Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:40:12.345Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Toleration in Massachusetts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

E. Brooks Holifield
E. Brooks Holifield
Affiliation:
Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On a December day in 1676, Thomas Shepard, minister of the Church of Christ in Charlestown, passionately “discoursed of Reformation,” bemoaning the inability of the ministers and magistrates to unite against the disorderly mob of Quakers and Anabaptists. If the Quakers were suppressed, he argued, maybe the recalcitrant magistrates would “see reason to handle” the troublesome Anabaptists. His sympathic audience, Mr. Rowlandson, the Lancaster minister, Mr. Willard, pastor of the Old South Church, and Mr. Sewall, their host, listened quietly. It had not always been like this. Magistrates had once been reliable champions of the “Congregational Way.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 188 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Sewall, Samuel, “Diary,” Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, V/5 (Boston, 1878), p. 30.Google Scholar

2. Winthrop, John, Journal, Vol. 11, ed. Hosmer, J. K. (New York, 1908), p. 177.Google Scholar

3. Shurtleff, Nathaniel, ed. Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England (Boston, 1854), p. 85.Google Scholar (Hereafter designated as Records.)

4. Records, IV/1, p. 277.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., p. 383.

6. Backus, Isaac, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists, I, ed. Weston, David (Newton, Mass., 1871) pp. 23ff.Google Scholar See also Bishope, George, New England Judged (London, 1661), pp. 1–67.Google Scholar

7. Hull, John, “Diary,” Transactions of the Collections of the American Antiquarian Society, III (Boston, 1857), p. 238.Google Scholar

8. William Hamlit, “Letter to Hubbard,” January 9, 1674, in Backus, op. cit., p. 327.

9. Hull, loc. cit.

10. Toppan, Robert, ed. Edward Randolph, II (Boston, 1898), p. 277.Google Scholar

11. Hull, loc. cit.

12. Hubbard, William, The Happiness of a People in the Wisdome of their Rulers (Boston, 1676), p. 38.Google Scholar

13. Mather, Increase, A Discourse Concerning the Danger of Apostasy (Boston, 1679), p. 76.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., “To the Reader,” n. p.

15. Miller, Perry, The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Boston, 1961), p. 137.Google Scholar

16. Sewall, loc. cit.

17. Johnson, Edward, Wonder-Working Providence of Sion's Saviour in New England, intro. by Poole, W. F. (Andover, 1867), p. 215.Google Scholar

18. Ward, Nathaniel, The Simple Cobbler of Aggawam in America (London, 1647), p. 3.Google Scholar

19. Mather, op. cit., p. 65.

20. Miller, op. cit., p. 171.

21. Bailyn, Bernard, The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (New York, 1955), p. 108.Google Scholar

22. “Result of the Synod of 1662,” The Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism, ed. W. Walker (Boston, 1960), p. 328.Google Scholar

23. Mather, Cotton, Magnalia Christi Americana, Book V (London, 1702), p. 82.Google Scholar See also Hill, Hamilton A., History of the Old South Church (Boston, 1890), pp. 16–55,Google Scholar for the primary sources.

24. Hutchinson, Thomas, The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, I, ed. Mayo, L. S. (Boston, 1936), p. 232.Google Scholar

25. Ibid.

26. Hill, op. cit., p. 109.

27. Mather, Cotton, Magnalia Christi Americana, V, p.83.Google Scholar

28. Hutchinson, loc. cit.

29. Hill, op. cit., p. 10, n. 1.

30. The selection of the period from 1658–1680 as the framework for this study is not entirely arbitrary. There were signs of tolerance in the colony before 1658, but the question of toleration did not become crucial until this period.

31. It would not be correct to see this as part of a larger struggle between “democratic,” tolerant deputies and theocratic, intolerant magistrates. When a Mr. Temple from Connecticut offered to provide funds for the condemned Quakers to leave the colony, majority of magistrates accepted this humanitarian offer. Two or three magistrates joined with the deputies to reject Temple's suggestion. (Bishop, op. cit., pp. 119–20.) The Quakers were then executed. The deputies did exhibit a striking tolerance of Baptists in 1670, but, as we shall see, there were special circumstances. (See Backus, op. cit., p. 316.)

32. Bishope, op. cit., p. 79.

33. Bailyn, op. cit., pp. 88, 90.

34. Hutchinson, op. cit., p. 169, n. 1.

35. Felt, Joseph B., The Ecclesiastical History of New England, II (Boston, 1862), p. 205.Google Scholar

36. Hull, op cit., p. 198.

37. Hill, op. cit., p. 56.

38. Bailyn, op. cit., p. 51, 71.

39. Hutchinson, loc. cit., n. 2.

40. Felt, op. cit., p. 489.

41. Hill, op. cit., pp. 32, 43, 57.

42. Records, IV/2, p. 413.Google Scholar

43. I find no significant information about half the petitioners called before the General Court: Richard Way, William Howard, Randal Nichols, Solomon Phips, and James Cary. Sixty-six citizens signed the petition. The ten who were called before the court were the “more prominent signers,” according to McLoughlin, William G. and Davidson, Martha Whiting, “The Baptist Debate of April 14–15, 1668,” Massachusetts Historical Society Proceedings, LXXVI (1965), p. 94.Google Scholar Relevant information about almost all the other petitioners is not available. Only three other prominent New Englanders—John Usher, Samuel Shrimpton, and Elisha Hutchinson—signed the petition (Boston Archives, X: 221, 223). Perry Miller puts Shrimpton and Hutchinson at opposite ends of the New England political spectrum. (op. cit., p. 140.) Apparently they were not active in the quarrel over the Third Church.

44. Hutchinson, op. cit., p. 196.

45. Felt, op. cit., p. 212.

46. Hutchinson, loc. cit.

47. Hill, op. cit., p. 15.

48. Boston Town Records, 2nd Report, 1634–60.

49. Hill, op. cit., p. 93.

50. Backus, op. cit., p. 337.

51. Sewall, op. cit., p. 55.

52. Ibid., pp. 356–7.

53. Johnson, loc. cit.

54. Backus, op. cit., p. 827.

55. Records, V, p. 134.Google Scholar

56. Hill, op. cit., p. 25.

57. Bailyn, op. cit., pp. 80, 108.

58. In Leverett, Charles, A Memoir of Sir John Leverett (Boston, 1856), p. 67.Google Scholar

59. Hubbard, op. cit., p. 51.

60. The signers are named in Hill, op. cit., p. 218, a. 1.

61. Bailyn, op. cit., p. 40.

62. Ibid.

63. Hill, op. cit., p. 114.

64. Sewall, op. cit., p. 179.

65. Hill, op. cit., p. 117.

66. Ibid.

67. Bailyn, op. cit., p. 87.

68. Hill, op. cit., p. 114.

69. Hutchinson, op. cit., p. 122.

70. Hill, op. cit., p. 113.

71. Bailyn, op. cit., pp. 128, 135.

72. Hill, op. cit., p. 114.

73. Ibid., p. 119.

74. Hutchinson, op. cit., p. 65, n. 3.

75. Bailyn, op. cit, p. 40.

76. Hill, op. cit., p. 117.

77. Ibid., n. 1.

78. Bailyn, op. cit., p. 102.

79. Hull, op. cit., p. 198.

80. Hill, op. cit., p. 56.

81. Ibid.

82. Ibid., p. 136.

83. I am, furthermore, unable to find significant information about Nathaniel Duncan, Thomas Bumstead, Thomas Clarke. (probably the blacksmith), John Wilson, William Dinsdale, Thomas Snow, James Johnson, Nathaniel Williams, Henry Powning, John Webb, Thomas Marshall, William Hudson, Henry Phillips, or John Newgate.

84. Drinker, Edward, “Letter to Clark,” 11, 1670,Google Scholar in Backus, op. cit., p. 316.

85. Hull, op. cit., p. 229; Hill, op. cit., pp. 77, 79; Backus, op. cit, p. 316.

86. Backus, loc. cit.

87. Randolph, Edward, “Representation of the Affairs of New England, May 6, 1677.” in Edward Randolph, IX, ed. Toppan, Robert (Boston, 1898), pp. 254–5.Google Scholar

88. Ibid., p. 254.

89. Ibid., p. 255.

90. Miller, op. cit., p. 140.

91. Backus, op. cit., p. 305. It is Interesting that Tyng was also a supporter of Davenport, and that he accompanied Oliver when he took the Boston invitation to the New Haven preacher. (See Hill, op. cit., p. 15.)

92. Hill, op. cit., p. 108.

93. Benjamin Sweetater, “Letter to Samuel Hubbard, October, 1671,” in Backus, op. cit., p. 319.

94. Drinker, “Letter to Clark, Nov. 30, 1670,” in Backus, op. cit., p. 316.

95. Hull, op. cit., p. 238.

96. Osgood, H. L., The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, III (New York, 1907), p. 325.Google Scholar

97. Backus, op. cit., p. 389.

98. Ibid., p. 390.

99. Bradstreet, Simon, “Letter to Increase Mather, April 20, 1681,” Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, IV/8 (Boston, 1868), p. 478.Google Scholar

100. This is true, at least, of his famous son, Solomon Stoddard, who lectured Increase Mather on the evils of Baptists in 1677: “I hear Mr. Miles still preaches in Boston; I fear it will be a means to fill that Town, which is already full of unstable persons, with error.“ urged, Solomon that “all due means be used for prevention.” In Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, IV/8 (Boston, 1868), pp. 586–7.Google Scholar

101. Charles Chauncy, et al., “An Introduction to the Judgement of Messrs. Davenport and Street adverse to the decisions of the Synod…” In Pulsifer, David, Copies of Manuscripts (1833), p. 55.Google Scholar

102. Mather, Increase, The First Principles of New England Concerning the Subject of Baptism and Communion of Churches (Cambridge, Mass., 1675), n. p.Google Scholar

103. Chauncy, “Anti-Synodalia Scripta Americana,” in Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consecration of Churches Collected and Confirmed out of the Word of God by a Synod of Elders and Messengers of the churches (1662), p. 2.Google Scholar

104. Ibid., p. 28.

105. Ibid.

106. Ibid., p. 20. See also Davenport, John, “The Said Judgement of Mr. John Davenport,” in Copies of Manuscripts, by David Pulsifer (1833), p. 6.Google Scholar

107. Mather, Increase, Propositions concerning the Subject of Baptism (1662), p. 15.Google Scholar