Chapter LXX: Part 70

In April, 1634, "the superintendence of the colonies was …
removed from the privy council to an arbitrary special
commission, of which William Laud, archbishop of Canterbury,
and the archbishop of York, were the chief. These, with ten of
the highest officers of State, were invested with full power
to make laws and orders, … to appoint judges and magistrates
and establish courts for civil and ecclesiastical affairs, …
to revoke all charters and patents which had been
surreptitiously obtained, or which conceded liberties
prejudicial to the royal prerogative. Cradock, who had been
governor of the corporation in England before the transfer of
the charter of Massachusetts, was strictly charged to deliver
it up; and he wrote to the governor and council to send it
home. Upon receipt of his letter, they resolved 'not to return
any answer or excuse at that time.' In September, a copy of
the commission to Archbishop Laud and his associates was
brought to Boston; and it was at the same time rumored that
the colonists were to be compelled by force to accept a new
governor, the discipline of the church of England, and the
laws of the commissioners. The intelligence awakened 'the
magistrates and deputies to discover their minds each to
other, and to hasten their fortifications,' towards which,
poor as was the colony, £600 were raised. In January, 1635,
all the ministers assembled at Boston; and they unanimously
declared against the reception of a general governor, saying:
'We ought to defend our lawful possessions, if we are able; if
not, to avoid and protract.' In the month before this
declaration, it is not strange that Laud and his associates
should have esteemed the inhabitants of Massachusetts to be
men of refractory humors. … Restraints were placed upon
emigration; no one above the rank of a serving man might
remove to the colony without the special leave of Laud and his
associates. … Willingly as these acts were enforced by
religious bigotry, they were promoted by another cause. A
change had come over the character of the great Plymouth
council for the colonization of New England," which now
schemed and bargained with the English court to surrender its
general charter, on the condition that the vast territory
which it had already ceded to the Massachusetts Company and
others should be reclaimed by the king and granted anew, in
severalty, to its members (see NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1635). "At
the Trinity term of the court of king's bench, a quo warranto
was brought against the Company of the Massachusetts bay. At
the ensuing Michaelmas, several of its members who resided in
England made their appearance, and judgment was pronounced
against them individually; the rest of the patentees stood
outlawed, but no judgment was entered against them.
{2105}
The unexpected death of Mason, the proprietary of New
Hampshire, in December, 1635, removed the chief instigator of
these aggressions. In July, 1637, the king, professing 'to
redress the mischiefs that had arisen out of the many
different humours,' took the government of New England into
his own hands, and appointed over it Sir Ferdinando Gorges as
governor-general. … But the measure was feeble and
ineffectual." Gorges "never left England, and was hardly heard
of except by petitions to its government." Troubles had
thickened about king Charles and his creature Laud until they
no longer had time or disposition to bestow more of their
thoughts on Massachusetts. A long-suffering nation was making
ready to put an end to their malignant activities, and the
Puritans of New England and Old England were alike delivered.

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States
(Author's last revision),
part 1, chapter 17 (volume 1)._

_ALSO IN:
T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, pages 51 and 86-89._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1636.
The founding of Boston Latin School and Harvard College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1635; and 1636.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1635-1637.
The migration to Connecticut.

See CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1634-1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636.
The banishment of Roger Williams.

"The intolerance of England had established the New England
colonies. The time was at hand when those colonies should in
their turn alienate from them their own children, and be the
unwilling parents of a fresh state. In 1631, there arrived at
Boston a young minister, Roger Williams, 'godly and zealous,
having precious gifts.' … His theological doctrines seem to
have been those generally received among the Puritans, but in
questions of church discipline he went far beyond most of his
sect. He was a rigid separatist, and carried the doctrine of
toleration, or, as perhaps it might be more properly called,
state indifference, to its fullest length. Accordingly it was
impossible to employ him as a minister at Boston. He went to
Salem, which was then without a preacher, and was appointed to
the vacant office. But a message from Winthrop and the
assistants compelled the church of Salem to retract its
choice, and the young enthusiast withdrew to Plymouth," where
he remained two years, until August, 1633, when he returned to
Salem. "In 1634, he incurred the displeasure of some of his
congregation by putting forward the doctrine that no tenure of
land could be valid which had not the sanction of the natives.
His doctrine was censured by the court at Boston, but on his
satisfying the court of his 'loyalty,' the matter passed over.
But before long he put forward doctrines, in the opinion of
the government, yet more dangerous. He advocated complete
separation from the Church of England, and denounced
compulsory worship and a compulsory church establishment.
Carrying the doctrine of individual liberty to its fullest
extent, he asserted that the magistrate was only the agent of
the people, and had no right to protect the people against
itself; that his power extends only as far as such cases as
disturb the public peace. … On the 8th of August, 1635,
Williams was summoned before the general court; his opinions
were denounced as 'erroneous and very dangerous,' and notice
was given to the church at Salem that, unless it could explain
the matter to the satisfaction of the court, Williams must be
dismissed. In October, Williams was again brought before the
court, and after a 'disputation' with Mr. Hooker, which failed
to reduce him from any of his errors, he was sentenced to
depart out of the jurisdiction of Massachusetts in six weeks.
The church of Salem acquiesced in the condemnation of their
pastor. Their own experience might have taught the fathers of
New England that the best way to strengthen heresy is to
oppose it. The natural result followed; the people were 'much
taken with the apprehension of Williams 'godliness,' and a
large congregation, including 'many devout women,' gathered
round him. Since they had failed to check the evil, the
Massachusetts government resolved to exterminate it and to
ship Williams for England. The crew of a pinnace was sent to
arrest him, but, fortunately for the future of New England, he
had escaped. … He had set out [January, 1636] for the territory
of Narragansett, and there founded the village of Providence."

_A. Doyle,
The American Colonies,
chapter 2._

"His [Roger Williams'] own statement is, it was 'only for the
holy truth of Christ Jesus that he was denied the common air
to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the same common
earth.' But the facts of the case seem to show that it was
because his opinions differed from the opinions of those among
whom he lived, and were considered by them as dangerous and
seditious, tending to the utter destruction of their
community, that he was a sacrifice to honest convictions of
truth and duty. … The sentence of banishment, however, was
not passed without reluctance. Governor Winthrop remained his
friend to the day of his death, and even proposed, in view of
his services in the Pequot war, that his sentence should be
revoked. Governor Haynes, of Connecticut, who pronounced his
sentence, afterwards regretted it. Governor Winslow, of
Plymouth, who had no hand in his expulsion, 'put a piece of
gold in the hands of his wife,' to relieve his necessities,
and though Mr. Cotton hardly clears himself from the charge of
having procured his sentence, there was no private feud
between them. Cotton Mather concedes that 'many judicious
persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him.'
Later writers declare him, 'from the whole course and tenor of
his life and conduct, to have been one of the most
disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
heavenly-minded soul.' And the magnanimous exile himself says,
'I did ever from my soul honor and love them, even when their
judgment led them to afflict me.'"

_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_J. D. Knowles,
Memoir of Roger Williams,
chapters 3-5._

_E. B. Underhill,
introduction to Williams' 'Bloudy Tenent of Persecution'
(Hansard Knollys Society)._

_G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule,
chapter 8._

See, also, RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636.

{2106}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.
Mrs. Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian troubles.

"The agitation and strife connected with the Antinomian
controversy, opened by Mrs. Ann Hutchinson, came dangerously
near to bringing the fortunes of the young Massachusetts
colony to a most disastrous ruin. … The peril overhung at a
time when the proprietary colonists had the most reasonable
and fearful forebodings of the loss of their charter by the
interference of a Privy Council Commission. … Ominously
enough, too, Mrs. Hutchinson arrived here, September 18, 1634,
in the vessel which brought the copy of that commission.
Winthrop describes her as a woman of a 'ready wit and bold
spirit.' Strongly gifted herself, she had a gentle and weak
husband, who was guided by her. She had at home enjoyed no
ministrations so much as those of Cotton, and her
brother-in-law, Mr. Wheelwright. She came here to put herself
again under the preaching of the former. … She had been here
for two years, known as a ready, kindly, and most serviceable
woman, especially to her own sex in their straits and
sicknesses. But she anticipated the introduction of 'the woman
question' among the colonists in a more troublesome form than
it has yet assumed for us. Joined by her brother-in-law, who
was also admitted to the church, after those two quiet years
she soon made her influence felt for trouble, as he did
likewise. … The male members of the Boston Church had a
weekly meeting, in which they discussed the ministrations of
Cotton and Wilson. Mrs. Hutchinson organized and presided over
one, held soon twice in a week, for her own sex, attended by
nearly a hundred of the principal women on the peninsula and
in the neighborhood. It was easy to foresee what would come of
it, through one so able and earnest as herself, even if she
had no novel or disjointed or disproportioned doctrine to
inculcate; which, however, it proved that she had. Antinomian
means a denying, or, at least, a weakening, of the obligation
to observe the moral law, and to comply with the external
duties; to do the works associated with the idea of internal,
spiritual righteousness. It was a false or disproportioned
construction of St. Paul's great doctrine of justification by
faith, without the works of the law. … Mrs. Hutchinson, was
understood to teach, that one who was graciously justified by
a spiritual assurance, need not be greatly concerned for
outward sanctification by works. She judged and approved, or
censured and discredited, the preachers whom she heard,
according as they favored or repudiated that view. Her
admirers accepted her opinions. … Word soon went forth that
Mrs. Hutchinson had pronounced in her meetings, that Mr.
Cotton and her brother-in-law Wheelwright, alone of all the
ministers in the colony, were under 'a covenant of grace,' the
rest being 'legalists,' or under 'a covenant of works.' These
reports, which soon became more than opinions, were blazing
brands that it would be impossible to keep from reaching
inflammable material. … As the contention extended it
involved all the principal persons of the colony. Cotton and
all but five members of the Boston Church—though one of these
five was Winthrop, and another was Wilson—proved to be
sympathizers with Mrs. Hutchinson; while the ministers and
leading people outside in the other hamlets were strongly
opposed to her. She had a partisan, moreover, of transcending
influence in the young Governor, Sir Henry Vane," who had come
over from England the year before, and who had been chosen at
the next election for Governor, with Winthrop as deputy.
"Though pure and devout, and ardent in zeal, he had not then
the practical wisdom for which Milton afterwards praised him
in his noble sonnet:—'Vane, young in years, but in sage
counsels old.' … With his strong support, and that of two
other prominent magistrates, and of so overwhelming a
majority of the Boston Church, Mrs. Hutchinson naturally felt
emboldened." But in the end her Church and party were overcome
by the ministers and their supporters in the other parts of
the colony; she was excommunicated and banished (November,
1637, and March, 1638), going forth to perish six years later
at the hands of the Indians, while living on the shore of Long
Island Sound, at a place now known as Pelham Neck, near New
Rochelle. "As the summing up of the strife, 76 persons were
disarmed; two were disfranchised and fined; 2 more were fined;
8 more were disfranchised; 3 were banished; and 11 who had
asked permission to remove had leave, in the form of a
limitation of time within which they must do it. The more
estimable and considerable of them apologized and were
received back."

_G. E. Ellis,
Lowell Institute Lectures on the
Early History of Massachusetts,
pages 95-100._

ALSO IN:
_B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 2._

_Ecclesiastical History of New England
(Massachusetts Historical Society Collection,
series 1, volume 9)._

_G. E. Ellis,
Life of Anne Hutchinson
(Library of American Biographies,
new series, volume 6)._

_J. Anderson,
Memorable Women of Puritan Times,
volume 1, pages 185-220._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
The Pequot War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1637.
The first Synod of the Churches and its dealings with Heresy.

The election of Sir Harry Vane to be Governor of the colony,
in place of John Winthrop, "took place in the open air upon
what is now Cambridge Common on the 27th day of May [1637].
Four months later it was followed by the gathering of the
first Synod of Massachusetts churches; which again, meeting
here in Cambridge, doubtless held its sessions in the original
meeting-house standing on what is now called Mount Auburn
Street. The Synod sat through twenty-four days, during which
it busied itself unearthing heterodox opinions and making the
situation uncomfortable for those suspected of heresy, until
it had spread upon its record no less than eighty-two such
'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous, and all
unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' all alleged
to be rife in the infant community. Having performed this
feat, it broke up amid general congratulations 'that matters
had been carried on so peaceably, and concluded so comfortably
in all love.' … As the twig is bent, the tree inclines. The
Massachusetts twig was here and then bent; and, as it was
bent, it during hard upon two centuries inclined. The question
of Religious Toleration was, so far as Massachusetts could
decide it, decided in 1637 in the negative. … The turning
point in the history of early Massachusetts was the Cambridge
Synod of September, 1637, … which succeeded in spreading on
its record, as then prevailing in the infant settlement,
eighty-two 'opinions, some blasphemous, others erroneous and
all unsafe,' besides 'nine unwholesome expressions,' the whole
mighty mass of which was then incontinently dismissed, in the
language of one of the leading divines who figured in that
Assembly, 'to the devil of hell, from whence they came.'
{2107}
The mere enumeration of this long list of heresies as then
somewhere prevailing is strong evidence of intellectual
activity in early Massachusetts,—an activity which found
ready expression through such men as Roger Williams, John
Cotton, John Wheelwright and Sir Henry Vane, to say nothing of
Mrs. Hutchinson, while the receptive condition of the mental
soil is likewise seen in the hold the new opinions took. It
was plainly a period of intellectual quickening,—a dawn of
promise. Of this there can no doubt exist. It was freely
acknowledged at the time; it has been stated as one of the
conditions of that period by all writers on it since. The body
of those who listened to him stood by Roger Williams; and the
magistrates drove him away for that reason. Anne Hutchinson so
held the ear of the whole Boston community that she had 'some
of all sorts and quality, in all places to defend and
patronize' her opinions; 'some of the magistrates, some
gentlemen, some scholars and men of learning, some Burgesses
of our General Court, some of our captains and soldiers, some
chief men in towns, and some men eminent for religion, parts
and wit.' These words of a leader of the clerical
faction,—one of those most active in the work of
repression,—describe to the life an active-minded,
intelligent community quick to receive and ready to assimilate
that which is new. Then came the Synod. It was a premonition.
It was as if the fresh new sap,—the young budding leaves,—
the possible, incipient flowers, had felt the chill of an
approaching glacier. And that was exactly what it was;—a
theological glacier then slowly settled down upon
Massachusetts,—a glacier lasting through a period of nearly
one hundred and fifty years."

_C. F. Adams,
Massachusetts: Its Historians and its History,
pages 10-59._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1638-1641.
Introduction of Slavery.

See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1638-1781.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1639.
The first printing press set up.

See PRINTING: A. D. 1535-1709.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1640-1644.
The end of the Puritan exodus.
Numerical growth and political development.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1640-1644.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1641.
Jurisdiction extended over New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1642.
The first Public School law.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1642-1732.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643.
The Confederation of the Colonies.
The growth of Plymouth.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1643.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1643-1654.
Interest in Acadia and temporary conquest of the Province.

See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1621-1668.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1646-1651.
The Presbyterian Cabal and the Cambridge Platform.

"There had now come to be many persons in Massachusetts who
disapproved of the provision which restricted the suffrage to
members of the Independent or Congregational churches of New
England, and in 1646 the views of these people were presented
in a petition to the General Court. … The leading signers of
this menacing petition were William Vassall, Samuel Maverick,
and Dr. Robert Child. … Their request would seem at first
sight reasonable enough. At a superficial glance it seems
conceived in a modern spirit of liberalism. In reality it was
nothing of the sort. In England it was just the critical
moment of the struggle between Presbyterians and Independents
which had come in to complicate the issues of the great civil
war. Vassall, Child, and Maverick seem to have been the
leading spirits in a cabal for the establishment of
Presbyterianism in New England, and in their petition they
simply took advantage of the discontent of the disfranchised
citizens in Massachusetts in order to put in an entering
wedge. This was thoroughly understood by the legislature of
Massachusetts, and accordingly the petition was dismissed and
the petitioners were roundly fined. Just as Child was about to
start for England with his grievances, the magistrates
overhauled his papers and discovered a petition to the
parliamentary Board of Commissioners, suggesting that
Presbyterianism should be established in New England, and that
a viceroy or governor-general should be appointed to rule
there. To the men of Massachusetts this last suggestion was a
crowning horror. It seemed scarcely less than treason. The
signers of this petition were the same who had signed the
petition to the General Court. They were now fined still more
heavily and imprisoned for six months. By and by they found
their way, one after another, to London, while the colonists
sent Edward Winslow, of Plymouth, as an advocate to thwart
their schemes. … The cabal accomplished nothing because of
the decisive defeat of Presbyterianism in England. 'Pride's
Purge' settled all that. The petition of Vassall and his
friends was the occasion for the meeting of a synod of
churches at Cambridge, in order to complete the organization
of Congregationalism. In 1648 the work of the synod was
embodied in the famous Cambridge Platform, which adopted the
Westminster Confession as its creed, carefully defined the
powers of the clergy, and declared it to be the duty of
magistrates to suppress heresy. In 1649 the General Court laid
this platform before the congregations; in 1651 it was
adopted; and this event may be regarded as completing the
theocratic organization of the Puritan commonwealth in
Massachusetts. It was immediately preceded and followed by the
deaths of the two foremost men in that commonwealth. John
Winthrop died in 1649 and John Cotton in 1652."

_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_C. Mather,
Magnalia Christi Americana,
book 5, part 2._

_B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 3._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1649-1651.
Under Cromwell and the Commonwealth of England.

"Massachusetts had, from the outset, sympathized with
Parliament in its contest with the king, and had blended her
fortunes with the fortunes of the reformers. She had expressed
her willingness to 'rise and fall with them,' and' sent over
useful men, others going voluntarily, to their aid, who were
of good use, and did acceptable service to the army.' Her
loyalty, therefore, procured for her the protection of
Parliament. Yet the execution of Charles, which royalists have
ever regarded with the utmost abhorrence, was not openly
approved here. 'I find,' says Hutchinson, 'scarce any marks of
approbation of the tragical scene of which this year they
received intelligence.' The few allusions we have discovered
are none of them couched in terms of exultation. Virginia
pursued a different course, and openly resisted Parliament,
refused to submit to its decrees, and adhered to the cause of
royalty. … Yet the legislation of the commonwealth was not
wholly favorable even to Massachusetts.
{2108}
The proclamation relative to Virginia asserted, in general
terms, the power of appointing governors and commissioners to
be placed in all the English colonies, without exception; and
by Mr. Winslow, their agent in England, they were informed
that it was the pleasure of Parliament the patent of
Massachusetts should be returned, and a new one taken out,
under which courts were to be held and warrants issued. With
this request the people were indisposed to comply; and, too
wary to hazard the liberties so dearly purchased, a petition
was drawn up, pleading the cause of the colony with great
force, setting forth its allegiance, and expressing the hope
that, under the new government, things might not go worse with
them than under that of the king, and that their charter might
not be recalled, as they desired no better. This remonstrance
was successful; the measure was dropped, and the charter of
Charles continued in force. Parliament was not 'foiled' by the
colony. Its request was deemed reasonable; and there was no
disposition to invade forcibly its liberties. We have evidence
of this in the course of Cromwell. After his success in the
'Emerald Isle,' conceiving the project of introducing
Puritanism into Ireland, an invitation was extended to the
people of Massachusetts to remove thither and settle. But they
were too strongly attached to the land of their adoption, and
to its government, 'the happiest and wisest this day in the
world,' readily to desert it. Hence the politic proposal of
the lord protector was respectfully declined."

_J. S. Barry,
History of Massachusetts,
volume 1, chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_J. A. Doyle,
The English in America: Puritan Colonies,
volume 1, chapter 9._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1651-1660.
The absorption of Maine.

See MAINE: A. D. 1643-1677.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1656-1661.
The persecution of the Quakers.

"In July, 1656, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin came to Boston from
Barbadoes; and shortly after, nine others, men and women,
arrived in the ship Speedwell from London. It was at once
known, for they did not wish to conceal it, that they were
'Friends,' vulgarly called 'Quakers'; and the Magistrates at
once took them in hand, determined that no people holding (as
they considered them) such damnable opinions, should come into
the Colony. A great crowd collected to hear them questioned,
and Boston was stirred up by a few illiterate enthusiasts.
They stood up before the Court with their hats on, apparently
without fear, and had no hesitation in calling governor
Endicott plain 'John.' … The replies which these men and
women made were direct and bold, and were considered rude and
contemptuous. … They … were committed to prison for their
'Rudeness and Insolence'; there being no law then under which
they could be punished for being Quakers." Before the year
closed, this defect of law was remedied by severe enactments,
"laying a penalty of £100 for bringing any Quaker into the
Colony: forty shillings for entertaining them for an hour;
Quaker men who came against these prohibitions were, upon
first conviction, to lose one ear, upon the second, the other
ear; and women were to be whipped. Upon the third conviction,
their tongues were to be bored with a hot iron. But these
things seemed useless, for the Quakers, knowing their fate,
swarmed into Massachusetts; and the Magistrates were fast
getting more business than they could attend to. It was then
determined to try greater severity, and in October, 1658, a
law was passed in Massachusetts (resisted by the Deputies,
urged by the Magistrates), punishing Quakers, who had been
banished, with death." The first to challenge the dread
penalty were a woman, Mary Dyer, and two men, William Robinson
and Marmaduke Stevenson, who, after being banished (September,
1659), came defiantly back the next month. "Governor Endicott
pronounced sentence of death against them. … On the 27th of
October, in the afternoon, a guard of 200 men, attended with a
drummer, conducted them to the gallows." Stevenson and
Robinson were hanged; but Mary Dyer was reprieved. "Her mind
was made up for death, and her reprieve brought her no joy.
She was taken away by her son. … Mary Dyer was a 'comely and
valiant woman,' and in the next Spring she returned. What now
was to be done? The law said she must be hung, and Endicott
again pronounced sentence, and she was led out to die a
felon's death. Some scoffed and jeered her, but the most
pitied; she died bravely, fearing nothing. … There seemed no
end; for Quaker after Quaker came; they were tried, they were
whipped, and the prison was full. … William Ledra [banished
in 1657] came back (September, 1660), and was subject to
death. They offered him his life, if he would go away and
promise not to return; he said: 'I came here to bear my
testimony, and to tell the truth of the Lord, in the ears of
this people. I refuse to go.' So he was hanged in the
succeeding March (14th). Wenlock Christopherson, or
Christison, came, and was tried and condemned to die. … The
death of Ledra, and the return of Wenlock Christison, brought
confusion among the Magistrates, and some said 'Where will
this end?' and declared it was time to stop. Governor Endicott
found it difficult to get a Court to agree to sentence
Christison to death; but he halted not, and pronounced the
sentence. … But a few days afterward the jailor opened the
prison doors, and Wenlock (with 27 others) was set at liberty,
much to his and their surprise." The friends of the Quakers in
England had prevailed upon King Charles II., then lately
restored, "to order the persecutions to cease in New England
(September 1661). Samuel Shattock, a banished Quaker, was sent
from England by Charles, with a letter to Governor Endicott
[the subject of Whittier's poem, 'The King's Missive'],
commanding that no more Quakers should be hanged or imprisoned
in New England, but should be sent to England for trial. This
ended the persecutions; for, on the 9th of December, 1661, the
Court ordered all Quakers to be set at liberty."

_C. W. Elliott,
The New England History,
volume 1, chapter 36._

"Some of our writers, alike in prose and in poetry, have
assumed, and have written on the assumption, that the
deliverance of the Quakers was effected by the interposition
in their behalf of King Charles II. … The royal letter …
had … been substantially anticipated as to its principal
demand by the action of the Court [in Massachusetts]. The
general jail delivery of 31 Quakers, including the three under
the death sentence who had voluntarily agreed to go off, was
ordered by the Court in October, 1660. The King's letter was
dated at Whitehall a year afterward. Let us claim whatever of
relief we can find in reminding ourselves that it was the
stern opposition and protest of the majority of the people of
the Puritan Colony, and not the King's command, that had
opened the gates of mercy."

_G. E. Ellis,
The Puritan Age and Rule,
pp. 477-479._

{2109}

While the Quakers first arrested at Boston were lying in jail,
"the Federal Commissioners, then in session at Plymouth,
recommended that laws be forthwith enacted to keep these
dreaded heretics out of the land. Next year they stooped so
far as to seek the aid of Rhode Island, the colony which they
had refused to admit into their confederacy. … Roger
Williams was then president of Rhode Island, and in full
accord with his noble spirit was the reply of the assembly.
'We have no law amongst us whereby to punish any for only
declaring by words their minds and understandings concerning
the things and ways of God as to salvation and our eternal
condition.' As for these Quakers, we find that where they are
'most of all suffered to declare themselves freely and only
opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all
desire to come.' Any breach of the civil law shall be
punished, but the 'freedom of different consciences shall be
respected.' This reply enraged the confederated colonies, and
Massachusetts, as the strongest and most overbearing,
threatened to cut off the trade of Rhode Island, which
forthwith appealed to Cromwell for protection. … In thus
protecting the Quakers, Williams never for a moment concealed
his antipathy to their doctrines. … The four confederated
colonies all proceeded to pass laws banishing Quakers. …
Those of Connecticut … were the mildest."

_J. Fiske,
The Beginnings of New England,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
B. Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 5.

_R. P. Hallowell,
The Quaker Invasion of Massachusetts._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1657-1662.
The Halfway Covenant.

See BOSTON: A. D. 1657-1669.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1660-1665.
Under the Restored Monarchy.
The first collision with the crown.

"In May, 1660, Charles II. mounted the throne of his
ancestors. … In December of this year, intelligence of the
accession of a new king had reached Massachusetts; the General
Court convened and prepared addresses to his majesty. … In
the following May a reply, signed by Mr. Secretary Morrice,
together with a mandate for the arrest of Goffe and Whalley,
the regicides who had escaped to Massachusetts, was received
in Boston. The king's response contained a general expression
of good will, which, however, did not quiet the apprehensions
of the colonists. The air was filled with rumors, and
something seemed to forebode an early collision with the
crown. At a special session of the court, held in June, 'a
declaration of natural and chartered rights' was approved and
published. In this document the people affirmed their right
'to choose their own governor, deputy governor, and
representatives; to admit freemen on terms to be prescribed at
their own pleasure; to set up all sorts of officers, superior
and inferior, and point out their power and places; to
exercise, by their annually elected magistrates and deputies,
all power and authority, legislative, executive, and judicial;
to defend themselves by force of arms against every
aggression; and to reject, as an infringement of their rights,
any parliamentary or royal imposition, prejudicial to the
country, and contrary to any just act of colonial
legislation.' More than a year elapsed from the restoration of
Charles II. to his public recognition at Boston. … Even the
drinking of his health was forbidden, and the event was
celebrated only amid the coldest formalities. Meanwhile the
colonists not only declared, but openly assumed, their rights;
and in consequence complaints were almost daily instituted by
those who were hostile to the government. Political opinion
was diversified; and while 'a majority were for sustaining,
with the charter, an independent government in undiminished
force, a minority were willing to make some concessions.' In
the midst of the discussions, John Norton, 'a friend to
moderate counsels,' and Simon Bradstreet were induced to go to
England as agents of the colony. Having been instructed to
convince the king of the loyalty of the people of
Massachusetts, and to 'engage to nothing prejudicial to their
present standing according to their patent, and to endeavor
the establishment of the rights and privileges then enjoyed,'
the commissioners sailed from Boston on the 10th of February,
1662. In England they were courteously received by king
Charles, and from him obtained, in a letter dated June 28, a
confirmation of their charter, and an amnesty for all past
offences. At the same time the king rebuked them for the
irregularities which had been complained of in the government;
directed 'a repeal of all laws derogatory to his authority;
the taking of the oath of allegiance; the administration of
justice in his name; a concession of the elective franchise to
all freeholders of competent estate; and as 'the principle of
the charter was the freedom of the liberty of conscience,' the
allowance of that freedom to those who desired to use 'the
booke of common prayer, and perform their devotion in the
manner established in England.' These requisitions of the king
proved anything but acceptable to the people of Massachusetts.
With them the question of obedience became a question of
freedom, and gave rise to the parties which continued to
divide the colony until the establishment of actual
independence. It was not thought best to comply immediately
with his majesty's demands; on the other hand, no refusal to
do so was promulgated." Presently a rumor reached America
"that royal commissioners were to be appointed to regulate the
affairs of New England. Precautionary measures were now taken.
The patent and a duplicate of the same were delivered to a
committee of four, with instructions to hold them in safe
keeping. Captain Davenport, at Castle Fort, was ordered to
give early announcement of the arrival of his Majesty's ships.
Officers and soldiers were forbidden to land from ships,
except in small parties. … On the 23d of July, 1664, 'about
five or six of the clock at night,' the 'Guinea,' followed by
three other ships of the line, arrived in Boston harbor. They
were well manned and equipped for the reduction of the Dutch
settlements on the Hudson, and brought commissioners hostile
to colonial freedom, and who were charged by the king to
determine 'all complaints and appeals in all causes and
matters, as well military as criminal and civil,' and to
'proceed in all things for the providing for and settling the
peace and security of the country, according to their good and
sound discretions.' Colonel Richard Nichols and Colonel George
Cartwright were the chief members of the commission.
{2110}
At the earliest possible moment they produced their legal
warrant, the king's letter of April 23, and requested the
assistance of the colonies in the reduction of the Dutch.
Shortly afterwards the fleet set out for New Netherlands. On
the 3d of August the General Court convened, and the state of
affairs was discussed." As the result of the discussion it was
agreed that a force of 200 men should be raised to serve
against the Dutch, and that the old law of citizenship should
be so far modified as to provide "'that all English subjects,
being freeholders, and of a competent estate, and certified by
the ministers of the place to be orthodox in faith, and not
vicious in their lives, should be made freemen, although not
members of the church.' Before the session closed,
Massachusetts published an order forbidding the making of
complaints to the commissioners," and adopted a spirited
address to the king. When, in February, 1665, three of the
commissioners returned to Boston, they soon found that they
were not to be permitted to take any proceedings which could
call in question "the privilege of government within
themselves" which the colony claimed. Attempting in May to
hold a court for the hearing of charges against a Boston
merchant, they were interrupted by a herald from the governor
who sounded his trumpet and forbade, in the name of the king,
any abetting of their proceedings. On this they wrathfully
departed for the north, after sending reports of the contumacy
of Massachusetts to the king. The latter now summoned governor
Bellingham to England, but the summons was not obeyed. "'We
have already furnished our views in writing [said the General
Court], so that the ablest persons among us could not declare
our case more fully.' … The defiance of Massachusetts was
followed by no immediate danger. For a season the contest with
the crown ceased. The king himself was too much engaged with
his women to bestow his attention upon matters of state; and
thus, while England was lamenting the want of a good
government, the colonies, true to themselves, their country,
and their God, flourished in purity and peace."

_G. L. Austin,
History of Massachusetts,
chapter 4._

_Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 4, part 2._

See, also,
NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686.
The struggle for the charter and its overthrow.

"Although the colonists were alarmed at their own success,
there was nothing to fear. At no time before or since could
England have been so safely defied. … The discord between
the crown and Parliament paralyzed the nation, and the
wastefulness of Charles kept him always poor. By the treaty of
Dover in 1670 he became a pensioner of Louis XIV. The Cabal
followed, probably the worst ministry England ever saw; and in
1672, at Clifford's suggestion, the exchequer was closed and the
debt repudiated to provide funds for the second Dutch war. In
March fighting began, and the tremendous battles with De
Ruyter kept the navy in the Channel. At length, in 1673, the
Cabal fell, and Danby became prime minister. Although during
these years of disaster and disgrace Massachusetts was not
molested by Great Britain, they were not all years during
which the theocracy could tranquilly enjoy its victory. …
With the rise of Danby a more regular administration opened,
and, as usual, the attention of the government was fixed upon
Massachusetts by the clamors of those who demanded redress for
injuries alleged to have been received at her hands. In 1674 the
heirs of Mason and Gorges, in despair at the reoccupation of
Maine, proposed to surrender their claim to the king,
reserving one third of the product of the customs for
themselves. The London merchants also had become restive under
the systematic violation of the Navigation Acts. The breach in
the revenue laws had, indeed, been long a subject of
complaint, and the commissioners had received instructions
relating thereto; but it was not till this year that these
questions became serious. … New England was fast getting its
share of the carrying trade. London merchants already began to
feel the competition of its cheap and untaxed ships, and
manufacturers to complain that they were undersold in the
American market, by goods brought direct from the Continental
ports. A petition, therefore, was presented to the king, to
carry the law into effect. … The famous Edward Randolph now
appears. The government was still too deeply embarrassed to
act with energy. A temporizing policy was therefore adopted;
and as the experiment of a commission had failed, Randolph was
chosen as a messenger to carry the petitions and opinions to
Massachusetts; together with a letter from the king, directing
that agents should be sent in answer thereto. After delivering
them, he was ordered to devote himself to preparing a report
upon the country. He reached Boston June 10, 1676. Although it
was a time of terrible suffering from the ravages of the Indian
war, the temper of the magistrates was harsher than ever. The
repulse of the commissioners had convinced them that Charles
was not only lazy and ignorant, but too poor to use force; and
they also believed him to be so embroiled with Parliament as
to make his overthrow probable. Filled with such feelings,
their reception of Randolph was almost brutal. John Leverett
was governor, who seems to have taken pains to mark his
contempt in every way in his power. Randolph was an able, but
an unscrupulous man, and probably it would not have been
difficult to have secured his good-will. Far however from
bribing, or even flattering him, they so treated him as to
make him the bitterest enemy the Puritan Commonwealth ever
knew. … The legislature met in August, 1676, and a decision
had to be made concerning agents. On the whole, the clergy
concluded it would be wiser to obey the crown, 'provided they
be, with utmost care & caution, qualified as to their
instructions.' Accordingly, after a short adjournment, the
General Court chose William Stoughton and Peter Bulkely; and
having strictly limited their power to a settlement of the
territorial controversy, they sent them on their mission. …
The controversy concerning the boundary was referred to the
two chief justices, who promptly decided against the Company;
and the easy acquiescence of the General Court must raise a
doubt as to their faith in the soundness of their claims. And
now again the fatality which seemed to pursue the theocracy in
all its dealings with England led it to give fresh provocation to
the king by secretly buying the title of Gorges for 1,250
pounds. Charles had intended to settle Maine on the Duke of
Monmouth. It was a worthless possession, whose revenue never
paid for its defence; yet so stubborn was the colony that it
made haste to anticipate the crown and thus became 'Lord
Proprietary' of a burdensome province at the cost of a slight
which was never forgiven.
{2111}
Almost immediately the Privy Council had begun to open other
matters, such as coining and illicit trade; and the
attorney-general drew up a list of statutes which, in his
opinion, were contrary to the laws of England. … In the
spring the law officers gave an opinion that the misdemeanors
alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to avoid her
patent; and the Privy Council, in view of the encroachments
and injuries which she had continually practised on her
neighbors, and her contempt of his majesty's commands, advised
that a 'quo warranto' should be brought against the charter.
Randolph was appointed collector at Boston. Even Leverett now
saw that some concessions must be made, and the General Court
ordered the oath of allegiance to be taken; nothing but
perversity seems to have caused the long delay. The royal arms
were also carved in the courthouse; and this was all, for the
clergy were determined upon those matters touching their
authority. … Nearly half a century had elapsed since the
emigration, and with the growth of wealth and population
changes had come. In March, John Leverett, who had long been
the head of the high-church party, died, and the election of
Simon Bradstreet as his successor was a triumph for the
opposition. Great as the clerical influence still was, it had
lost much of its old despotic power, and the congregations
were no longer united in support of the policy of their
pastors. … Boston and the larger towns favored concession,
while the country was the ministers' stronghold. The result of
this divergence of opinion was that the moderate party, to
which Bradstreet and Dudley belonged, predominated in the
Board of Assistants, while the deputies remained immovable.
The branches of the legislature thus became opposed; no course
of action could be agreed on, and the theocracy drifted to its
destruction. … Meanwhile Randolph had renewed his attack. He
declared that in spite of promises and excuses the revenue
laws were not enforced; that his men were beaten, and that he
hourly expected to be thrown into prison; whereas in other
colonies, he asserted, he was treated with great respect.
There can be no doubt ingenuity was used to devise means of
annoyance; and certainly the life he was made to lead was
hard. In March he sailed for home, and while in London he made
a series of reports to the government which seem to have
produced the conviction that the moment for action had come.
In December he returned, commissioned as deputy-surveyor and
auditor-general for all New England, except New Hampshire. …
Hitherto the clerical party had procrastinated, buoyed up by
the hope that in the fierce struggle with the commons Charles
might be overthrown; but this dream ended with the dissolution
of the Oxford Parliament, and further inaction became
impossible. Joseph Dudley and John Richards were chosen
agents, and provided with instructions bearing the peculiar
tinge of ecclesiastical statesmanship. … The agents were
urged to do what was possible to avert, or at least delay, the
stroke; but they were forbidden to consent to appeals, or to
alterations in the qualifications required for the admission
of freemen. They had previously been directed to pacify the
king by a present of 2,000 pounds; and this ill-judged attempt
at bribery had covered them with ridicule. Further negotiation
would have been futile. Proceedings were begun at once, and
Randolph was sent to Boston to serve the writ of 'quo
warranto'; he was also charged with a royal declaration
promising that, even then, were submission made, the charter
should be restored with only such changes as the public
welfare demanded. Dudley, who was a man of much political
sagacity, had returned and strongly urged moderation. The
magistrates were not without the instincts of statesmanship:
they saw that a breach with England must destroy all
safeguards of the common freedom, and they voted an address to
the crown accepting the proffered terms. But the clergy strove
against them: the privileges of their order were at stake;
they felt that the loss of their importance would be
'destructive to the interest of religion and of Christ's
kingdom in the colony,' and they roused their congregations to
resist. The deputies did not represent the people, but the
church. … The influence which had moulded their minds and
guided their actions controlled them still, and they rejected
the address. … All that could be resolved on was to retain
Robert Humphrys of the Middle Temple to interpose such delays
as the law permitted; but no attempt was made at defence upon
the merits of their cause, probably because all knew well that
no such defence was possible. Meanwhile, for technical
reasons, the 'quo warranto' had been abandoned, and a writ of
'scire facias' had been issued out of chancery. On June 18,
1684, the lord keeper ordered the defendant to appear and
plead on the first day of the next Michaelmas Term. The time
allowed was too short for an answer from America, and judgment
was entered by default. … So perished the Puritan
Commonwealth. The child of the Reformation, its life sprang
from the assertion of the freedom of the mind; but this great
and noble principle is fatal to the temporal power of a
priesthood, and during the supremacy of the clergy the
government was doomed to be both persecuting and repressive.
Under no circumstance could the theocracy have endured: it
must have fallen by revolt from within if not by attack from
without."

_Brooks Adams,
The Emancipation of Massachusetts,
chapter 6._

"December 19, 1686, Sir Edmund Andros arrived at Nantasket, in
the Kingfisher, a 50 gun ship, with commissions from King
James for the government of New England."

_T. Hutchinson,
History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay,
volume 1, chapter 3._

ALSO IN:
_G. E. Ellis,
Puritan Age and Rule in Massachusetts,
chapter 13._

C. Deane,
_The Struggle to Maintain the Charter of Charles I.
(Memorial History of Boston,
volume 1, pages 329-382)._

_Records of the Governor and Company Massachusetts Bay,
volume 5._

See, also,
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1674-1678.
King Philip's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678.

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1679.
The severance of New Hampshire.

See NEW HAMPSHIRE: A. D. 1641-1679.

{2112}

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1686-1689.
The tyranny of Andros and its downfall.

"With the charter were swept away representative government,
and every right and every political institution reared during
half a century of conflict. The rule of Andros was on the
model dear to the heart of his royal master—a harsh
despotism, but neither strong nor wise; it was wretched
misgovernment, and stupid, blundering oppression. And this
arbitrary and miserable system Andros undertook to force upon
a people of English race, who had been independent and
self-governing for fifty years. He laid taxes at his own
pleasure, and not even according to previous rates, as he had
promised; he denied the Habeas Corpus to John Wise, the
intrepid minister of Ipswich, arrested for preaching against
taxation without representation, and he awakened a like
resistance in all directions. He instituted fees, was believed
to pack juries, and made Randolph licenser of the press. Worst
of all, he struck at property, demanded the examination of the
old titles, declared them worthless, extorted quit-rents for
renewal, and issued writs of intrusion against those who
resisted; while, not content with attacking political liberty
and the rights of property, he excited religious animosity by
forbidding civil marriages, seizing the old South church for
the Episcopal service, and introducing swearing by the Book in
courts of justice. He left nothing undone to enrage the people
and prepare for revolution; and when he returned from
unsuccessful Indian warfare in the east, the storm was ready
to burst. News came of the landing of the Prince of Orange.
Andros arrested the bearer of the tidings, and issued a
proclamation against the Prince; but the act was vain. Without
apparent concert or preparation Boston rose in arms, the
signal-fire blazed on Beacon Hill, and the country people
poured in, hot for revenge. Some of the old magistrates met at
the town-house, and read a 'declaration of the gentlemen,
merchants, and inhabitants,' setting forth the misdeeds of
Andros, the illegality of the Dudley government by commission,
and the wrongful suppression of the charter. Andros and Dudley
were arrested and thrown into prison, together with the
captain of the Rose frigate, which lay helpless beneath the
guns of the fort, and a provisional government was
established, with Bradstreet at its head. William and Mary
were proclaimed, the revolution was complete, and Andros soon
went back a prisoner to England."

_H. C. Lodge,
Short History of the English Colonies,
chapter 18._

ALSO IN:
_J. G. Palfrey,
History of New England,
book 3, chapters 13-14 (volume 3)._

_The Andros Tracts;
edited by w. H. Whitmore
(Prince Society, 1868)._

MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1689-1692.
The procuring of the new Charter.
The Colonial Republic transformed into a Royal Province.
The absorption of Plymouth.