USA > Massachusetts > Anglican beginnings in Massachusetts (history of Episcopal Church) > Part 4
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
It was also stipulated "that in the choice of governor and as- sistants the only consideration to be had should be of the wisdom, virtue and integrity of the persons to be chosen, and not of any faction with reference to opinions and outward profession; that all freeholders of competent estates, not vicious in conversation, and orthodox in re- ligion, though of different persuasions concerning church government, should have their votes in the election of all officers, both civil and military."46
On receipt of this letter, the General Court was perplexed and un- decided what course to take. It was directed that the royal letter be published, and that all action in reference to the same be suspended until the next General Court, so that all persons concerned might have "time and opportunity to consider of what way necessary to be done On the 8th of October, the Court appointed a day of thanks- giving for the safe return of the delegates. A month later, there was kept a day of fasting and humiliation "on account of the affliction and low estate of the cause and people of God universally, with the prevailing power of Anti Christ over the reformed churches beyond the seas, together with some public rebukes of God among ourselves."47 The instructions, so far as they applied to religion, were disregarded.
About this time, Samuel Maverick wrote to the Earl of Claren- don, regarding the tyranny and arbitrary dealings which characterised the Massachusetts people.
"As for liberty of Conscience the prtence of theire going over, they never yett allowed any to those never so littele dif- feringe in Judgment from them. There are many thousands 46 Massachusetts Historical Collections, 2nd series, VIII., p. 52. 47 Palfrey: History of New England, II., p. 528.
[ 29]
have not received the Sacramt since they went over, and many thousands more borne there in the like Condition, although they are of Competent Knowledge, and ready to give account of it in publique, and liue not scandalously."48
The affairs of New England were proving very unsatisfactory to the King and his ministers. The royal commands were not properly regarded ; and there were complaints from "the Greate Men & Natives of those Countryes, in which they complaine of breach of faith and of acts of violence and injustice which they have been forced to un- dergoe." So, on the 25th of April, 1664, the King issued a commission to Colonel Richard Nichols, Sir Robert Carre, George Carteret, and Samuel Maverick, empowering them "to visit the several colonies of New England; to examine and determine all complaints and appeals in matters civil, military, and criminal; to provide for the peace and security of the country, according to their good and sound discretion, and to such instructions as they should receive from the King, and to certify them of their proceedings."49
On the 23rd of July, the royal commissioners arrived. It is said that there was a chaplain in the group; but it is not known how much or where he officiated.50 Needless to say, the commission was un- graciously received. The General Court of Massachusetts had passed a law prior to 1662, making it a penal offense to use the Book of Com- mon Prayer; and to this law the royal commission objected, saying :-
"It being scandalous, that any person should be debarred the exercise of his religion according to the laws and customs of England, by those who by the indulgence granted have liberty left to be what profession in religion they please."
The General Court refused to change the law. On being pushed for a definite reply to the King's demand about the Prayer Book, the Governor and Company of Massachusetts made the following an- swer (May 16th, 1665) :-
"Our humble addresses to his Majty have fully declared our mayne ends in our being voluntary exiles from our dear native country, which wee had not chosen at so deare a rate, could wee haue seene the word of God, warranting us to per- forme our devotions in that way, & to have the same set vp here : wee conceive it is apparent that it will disturbe our peace in our present enjoyments."51
48Clarendon Papers (New York Historical Society Collections, 1869, p. 30). 49 Palfrey: History of New England, II., pp. 578-586.
50 Batchelder: Eastern Diocese, I., pp. 342-343.
51 New England Historical & Genealogical Register, XXV., p. 348; Records of the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay, IV., part 2, p. 200.
[ 30 ]
In answer to the four propositions of the King's commissioners, the Court of New Plymouth stated (May 4th, 1665) :-
"It having been our constant practice to admit men of competent estates, & civil conversations, though of different judgments, yet being otherwise orthodox, to be freemen, and to hauve liberty to choose, & be chosen officers both civil & military. . . We cannot but acknowledge it to be a high favour from God, & from our Souveraign, yt we may enjoy our consciences, in point of God's worship, the mayn end of transplanting our selues into these remote corners of the earth ; & should most hearily rejoice, yt all our neighbours so quali- fyed as in that proposition would enjoyn them selves to our societies, according to the order of the gospell for enjoyment of the sacraments to themselues & theirs. But if through different perswasions respecting church government, it cannot be ob- tained, we would not deny a liberty to any according to the proposition that are truly conscientious although differing from us, especially where his Majesty commands it, they main- taining an able preaching minister for the carrying on of publick Sabboth worship, wch we doubt not is his Majesties intent, & withdraw not from paying their due proportion of maintenance to such ministers as are orderly setled in the place where they liue, untill they have one of their own; & yt in such places as are capable of mayntaining the worship of God in 2 distinct congregations. Wee being greatly encouraged by his Maties gracious expressions in his letter to us, & your honors further assurance of his Royall purpose to continue our liberties, that where places, by reason of our paucity, & poverty are uncapable of two, it is not entended that such congegations as are already in being should be rooted out, but their liber- ties preserved, there being other places to accommodate men of different perswasions, in societies by themselves wch by our known experience tends most to the preservation of peace & charity."52
Colonel George Cartwright, one of the King's Commissioners, wrote an account of Massachusetts on his return from America. He said :-
"They will not admitt any who is not a member of their church to the communion, nor their children to baptisme, yet they will marry their children to those whom they will not ad- mit to baptisme, if they be rich. . . . Those whom they will not admitt to the comunion they compell to come to their ser- mons, by forcing 5s from them for every neglect; yet these men thought their own paying of 12ยช for not comming to prayers 52Clarendon Papers (New York Historical Society Collections, 1869, PP. 59-60).
[ 31 ]
in England was an insupportable tyranny, and they yet con- stantly pray for their persecuted bretheren in England."53
In his answer to the Massachusetts narrative of transactions with the royal commissioners, Cartwright said :-
"The liberty (they mention) . . . will be best expounded by their own words . . . concerning the use of common prayer book-And to have the same set up here, we con- ceiue it is apparent, yt it will disturb our peace in our present enjoyments. And if all their lawes concerning their churches be read, it will easily appear the common prayer book was never entended. And the banishing of Mr Williams, Mr Wheelwright, Mr Gorton, Mr. John Clark &c. and indeed all who differed so farr from them, as would not come to their meeting houses, or quietly pay 5s aday for missing showes yt they never entended any other worship should be set up, but their own.
"Touching these priviledges &c There is scarce one non- member yt hath had land given him, & scarce a member that hath not had. Divers haue complayned to the Com: of this very thing : as would haue appeared by the papers lost, if here."
He said in the same document that the Massachusetts people claim that "they haue as much power to set up what church discipline they pleas, & to oblige all people to obserue it within their jurisdiction as the King hath in Endland. And when yt say, it is no barre, &c. they forget, or dissemble their own Act; he yt is not a church member must pay 10s at a single rate (wch is a great deal there) or he cannot be a freeman."54
King Charles was much displeased by the way in which the com- missioners had been received and treated by the General Court. By letter, he commanded that agents be sent over, and promised to hear their arguments in person. After arriving in England, the agents found such a strong feeling against Massachusetts that they realized that they could effect nothing. So they returned home.
In 1676, Edward Randolph arrived in New England. He had a letter from the King and a complaint from Mason and Gorges that the Massachusetts colonists had illegally extended their jurisdiction. The legal authorities in England, before whom the case was brought, decided that neither Maine nor New Hampshire was within the charter limits of Massachusetts. Randolph discovered, on his first visit to Boston, that there were laws forbidding the observance of Christmas
53Clarendon Papers (New York Historical Society Collections, 1869, p. 84). 54Ibid., p. 100.
[ 32 ]
or any other festival, and the solemnization of marriage except by a magistrate; else that suffrage was confined to the members of the Con- gregational churches. Pressure was exerted to have the laws modi- fied. Most of the people of New England had never witnessed an Anglican service. They associated the name with Stuart tyranny, and lost sight of the fact that others had a right to religious liberty. They were distressed at the suggestion of an English Church being intro- duced.
Randolph made his report to the Committee for Trade and Plan- tations of the Privy Council, October 12th, 1676. He said that the Massachusetts Bay colony was most flourishing and powerful, and gave laws to a great part of the country "by a pretended Charter from his late Majesty." The legislative power was seated in a General Court, from which there was no appeal; it consisted of the governor, the deputy governor, and ten magistrates, with deputies of the several towns in that jurisdiction-all elected yearly. This court was the supreme jurisdiction of the colony ; it alone had power to make laws, raise money, lay taxes, dispose of lands, give and confirm proprieties, impeach and sentence and pardon, and receive appeals from all in- ferior courts. The governor, deputy governor, and magistrates were chosen by the votes of the freemen of the colony. "No person is ad- mitted to be a freeman of the Colony, or to have vote in any election, but Church members who are in full Communion & approved of by the General Court." As a mark of sovereignty, they coin money and stamp it "1652"-that year being the era of their commonwealth, wherein they erected themselves into a free state, enlarged their do- minions, subjected the adjacent colonies to their obedience, and sum- moned deputies to sit in the General Court. Of their independent rights, they were very jealous; they do not observe the laws of Eng- land except when they coincide with their own convenience.
"They see no evil in a Church member and therefore it is very difficult to get any sentence or verdict against them though in the smallest matters. No Law is in force or esteem there, but such as are made by the General Court, & therefore it is accounted a Breach of their priviledges, & a betraying of the Liberties of their Commonwealth to urge the observation of the Laws of England or his Majesty's Commands."
Of the laws most derogatory and contradictory to those of England, Randolph said :-
"Ministers are ordained by the people, and no injunction to be put upon any Church Officer or member in point of Doc-
[ 33 ]
trine, Worship, or Discipline, whether for substance or cir- cumstance besides the Institution of the Lord.
"Whosoever shall observe Christmas Day or the like fes- tivals by forbearing Labour, feasting or any other way, shall pay 5 shillings, & whosoever shall not resort to their meet- ings upon the Lord's Day, & such days of fasting & thanks- giving, as shall be appointed by authority, shall pay five Shill- ings. No days commanded to be observed by the Church of England are regarded.
"No person shall be impressed or compelled to serve in any wars, but such as shall be interprized by that Common- wealth by the Consent of a General Court or by Authority derived from the same.
"No person shall join any persons in Marriage, but a magistrate, it being an Honourable Ordinance and therefore should be accordingly solemnized.
"All strangers professing the true Christian religion who shall fly them for succor, from the tyranny or oppression of their persecutors, or from any or compulsory cause, they shall be entertained & protected amongst them according to that power & prudence God shall give them
Randolph said that the magistrates and all other officers in the civil government in any place of profit or advantage are members of the local church and freemen. "But the number of the Church mem- bers & freemen compared with the rest of the Inhabitants of that Jurisdiction (who are termed the dissenting party), is very Incon- siderable, not being reckoned above one sixth part, the most wealthy persons of all professions being men of good principles, & well affected to his Majesty. It is nothing but Interest & designe that draws most of that people into their Churchmanship & to think well of that re- ligion & Government they thrive under."
"The Ecclesiastical Government is in the hands of lay Elders; these being the Laws & Constitutions, no person is permitted to gather a Church without the approbation of the Magistrates and the Elders of the neighbour Churches.
"Every Church hath liberty of Election & Ordination of Officers and Ministers.
"To exercise all the Ordinances of God according to the Rule of the Scripture.
"To Celebrate days of fasting, prayer & thanksgiving, ac- cording to the Word of God.
"No Injunction to be put upon any Church, Church officer, or member in point of Doctrine, Worship, or Dis- cipline, whether for substance or circumstances besides the In- stitution of the Lord.
"Hath liberty of admission, dismission & expulsion of their officers and members, with free exercise of the Dis-
[ 34 ]
cipline and censures of Christ according to the Rules of the Word.
"The Civil authority hath power to see the peace, ordi- nances, and rules of Christ observed in every Church, & to deal with any Church member in a way of Civil Justice, not- withstanding any Church relation, office, or Interest.
"No Church censure shall degrade or depose any man from any civil Dignity, office or authority he shall have in the Commonwealth.
"Whosoever shall interrupt any Minister in his preaching, or charging him with any error that he hath not taught, shall pay five pound.
"The Ministers in Boston are paid by a Collection weekly made in the several Congregations by the Elders, who give the Ministers what they think fitt, but in other Towns they have a settled maintenance by a rate laid upon every Inhabi- tant, & Houses are provided for them."55
In 1679, a number of persons of Boston petitioned the King "that a Church might be allowed them for the exercise of religion according to the Church of England."56 There is no evidence that anything was done in response to this plea, at the time.
The King wrote the Massachusetts authorities, however, in 1679, that "those that desire to serve God in the way of the Church of Eng- land, be not thereby made obnoxious or discountenanced from their sharing in the government, much lesse that they or any other of our good subjects (not being Papists) who do not agree in the congre- gational way, be by law subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other in- capacities, for the same : which is a severity to be the more wondered at, when as liberty of conscience was made one principall motive for your first transportation into those parts, nor doe wee think it fitt that any other distinction be observed in making freemen, than they be men of competent estates, rateable at ten shillings, according to the rules of the place, and that such, in their turnes, be also capable of the magistracy, and all lawes made voyd that obstruct the same."57
Randolph spent fourteen years in New England; and during that time his influence was directed against the dominant party. The King had appointed him collector and surveyor of customs at the port of Boston ; and his prestige was considerable. On the 29th of May, 1682, he wrote the Bishop of London, assuring him of the safety of any clergyman he might send over. He suggested that a part of the money
55 Hutchinson: Collections of original papers relating to the history of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, pp. 447-503; Hutchinson Papers, II., pp. 210-240. 56Humphreys: Historical Account ... S. P. G., p. 312.
57 Hutchinson: Collections of original papers relating to the history of the colony of Massachusetts Bay, p. 520.
[35]
sent over "and pretended to be expended among the Indians" might go towards maintaining the ministers.58 Randolph wrote another let- ter to the bishop, July 14th, 1682, saying that "nothing will so effec- tually settle this government on a firm dependence upon the crown as bringing a quo warranto against their charter, which will wholly disenable many, now great sticklers and promoters of the faction among us, from acting further in a public station." He begged that "a sober discreet gentleman" be sent over as minister. As long as the agents of the colony were in England, they would be security for the minis- ter's civil treatment.
"He will be received by all honest men with hearty Chris- tian respect and kindness, and if his majesty's laws (as none but fanatics question) be of force with us, we could raise a sufficient maintenance for divers ministers out of the estates of those whose treasons have forfeited them to his majesty."59
There must have been a suspicion that efforts were being made to secure an English minister. In the Bodleian Library, there is an un- signed letter from Boston to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated De- cember 11th, 1682, reporting that in Massachusetts, the people "are wholly averse to ye Discipline of ye Church of England, tho' it hath been otherwise represented by Mr Mason, who hath brought over Common- prayer Bookes from my Ld Bishop of London; So yt I can give no Incouragemt to invite an Orthodox Divine to come Hither, where both maintenance wilbe wanting, & he would be otherwise uneasy."60
In October, 1683, the writ of quo warranto from the King's Bench was sent over. The scire facias issued from the chancery came after some little delay. Massachusetts refused to surrender the charter; but it was annulled by decree of chancery, June 21st, 1684. It was by virtue of this charter "that not only the cherished political and ecclesi- astical institutions of the colony, but even the titles of individuals to their lands and houses, were supposed to be founded. By the abro- gation of the charter, all rights and immunities that had been based upon it were at once swept away, and every roof of the soil of Massa- chusetts became the personal property of the Stuart king, who might, if he should possess the will and the power, turn out all the present occupants or otherwise deal with them as trespassers."61 The interests of the Puritan clergymen were vitally affected. Before the cancellation of the charter, not one of the inhabitants of Massachusetts could vote
58Greenwood: King's Chapel, pp. 18-19.
59Ibid., pp. 16-18.
60MSS. Tanner (Bodleian Library), 35, fo. 140.
61 Fiske: Beginnings of New England, p. 296.
[ 36 ]
for officers of the corporation, unless he was a freeman and a Con- gregational communicant. "When the direct government of the Eng- lish crown took the place of the class government which had domineered Massachusetts by a perversion of her Royal charter, it was very natural that her Puritan ministers should have keenly felt their altered con- dition, and have bitterly vented their griefs. Their political supremacy was gone. They could no longer control the choice of corporate of- ficers who would make laws at their dictation. There was now popular equality under the Common Sovereign of all English Colonists, where sectarian privilege had flourished before, under a colonial oligarchy. And so the cry was soon started that Episcopalian 'wild beasts of the field' had entered through the broken hedge of the old charter, and were ravaging that succulent Massachusetts sheep-fold of which Puri- tanism had so long enjoyed the exclusive pasture."62
The diary of Samuel Sewall reveals the strong animus that existed against the Church of England. Sewall had graduated at Harvard in 1671; and was managing a printing press at Boston from 1681 to 1684. For some years he was a merchant; and he held several minor political offices. Later he became a member of the Council, and was chief justice from 1718 to 1728. He died the 1st of January, 1730. He was a man of comprehensive and well-balanced mind.
On Christmas day, 1685, he wrote :-
"Carts came to Town and Shops open as is usual. Some somehow observe the day; but are vexed I believe that the Body of the People profane it, and, blessed be God, no Au- thority yet to compell them to keep it."
He recorded, December 31st, that the Reverend James Allen, pas- tor of the First Congregational Church, preached against observing December 25th, and called the festival "Antichristian Heresie," and "spoke against the Name."63
VI. THE REVEREND ROBERT RATCLIFFE-ANGLICAN
On the 14th of May, 1686, the "Rose" entered Boston Harbour, "freighted heavily with wo to the Bostoneers." It brought a commission to Joseph Dudley as president of Massachustts, Maine, Nova Scotia, and the lands between; it also brought the Reverend Robert Ratcliffe, the first Church of England minister who had come over with a com- mission to officiate on this soil. Ratcliffe was a Bachelor of Arts of
62John Romeyn Brodhead, in Historical Magazine, I., 2nd series, Jan., 1867, pp. 6-7.
63 Sewall's Diary, I., pp. 114-115.
[ 37 ]
Exeter College, Oxford, October 16th, 1677; a Master of Arts, June 15th, 1680; later he became a Bachelor of Divinity.64 Four days later, Sewall wrote in his diary :-
"1686. Tuesday, May 18. A great Wedding from Milton, and are married by Mr. Randolph's Chaplain at Mr. Shrimp- ton's, according to ye Service-Book, a little after Noon, when Prayer was had at ye Town House: Was another married at ye same time; The former was Vosse's son. Borrowed a ring. Tis sd they having asked Mr. Cook and Addington, and yy declining it, went after to ye President, and he sent ym to ye Parson."65
This departure from the local rule of marriages by magistrates was quite an innovation.
After Dudley assumed his office, Mr. Ratcliffe waited on the Coun- cil; and Mr. Mason and Mr. Randolph proposed that he should have one of the three Congregational meeting-houses for his services. The request was denied; but he was allowed the use of the library room in the east end of the town (which stood where the Old State House now stands). The presence of a representative of the English Church was resented as an intrusion.
Ratcliffe was evidently a good orator. Dunton, a London book- seller who was in Boston at the time, said :--
"The next Sunday after he landed he preach'd in the Town-house and read Common-Prayer in his Surplice, which was so great a Novelty to the Bostonians that he had a very large Audience ; and myself happening to go thither for one, it was told about Town, as a piece of Wonder, That Dr. Annesley's Son-in-Law was turn'd Apostate . . . I went but once or twice at the first, tho' Mr. R. . , was an Extra- ordinary good Preacher."66
On the 25th of May, 1686, the new government of New England came into power. (Connecticut was not included.) Joseph Dudley was appointed president of his Majesty's territory of New England. He had been of old a non-conformist minister; it was not likely that his introduction of Anglican services would be forgiven. Besides Rat- cliffe, there was another English clergyman who did some duty on the shore-the Reverend Mr. Buckley, chaplain of the "Rose."
Sewall wrote in his diary, on Sunday, May 30th :--
64Perry: American Episcopal Church, I., p. 175.
65Sewall's Diary, I., p. 139. 66 Dunton: Letters, p. 187.
[ 38 ]
"My son reads to me in course ye 26th of Isaiah-In that day shall the song, etc. And we sing ye 141 Psalm both ex- ceedingly suited to ye day wherein there is to be Worship ac- cording to ye Chch of Engnd as 'tis call'd in ye Town House by Countenance of Authority. 'Tis defer'd till ye 6th of June at what time ye Pulpit is provided. The Pulpit is movable, carried up and down stairs as occasion served. It seems many crowded thither, and ye Ministers preached forenoon and af- ternoon."67
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.