USA > Massachusetts > Middlesex County > Cambridge > History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1913 > Part 6
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 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40
The first session of the General Court for elections in the Colony was held at Boston, May 18, 1631. At this session, one hundred and sixteen persons took the oath and were admitted as Freemen. The further purpose of the Court to place all final power in the hands of the people themselves was indicated at the same meeting by a vote which gave authority to the Freemen to nominate candi- dates for assistants. It was ordered that "once in every year, at least, a General Court shall be holden, at which court it shall be lawful for the commons to propound any person or persons whom they shall desire to be chosen assistants, and if it be doubtful whether it be the greater part of the commons or not, it shall be put to the poll. The like course to be holden when they, the said commons, shall see cause for any defect or misbehavior, to remove any one or more of the assistants."
The next vital question about political matters was raised over an issue in which Cambridge was closely involved. As early as February, 1632, a warrant was sent out by the Court of Assistants to levy a tax of £60 for the expense of building the stockade at Newtowne. The minister and people of Water- town protested against the payment of their assessment and urged "that it was not safe to pay monies after that sort, for fear of bring- ing themselves and posterity into bondage." They insisted that the Court of Assistants had no right to levy taxes without authority from the people.
The Assistants at once summoned the people by a warrant to a session of the Court and there
pointed out that no rights of the Freemen had been disregarded, that the Assistants could be elected only by the Freemen, who had the right to remove them and elect others in their places, and that at every General Court the Freemen had the right to consider and propound any- thing regarding the government, and to declare their grievances freely. This explanation for the time satisfied the Watertown people, and they made a retraction of their plea, and were enjoined to read it in the assembly the next Lord's day.
Nevertheless, this question of the right of the Assistants to assess taxes upon the towns without the consent of the people, although temporarily disposed of, was a live issue and brought about. the first significant alteration in the plan of government. At the session of the Court which was held in the succeeding May an order was passed, apparently by general consent, "that there should be two of every plantation appointed to confer with the Court about raising of a public stock," and the ap- pointments were made at the session. The purpose of this order was to have a representa- tion from the Freemen to advise with the Assistants in the laying of taxes. It was a step towards the organization of two branches of the General Court.
In accordance with this vote two persons were appointed from Watertown, Roxbury, Boston, Saugus, Newtowne, Charlestown, Salem and Dorchester, the eight towns which had been organized.
The next advance in the political methods of the little Colony was the adoption of a representative system. It was ordered, "That four General Courts be kept every year; that the whole body of the Freemen should be present only at the Court of Election of Magis- trates, and that, at the other three, every town should send their deputies, who should assist in making laws and disposing lands." These deputies began to sit as a separate house in 1644 and the framework of the government was then complete.
The most distinctive decision and the one which has not stood the test of time and experi- ence, was the attempt to limit the franchise to church members, in the effort to secure a scrupulously moral and intelligent electorate.
41
THE COLONY
As early as 1631 the General Court passed the following order: "To the end that the body of the commons may be preserved of honest and good men, it was likewise ordered and agreed that for time to come no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of the churches within the limits of the same."
This vote has often been derided or used to illustrate the fundamental narrowness of the Massachusetts men. Whatever we may think of its wisdom and expediency today it was absolutely in accord with the clearly defined purposes of the Company.
The excellent and revered John White, of the English Dorchester, the original promoter of the Massachusetts Colony, in his "Planters' Plea," written in 1630, had well defined the necessary limitations of the enlistment for the enterprise. "The persons chosen out for this employment," he wrote, "ought to be willing, constant, industrious, obedient, frugal, lovers of the common good, or, at least, such as may be easily wrought to this temper; con- sidering that works of this nature try the undertakers with many difficulties, and easily discourage minds of base and weak temper." With equal force and frankness, he described the persons who were not suitable:
"Men nourished up in idleness, unconstant and affecting novelties, unwilling, stubborn, inclined to faction, covetous, luxurious, prodi- gal and generally men habituated to any gross evil, are no fit members of a colony."
There has always been a widespread mis- understanding of the motives and purposes of the founders of Massachusetts. It is not uncommonly supposed that they came hither, to use the words of the most distinguished historian of New England, "to place a colony which should be a refuge for civil and religious freedom." Such a purpose, however, finds no expression in the words of the planters of Massachusetts themselves. Indeed, it may be justly said that they never achieved or desired any knowledge of what religious free- dom, as we understand it, means. It is alto- gether probable that if it had been defined to them they would have rejected it with ab- horrence. What they really sought is best set forth in the little treatise which John Winthrop
wrote in the cabin of the Arbella in the course of the voyage. There we read that "the work we have in hand" is "to seek out a place of cohabitation and consortship under a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical." It is a mistake to flatter the founders of Massa- chusetts by ascribing to them purposes which to us today seem peculiarly worthy and high- minded, but which they never cherished. They do not need such defense or vindication. On the other hand it is an equal error to censure them upon the assumption that they came to America fleeing from religious persecution and then in turn became persecutors themselves. Both critics and defenders fail in justice because they assume a purpose which never existed. Not a single sentence can be quoted from any of their writings which justifies the contention that they sought or desired religious freedom for all men. It was entirely in accord with their fundamental motives that they restricted the rights of citizenship to those who accepted their religious covenants; that they punished the intruders whose ways and opinions offended them, and that they banished the people who raised strife or dissent.
It should also be remembered that the charter of the Company gave to the General Court "full and absolute power and authority to correct, punish, pardon and rule," all the people within the bounds of their jurisdiction, and that they had further power to repel and resist all interlopers or persons who were not in sympathy with their habits of thought and life. No power short of this would have secured the enlistment of the kind of people who made up the Massachusetts Company. They re- quired the right of self-administration, the right of admitting those whom they pleased to be their associates, and the power to expel all who might threaten or annoy them in the progress of their great experiment of establish- ing "a due form of government both civil and ecclesiastical." Their enterprise was no hap- hazard adventure. It was undertaken with serious earnestness, with resolute purpose, and upon a far-seeing and comprehensive plan which was steadfastly adhered to through good report and ill. Through much toil and suffer- ing they established a "body politic," all of whose usages and institutions were adapted
42
A HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
to the fulfilment of their ideal,-not our ideal, -of a Christian Commonwealth.
Two serious misgivings only were known to them,-that they themselves by fault or in- firmity might fail of fidelity to their ideal, or that it should be brought into peril through the waywardness of those who by love of novelty or hope of gain might creep in among them. Against the first danger they sought security under their solemn religious covenants and by continuous exhortation to patience, courage and devotion to the standards of thought and conduct which they discovered in the Bible. Against the second peril they protected themselves by exercising their authority to thwart and drive out from amongst them those who were unsympathetic or of less earnest purpose than themselves. They gladly welcomed newcomers who were of spirit and purpose like their own, but they were keen and rigid in their scrutiny of those whose sin- cerity or whose moral character or whose ad- hesion to Puritan principles were doubtful. They especially distrusted the people who believed themselves favored with private and personal revelations in matters of theology. They were beset by all sorts of crude and whim- sical fanatics, men and women, who had come to the new world expecting to find an unsettled state of affairs in which they would have free range for their eccentricities. These persons were, as a rule, blameless in character and they would probably pass unnoticed in the atmos- phere and the thronging population of Massa- chusetts today. In the early days, however, they were a source of grave concern and the General Court disposed of them in a manner which, if it was severe and high-handed, was at the same time perfectly legal and actuated by a complete assurance that justice and right were alike being served. The magistrates did not feel themselves bound to give any reasons for warning off or expelling factious people save that they deemed them "unmeet to inhabit here." They insisted on their charter right to judge and act for themselves.
The first conspicuous subject of what is de- nounced as the intolerance of the Massachusetts Puritans was Roger Williams. Williams came to Massachusetts in the first year of the Colony, an ardent, restless, self-willed young prophet
of "soul-liberty." He was not a member of the Company and never became a Freeman. He was a rigid Separatist and John Quincy Adams characterized him accurately when he said of him that he was "a conscientiously con- tentious man." The opinions and the public speech of Williams in the days of his youthful zeal and self-confidence were an affront to the most cherished Puritan principles. Though a man of uncommon ability and sincere piety he was belligerent, aggressive and obstinate. At one time, indeed, he humbly confessed that he was in error and submitted to the judgment of the Court. That is, however, the only instance known to us in all his life of his yielding his own judgment, and in that instance he soon repented of his penitence and engaged again in acrimonious dispute. Finally, in 1635, by the judgment of the Court sitting at Cambridge he was required to "depart from the juris- diction" and went on his way to the settle- ment of Providence. It is well to remember that as he grew older he mellowed. He was taught patience by having to deal in his own colony with just such rankling opponents as he had himself been in Massachusetts. He grew also to appreciate the personal kind- nesses which he received from his former comrades, even those who in the exercise of their authority had had to deal with him as a dangerous and mischievous offender. Williams never felt any malice toward those who had "enlarged" him and he wrote in the terms of deepest respect for "that ever-honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop," who, he said, "advised him for many high and heavenly and public ends," to steer his course to Narra- gansett Bay.
The next occasion of discord had still more intimate connection with Cambridge, for the courts and synods that decided the case were held on the common or in the Cambridge meeting-house. Anne Hutchinson, with her husband, William Hutchinson, "a gentleman of good estate and reputation" had reached Boston in September, 1634. They had been followers of John Cotton in the Lincolnshire Boston and wished to continue to enjoy his preaching. The first mention of Mrs. Hutchin- son in John Winthrop's journal bears the date October 21, 1636. He there describes her as
43
THE COLONY
"a member of the church of Boston, a woman of ready wit and bold spirit," who was promul- gating certain dangerous heresies. Her brother- in-law, a minister named Wheelwright, was her supporter, and it appeared that the Gov- ernor, young Henry Vane, at least two of the assistants and the majority of the Boston church shared her opinions. What those opinions were it is a little difficult to ascertain, or at least it is difficult in these days to under- stand why the declaration of them could have caused such a tumult. Apparently Mrs. Hutchinson maintained that good conduct was not a satisfactory evidence of piety, and the best evidence of spiritual attainment was the inner assurance. In the theological language her heresy consisted in insisting that "the person of the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person," and that "no sanctification can help to evidence to us our justification." In Octo- ber, 1636, it was proposed that Mr. Wheel- wright be invited to serve the Boston Church as its teacher to the practical exclusion of Mr. Wilson who had been prompt to disavow Mrs. Hutchinson's heresies, while his colleague, Mr. Cotton, was understood to be somewhat sympathetic with them. The tact of Win- throp secured a call for Mr. Wheelwright to the charge of a new church at Mount Wollaston, but the controversy went on and the excitement increased. The matter got into politics and at the General Court in March, 1636-37, con- tentions ran so high, that, although it had been so recently declared that "Boston is the fittest place for publique meetings of any place in the Bay," it was determined that the Court of Elections should not be held there. It was thereupon held in Newtowne, soon to be Cambridge, where, after scenes of tumult, Winthrop was again chosen Governor and Dudley Deputy-governor, while Vane, after a single year's service, was not even included among the Assistants. It was during this election that the first "Stump Speech" was made in this part of the world and by no less a person than the Rev. John Wilson. Mr. Wilson having "got up on the bough of a tree," made a speech which was said to have turned the scale against the "Antinomians," as Mrs. Hutchinson's party was called.
most critical occasion. The fate of the Colony hung in the balance. Judge Sewall wrote years afterwards, "My father has told me many a time that he and others went on foot, forty miles from Newbury to Cambridge, on purpose to be made freemen and help to strengthen Governor Winthrop's party." Two months after his defeat young Vane embarked for England and never returned to America. It should, however, be remembered to his credit, that in spite of his mortification, he afterwards, when he held important positions in Parliament and the government, was ever a wise and stead- fast friend of New England.
Meanwhile, the political issues disposed of, the theological questions were debated by a synod or conference that sat for three weeks at Cambridge. Mrs. Hutchinson was interro- gated and defended her opinions with remark- able ability and skill, but she was finally ex- communicated and forced to leave the Colony. Wheelwright was banished. Six years after- wards he sought pardon for "the vehement and censorious spirit which he had shown," and his sentence was recalled. The victory of those who believed in preserving inviolate the orthodoxy of the colonists was complete.
The proceedings of the courts and synods in this case are not commended or approved by the more liberal judgment of later generations but it is certain that the Massachusetts rulers had no conception that the methods which they employed and which are now justly seen to have been harsh and arbitrary were in the least blameworthy. Their acts are candidly entered upon the records and never apologized for. It is not necessary now to palliate the severities or even to assent to the wisdom or expediency of the ineasures employed. It is not necessary to vindicate the Puritans or to approve of their theories or to endorse all their acts, but justice requires us to look not only at the actions but also at the motives of those who, in the exercise of their rightful authority, did what they believed to be their duty.
In 1638 the colony was called on to confront a peremptory demand from the Lords Com- missioners in England for the surrender of the charter, coupled with the threat of sending
This election was evidently regarded as a over a General Governor from England. But,
44
A HISTORY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS
happily, diplomatic delays were interposed and the direct issue was "avoided and pro- tracted" by the discreet management of Governor Winthrop, until the King and his ministers became too much engrossed with their own condition at home to think more about their colonies. The charter was saved for another half century.
The year 1641 was rendered memorable by the adoption of a code of laws, a hundred in number, and known as "the Body of Liberties." It had been prepared by Nathaniel Ward, pastor of the Ipswich Church, who had been bred to the law in his youth. This code is purely a Puritan product but its spirit is nevertheless curiously modern. The law of England at that time enumerated some thirty crimes and misdemeanors that were punishable by death. The New England law reduced this number to twelve. The spirit of the code is disclosed in the opening paragraph where we read, "No man's life shall be taken away; no man's honor or good name shall be stained; no man's person shall be arrested, restrained, punished, dismembered, nor in any ways damaged; no man shall be deprived of his wife or children; no man's goods or estate shall be taken away nor in any way endangered under cover of law, unless it be by virtue or equity of some expressed law of the country warranting the same, established by the Gen- eral Court and squarely published, or, in case of a defect of the law in any particular case, by the word of God."
This code was very carefully debated and altered by the General Court, then sent into all the towns for consideration, revised and amended by the General Court, and then adopted.
As the Body of Liberties set forth the civic and legal principles of the Massachusetts people, so the "Cambridge Platform" set forth the principles of church organization. The first synod or general counsel of the churches was held at Cambridge in connection with the antinomian controversy. This assembly was called by the General Court and the traveling expenses of the ministers and delegates who came from a distance were paid from the colonial treasury. The synod began at Cam- bridge, on August 30, 1637, and was held in the
meeting-house. It was composed of "all the teaching elders through the country and some new come out of England not called to any place here." There were about twenty-five ministers thus gathered and with them sat the Massachusetts magistrates who took part in the debates but not in the voting. There were also a number of deputies from the lay members of the churches who both spoke and voted. The synod was thus distinctly repre- sentative of the churches and it emphasized the growing sense of community and respon- sibility. The result of this synod was to up- hold the action of the Court in the case of Mrs. Hutchinson and her friends. It was in session for nearly a month and the results were so satisfactory that Governor Winthrop proposed that such synods should be annually held, but this suggestion was disapproved.
A second convention was held at Cambridge in September, 1643, with John Cotton and Thomas Hooker for its moderators, and this gathering approved Winthrop's suggestion and urged that a new General Council be called to give to the churches "one uniform order of discipline." It took some time to carry out this decision, but on May 15, 1646, the General Court invited the churches of the four federated colonies to send their ministers and delegates to meet at Cambridge on the first of September "there to discuss, dispute and clear up, by the word of God, such questions of church govern- ment and discipline as they shall think needful and meet." It was this synod which adopted the Cambridge Platform as an ecclesiastical constitution in seventeen chapters. The draft of this celebrated document was made by the Rev. Richard Mather of Dorchester, and it was furnished with a preface by John Cotton. The Platform was duly published and after some time approved by the General Court, and it continued the recognized standard of theology and government in the New England churches throughout the colonial period.
A still greater event of 1641, and one of the most significant events in the early history of the country, was the final formation of that New England Confederation or Union, by written articles of agreement, which is the original example and pattern of whatever unions or confederations have since been pro-
45
THE COLONY
posed or established on the American conti- nent. This agreement was adopted by the four Colonies,-Massachusetts and Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven,-the four which were afterwards consolidated into two. It was formed by those who were "desirous of union and studious of peace," and it embodied principles, and recognized rights, and estab- lished precedents which have entered largely into the composition of all articles of confedera- tion or instruments of union. It had been proposed as early as 1637, and Governor Winthrop had labored unceasingly to accom- plish it for six years. He was recognized as its principal promoter by Thomas Hooker in a remarkable letter, thanking him for the
"speciall prudence" with which he had labored "to settled a foundation of safety and pros- perity in succeeding ages," and for laying, with his faithful assistants, "the first stone of the foundation of this combynation of peace." The little congress of commissioners was held and organized in Boston on the 7th (17th) of September, 1643, and Winthrop was elected the first president. The same day of the same month, nearly a hundred and fifty years later, was to mark the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, in which it is not difficult to discern some provisions which may have owed their origin to the Articles of the New England Confederation.
VI
THE COMMUNITY
T HE characteristic feature of New England from the beginning was the fact that its inhabitants dwelt together in towns. This peculiarity was fruitful in its political and social consequences. It differen- tiated the social structure of the New England colonies from their neighbors to the south, where, as in Virginia, the large land owners lived apart from one another on considerable estates. One obvious cause of this difference was the character of the soil and its products, but another and more potent reason was the ecclesiastical system of the New England people. The town was an organization for united worship as well as for the conduct of secular affairs. The inhabitants placed their houses as near as possible to the meeting-house. To the meeting-house all the people went twice on Sunday, and it was the center of the whole community life. In addition to their house- lots, most of the people, as we have seen in the account of the settling of Cambridge, secured grants of wood lots and pasture lands and a considerable section of each town was set aside for commons. Each town was a little commonwealth, having its officers chosen by popular vote and its own deliberative assembly, where public measures of local interest were discussed and determined. In these village parliaments the democratic idea in its original form was realized. The executive authorities of each town were the constable, the selectmen or townsmen, the town clerk and various minor officers.
The boundaries of the original Newtowne were very limited. Its territory was, however, soon enlarged by a large grant of land south of the river, and at the General Court held in March, 1636, it was agreed that the bounds of the town should extend eight miles into the country northward from the meeting- house, thus including half of the present town of Lexington. In 1641, 1642 and 1644, the town received additional grants, consisting
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.