+p G.o.d 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 pa.s.sions 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 establis.h.i.+ng 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 G.o.d'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 banis.h.i.+ng 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 s.h.i.+ps 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 s.h.i.+ps 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 a.s.sociates, [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."