there were many things in the ritual as to garments, and emblems,
and postures, which he considered as savoring of papal idolatry and
superstition, and which he could not conform to, as bowing before
the cross, using holy water, etc. Moreover, if his minister
preached error, he claimed the right to worship in some other
church, and he united with others like-minded, in setting up other
services.
If a clergyman, he took the liberty to discard the customs and
usages which he considered unscriptural, while using the prayer
book, with exceptions, and holding himself in allegiance to his
ecclesiastical superiors, in all things lawful. In this class were
I05
many clergymen, and more laymen, in the reigns of James and
his son Charles.
Moreover, by this time, another class, not large, but growing
rapidly, had adopted the Presbyterian or the Congregational polity.
So it came to pass that a man might have been a Roman Catholic,
a high church conforming Episcopalian, a non-conforming Church-
man, and a non-prelatical Dissenter in the course of his life. It
is correct therefore to speak of Sir John Eliot, John Pym, and
other great statesmen of that age, as Puritans, but Puritans of the
non-conforming class. Vane, the younger, Cromwell and others,
went through the Presbyterian phase into Congregationalism.
Milton was a non-conformist of the highest type till he became
an Independent. And like all the others above mentioned, he
was a Puritan in sentiment, doctrine, mode of worship, morals
and taste.
Lord Macaulay took occasion to say that Milton was not a
Puritan. It is one of the few blemishes in his immortal history.
Like his snappish remark about the Puritan cruelty in slaying
beasts kept for sport, and about the "brayings of Exeter Hall," it
was written when he was smarting under his rejection by the voters
of Edinburgh. For the moment he took for the typical " Puri-
tan," the crop-haired, snuffling, narrow-minded sectary, satir-
ized in the pages of Hudibras, and in the plays of the foul-minded,
rotten-hearted wits of the Restoration. He knew, but ignored the
fact, that the mighty Puritan party which dethroned Charles, and
wrought the great change in the English government, contained
many of the nobility, and nearly half the gentry of England.
The house of commons in 1640, and on, had a valuation double
or triple that of the house of lords ; and the great mass of Eng-
lish yeomen were on the republican side. Not only piety and
severe morals were enlisted in the Puritan revolution, but wealth,
learning, science, the highest talent for statesmanship and war,
and the finest literary ability and taste. The manners of many
of the leading Puritans were as elegant and courtly as those of
the best and highest of the king's adherents.
In all essential points the settlers of Plymouth and of Massa-
chusetts Kay were alike. Pilgrim or Puritan, they were English
14
io6
Protestants, who abjured the particular rites of Rome, and the
Episcopal imitations of the papacy. They believed that prelacy
was unscriptural, and they preferred the spontaneous prayer of an
earnest heart, to prescribed, or as they sometimes styled it,
"stinted prayer." Both parties came in time on to the same
church platform. Both were Pilgrims, with the difference that
the settlers of the Bay came directly from England, while those of
Plymouth came round by Holland. They made two removes
instead of one. The main differences which were developed here
in maintaining government and dealing with sectaries, grew out
of peculiar circumstances ; but the two were fundamentally the
same.
II. Why did the Puritans leave old England?
The story of the Pilgrims from their rise in northeastern Eng-
land, to their removal to Holland ; and then their voyage to
Plymouth in the Mayflower, is familiar to our children. We are
now to take a rapid glance at the rise and progress of the second
migration, and the settlements in Massachusetts Bay. Nearly all
the fathers and mothers of the colony who settled in and around
Boston, were born in the latter days of Queen Elizabeth, and in
the reign of James I. They grew up in a time of deep religious
thought, when the public mind was familiar with the discussion
of the great truths of revelation, and the deepest principles of
government, human and divine. By degrees the ministers were
alienated from the national church, and the laymen who drank in
their teachings, were preparing for a separation, if necessary, for
the preservation of a true church. The clergy found it more and
yet more irksome to comply with the commands and exactions
of their ecclesiastical superiors, upheld by the power and influence
of the crown ; and the laity gave them their warmest sympathies.
When Laud became bishop of London, and still more, when his
power was extended as archbishop of Canterbury, it was made clear
that all dissent from strict compliance with the will of priest and
king, was to be discountenanced and punished. The experience
of numerous faithful parish priests, in different parts of the king-
dom, was alike in substance, though sometimes unlike in form.
107
The following words from Governor Bradford, will enable us to
see what the converts — whether Pilgrim or Puritan — had to under-
go, from the beginning in the reign of Elizabeth, down to the
time of the departure of Winthrop and his company, and even
later. He writes: "The work of God was no sooner manifest
in them, but presently they were both scoffed and scorned by the
profane multitudes, and the ministers urged with the yoke of sub-
scription, or else must be silenced ; and the poor people were so
vexed with apparitors, and persevants, and the commissary courts,
as truly their affliction was not small ; which, notwithstanding
thev bore sundry years with much patience, till they were occa-
sioned (by the continuance and increase of these troubles, and other
means which the Lord raised up in those days), to see further
into things by the light of the word of God ; how not only their
base and beggarly ceremonies were unlawful, but also that the
lordly and tyrannous power of the prelates ought not to be sub-
mitted unto, which thus contrary to the freedom of the gospel,
would load and burden men's consciences, and by their compul-
sive power, make a profane mixture of persons and things in the
worship of God. .Vnd that their officers and callings, courts and
canons, etc., were unlawful and anti-christian, being such as have
no warrant in the word of C>od, but the same that were used in
popery, but still retained."
The lives of the first ministers in Massachusetts Bay, Connecti-
cut and New Haven, all tell the same story. John Cotton was
born in 1585 ; Thomas Hooker in 15S6 ; John Wilson in 1588 ;
Richard Mather in 1596 ; John Davenport in 1597, and John
Norton in 1606. Many of the others were born in these or the
immediately following years. They, in almost all cases had relig-
ious parents ; were taught at home, sent to schools and academies,
and finally to Oxford or Cambridge. Then came their induction
into the ministry in the national church. They were faithful,
laborious and successful in the sacred office. In doctrine, they
held and taught, substantially, the system contained in the
Articles of the national church, which they held in common with
nearly all Protestant Christendom. And in the matter of Articles
of Faith, whether styled Calvinistic, Augustinian or Pauline, they
io8;
held much in common with the Roman CathoHc church. But
Uttle by Httle, the priesthood, which was ahnost unanimously (in
the first half of Elizabeth's reign,) Calvinistic, became what was
styled Arminian. The older kind of preaching was discouraged
by the court, Arminian ministers were promoted ; became arch-
deacons and deacons ; rectors of large and well-endowed par-
ishes ; heads of great schools ; professors in the colleges, and
heads of the two universities. Only such could hope to be
bishops, or aspire to the sees of York and Canterbury. An anec-
dote of the time of James is in point. A nobleman of the court
was asked one day when the Calvinistic clergy could hope to rise.
He replied, "Not till the resurrection."
The ritual was enforced upon the clergy more and more rigidly.
Almost any degree of looseness in life and morals in the ministry
was more readily tolerated, than any laxity in rites and ceremonies.
Richard Mather, when before a commission, for non-observance
of some of the ceremonies of worship, was told that he had better
have seven bastards than offend in one point of the ritual.
Things that were confessedly unessential, were required by law,
and enforced by severe penalties. Copes, and scarfs, and gowns,
and bands, and surplices, and other articles of " man-millinery,"
must be worn when ministering in the sacred office. Some of the
rites and ceremonies imposed, seemed to the Puritan clergy to
savor of ancient superstition ; some were merely useless, and
some were ridiculous in their estimation. To be obliged to com-
ply with such requisitions was intolerable. Then the king issued
his proclamation, calling the people to indulge in sports and
pastimes on Sunday, after the hour of public worship, and ordered
the ministers to read this in the hearing of their congregations.
Not thinking that dancing promiscuously round may-poles, and
carousing in other ways, was in accordance with the sacredness of
the Sabbath, or promotive of good morals in any way, they refused
to read the proclamation, and so incurred the displeasure of arch-
bishop and king. For these and other reasons, many were silenced
and deprived of their livings. In their enforced leisure, they
thoroughly examined into the question of church government,
109
comparing all existing hierarchies with the teachings of the Bible ;
and especially of the New Testament. The result was the adop-
tion of essentially the Congregational system of church govern-
ment and discipline. The claim that priests must be ordained by
bishops, who themselves were in the line of succession from the
pope of Rome, was rejected, and the parity or eciuality of all
ordained ministers was maintained. But as the king and the
heads of the national church held to prelacy as fundamental in
•church government, and as the friends of royalty agreed with
king James, that no church was friendly to kingly and autocratic
rule, but one which held to the different grades of the ministry,
there was an insuperable obstacle to union or submission. " No
bishop, no king," was the dictum of the royal Solomon, a sentence
which led to the overthrow of church and royalty, and the behead-
ing of the king's son.
Still, the deposed Puritan ministers did not, to any great extent,
form Congregational churches. They preached as they found
opportunity. They explained the word in private houses, man-
sions and palaces, and aided in bringing on a revolution in the
public mind. In this they were ])owerfully seconded by the intel-
ligent laymen of England, and thus the day was hastened when a
portion of the Puritans came to New England, and the larger
part, under the lead of Sir John Eliot, John Pym, John Hampden,
and their compeers, built up the great party, which began to show
its head in the last parliaments of James, and in the earlier ones
of Charles, and finally culminated in the famous Long Parliament
of 1640.
In this ferment of the public mind, preparation was made in
the years 1626-8 for the settlement of Massachusetts Bay. The
religious and political elements were mingled in the great revolu-
tion of sentiment which resulted in what some have styled the
"Cireat Rebellion." It is not quite true to say that one grew out
of the other, though they were synchronous and inseparable.
The tyranny of king and noble might have led to a revolution, if
there had been no reformation in the church, but it would not
have been complete, because the national church was linked to
I lO
the state, and upheld the abuses of the government. There
might have been a partial reformation of the church, without a
change in the form of government, or any great mitigation of its
severities and exactions, but the change could not have been radical.
Puritanism, pure and simple, struck at despotism in both state
and church. It aimed to break the shackles which held mankind
in bondage. It was also inspired with the desire for purity of
doctrine, worship, and life, in private ; and for good morals, pub-
lic spirit, and general participation of power, in public. If the
despotism of the crown were limited, the same result would
reach the spiritual tyranny of pope, cardinal, bishop and priest.
If men became godly in life they would be willing to participate
with their fellow-men in the distribution of power. In brief, the
two branches of the Puritanic revolution went forward, pari
passu, and what the Puritan preachers labored for in the pulpit,
the Puritan statesmen struggled for in the courts, and in parlia-
ment. Hampden upheld the Puritan clergy in opposing the
exactions and superstitions of Laud, and the hearts of the clergy
went with him when he refused the demand for ship money.
The above remarks express, substantially, the reasons why the
settlers of Massachusetts Bay, as well as of Plymouth, left Eng-
land. In a sentence, they could not remain in their native country
and enjoy civil and religious liberty.
III. The third part of the question, viz. : Why did they come
hither in preference to other parts of the globe ? may be answered
briefly. It was necessary to go somewhere, and also to a region
where their design would meet no insurmountable obstacles, by
reason of the opposition of natives to the soil, or hostility from
other Europeans.
The fathers came here for the simple reason that here they found
room in which they could build their houses, and found a
Christian state. There was no place for them in Europe. In
Africa there was no region known to them open to the occupancy
of foreigners, except the Cape, which was then held by the
Dutch ; Asia was crowded with inhabitants ; Australia was teri-a
itjcflgniia ; the two sides of South America were mainly in the
1 1 1
torrid zone, except the southern part, which is a cold and barren
region ; moreover its vast plains, from the Carib sea, far south to
the La Plata, were pre-occupied by Portugese and Spaniard. All
the northern part of North America that was habitable, was in the
possession of the French. The southern was a part of the
dominions of Spain. Virginia was settled by Church of England
Episcopalians ; New York was in possession of the Dutch before
the settlement of Massachusetts Bay was contemplated by the
company of Winthrop. Here, between the French in Canada and
the Dutch in New York, there was room for a new colony, and
hither therefore, our fathers came.
IV. And now the question arises. What was their design in
founding a colony, and how did they carry out their design ?
Privation and persecution drove theqi out of England ; they came
here, because here only was there room for them ; but what did
they drsire to plant and build here? And how did they execute
their design? Was their motive worldly gain? Did they come
to fish, hunt, and trade with the Indians? Did they design to
build up a rival to England, and be the head of a western em-
])ire? Without doubt, as sensil)le and prudent men, they had an
eye to thrift, comfort, and security in their possessions ; but if we
may believe their own declarations, they came here ( i ) to enjoy
religion, both in faith and ordinances, in its purity, by planting
Christian churches after the New Testament model. (2) To
establish a colony or colonies, in which all the rights of free-born
Englishmen could be enjoyed by themselves and their posterity ;
and (3) to make the gospel of Christ known to the heathen.
The fact that they believed this to be the best method of securing
prosperity under the government of a benevolent God, did not
dilute the purity of their motives, or detract from the nobility of
their purpose. How they succeeded is familiar to all who have
studied their history.
But before following the settlers in Massachusetts Bay from
their homes in England, it is important to consider what right
they had to come here at all. Their right was based on three
grounds, i. The right of God's children, who were obliged to
112
move somewhither, to occupy uninhabited territory, over which
there is no claim of authority or jurisdiction. The region occupied
by the colonists was almost a desert, made so by a desolating pesti-
lence. No one had a right to exclude new comers, by the law of
nature. 2. The consent of the natives. The colonists sacredly
regarded the rights of the aborigines. It was their intention to gain
a right by purchase, to settle here, and here to found a colony.
They fulfilled that intention, so that it has been said, by high
authority, that they more than paid for all the land they occupied.
3. All the authority which a charter from their king could give
them.
In 1620, November 3-13, king James I. chartered a corporation
styled "The Council established at Plymouth, in the county of
Devon, for the planting, ruling and governing of New England,
in America. This " Council of Plymouth," deriving title to lands
by the grant from the king, granted a title to lands to the settlers
in Massachusetts Bay. It could not grant powers of government.
The grant of lands was made by a deed, bearing date March 19-
29, 1627, by which was sold unto certain gentlemen, whereof
John Endicott and John Humphrey were two, and their heirs and
assigns, and their associates forever, all that part of New England
lying between the rivers Charles and Merrimack, and three miles
north and south of that section. Soon after, these gentlemen, by
the agency of Rev. Mr. White, of Dorchester, were brought into
connection with another set of gentlemen, living in and about
London, who afterwards had much to do with the colony.
.A-mong those who were distinguished in early New England history,
were Sir Richard Saltonstall, Isaac Johnson, Matthew Cradock,
Increase Nowell, Richard Bellingham, Samuel Vassal, Theophilus
Elton, John Brown, Samuel Brown, William Vassal, William Pinchon,
George Foxcroft, John Winthroj). and a few others. These parties
being joined into one, and by purchase, becoming joint possessors,
planned a colony for non-conformists, and by petition, sought a
new patent from the king. The charter was granted by Charles
I., dated March 4-14, 1628, giving them a right to the soil, by
which titles were held as of the •' manor of East Greenwich, in
1 1 ;
Kent, and in common socage." This charter empowered them
to elect their own officers annually, and to make such laws as
were necessary and suitable to the plantation, saving that no law
should be repugnant to the laws of the kingdom. Here was the
foundation of a plantation, giving title to the soil by a fixed and
legal tenure, and authority to govern themselves by making laws,
and choosing officers to administer them.
The charter " constituted a l)ody politic, by the name of the gov-
ernor and company of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England."
A governor, deputy governor, and eighteen assistants were to
be annually elected by the stockholders, or members of the cor-
poration. A general assembly of the freenien was to be held
four times a year. The charter did not specify whether the seat
of government of the colony should be in England, or in the
colony. Soon after the charter was granted, the corporation, after
careful deliberation, and taking legal advice, voted that the seat
of government should l)e in the colony. Perhaps the charter was
granted without any reference to this point. Perhaps the under-
standing of the government was that the governing body should
remain in England. This is assumed by many writers and law-
yers. The matter has been debated more than two centuries.
Some have gone so far as to claim that the patentees had no
thought of removing the government to the colony at first. They
allege that this was an afterthought, and that the English govern-
ment was surprised when it was announced that the corporators
in England had voted the transfer to the colony. The opinion
of Judge Parker was given at length, and with abundant learning,
in one of the Lectures before the Massachusetts Historical Society,
sustaining the legality of the transfer. Leaving the legal aspect
of the matter to the legal fraternity, and looking at it in the
light of common sense, it is hard to believe that John Winthrop,
who was a good lawyer, and one of the soundest thinkers of his
age, did not weigh well, and also take counsel upon, this step,
l)efore assenting to it. It is hard to believe that John Winthrop
and his associates, who had in mind a large, continuous and
increasing emigration from the old country, and the building up of
114
a great colony in New England, did not see that it would be simply
impossible for the few freeman that staid in England, to govern
the large and increasing number soon to be located in the colony.
It was not to be a trading company doing business in foreign
parts, through agents, while governed by a close corporation at
home, but a colony of actual settlers, accustomed to the rights of
Englishmen, freeholders of the soil, with the powers of govern-
ment administered by officers of their own choice, the vast majority
of whom would be on the soil, while a few only resided in England.
The men who conceived the project of settlement, were careful,
prudent and far-sighted, and could not fail to see that the seat of
government must soon be in the colony, or the whole plan would
fall to pieces. At all events, they soon decided on their course,
and with solemn deliberation, transferred the seat of power to
that part of the company that was to make the experiment of a
colony, though the actual change was not effected till 1629.
Meanwhile efforts towards founding a colony had been made in
Massachusetts Bay. The Plymouth company had a fishing station
at Cape Ann. Adventurers undertook to break up their station,
but were foiled. Roger Conant, under the encouragement of the
famous Rev. Mr. White, made tentative efforts, with the poor help
of such men as Lyford and Gorton, to form the nucleus of a
colony. He had the aid of a few other men, of better character
than those lawless rovers, but measures had already been taken
which caused a transfer of the work to the company of which
Winthrop became the head.
This company, in 1628, sent over a choice selection of people,
who landed at Salem, under the leadership of John Endicott, as
deputy governor, and the spiritual guidance of Messrs Skelton
and Higginson. Conant, who was a sensible and excellent man,
acquiesced in the change, and though an Episcopalian in senti-
ment, concurred in the plan of organizing a Congregational
church, the next year. This was a momentous event, and has
never been truly emphasized by historians. It was the turning point
in Massachusetts, New England and American history. Its remote
influence will probably be felt in every quarter of the globe, for
centuries to come. Religious and civil liberty was bound up in
115
the decision. Endicott, Higginson and Skelton, and the whole
company that came with them, had been bred in the Church of
England, and with exceptions, had an exceeding love for the ser-
vice. They belonged to the reforming party of Puritans, who
desired to effect a complete separation from the papacy in the mat-
ter of ordination, a disuse of superstitious ceremonies, and a ])urga-
tion of the Common Prayer from errors that marred its power for
good ; but they had no prejudice against, but a liking for the amended
service, with its praytrs, confessions and ascriptions of praise.
Higginson, while on the passage over, gave voice to the whole
com|)any, in calling the Church of England "our dear mother."
Plow then did it come to pass, that almost as soon as they set up
worship on these shores, the whole Anglican system, in all its
pirts, the Articles of Faith excepted, was set aside. Bishop,
priL'st and deacon were superseded by the teacher, pastor, and
the ruling elder. The whole service of the liturgy gave way
to the prayer, singing, and the sermon. The change of vesture,
bowing at the name of Jesus, all the ceremonies required by the
archbishop, were droi)ped, and the austere simplicity of the
Congregational mode of worship was adopted. This was an
entire change, a complete revolution ; and it was made suddenly,
and it was made to stay. There must have been a powerful cause