It's taken me longer to get around to continuing to write about the church
conflict in Newbury than I thought it would. It's a complicated issue and as
I said in the first post in the series, my understanding of the Protestant
theological issues is woefully inadequate. My intention is to concentrate on
the part my ancestors played in the argument but I do feel the need to provide
a bit of background information.
At the head of the two factions in the Newbury church were two men: Reverend
Thomas Parker and merchant Edward Woodman. Reverend Parker had been
part of the original party of settlers who founded Newbury and his influence can
still be seen there today. The river that flows by the town is named the Parker
River in his honor, and it is believed the town itself is named after a town in
England where Rev. Parker had taught before coming to the colony. Edward
Woodman was likewise an early settler of the town and had done very well for
himself in business. The differences between the two men lay in their views
about how the church should be governed.
The Reverend Parker in the Presbyterian viewpoint, that a church was best
led most effectively by a council of church elders. This made the Newbury church
one of only two Presbyterian churches in the colony, the other being in the town
of Hingham south of Boston. The rest of the sites practiced Congregationalism, in
which church problems and policies were dealt with by the votes of the entire
church, and Edward Woodman wanted the church to be run on this principle. The
disagreement between the two sides was so contentious that the churches of
neighboring towns as well as the colonial government tried to mediate it.
At its height, there were long-winded letters with charges and counter-charges
flying back and forth from both sides. I'm surprised that any work at all got
done on those occasions. To be honest, I don't understand a lot of the points
that were being made. So I'll stick with those instances that involve my ancestors.
I'll begin in the next post in the series about an incident involving (once again)
my ancestor William Gerrish, among others.
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Friday, August 23, 2013
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
TROUBLE IN PARADISE PT4
The petition protesting the disenfranchisement of Lieut. Robert Pike
was partially successful, as James Currier details in his History of Newbury Part 1
p165:
"The objectionable order relating to public preaching in the
colony was repealed August 30, 1653 ; but at the same time
it was enacted " that every person that shall publish and main-
taine any hetrodoxe and erronjous doctorine shalbe lyable to
be questioned and censured by the County Court where he
liveth according to the meritt of his offence." *
The sentence imposed upon Lieut. Pike was not revoked
until several years later, as appears from the following order
adopted by the General Court October 23, 1657 : —
In ansr to the peticon of Robert Pike, humbly desiring ye courts
favo"" his fine being paid, to remitt to him & release him from the other
pte of the Courts former sentence against him, M"" Worcester ye pastor
of ye church at Salisbury appearing on ye behalfe of the peticoner and
acknowledging himself much bound to the court if they would be
pleased to graunt ye said Pikes request, the court grants his request. t
* Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv., part I., p. 151.
t ibid., p. 313.
Nathan Whitington's article in The New England Magazine gave me a bit
more background on what prompted the General Court's law and Robert Pike's
objections to it.
It seems that there were a Joseph Peasley and a Thomas Macy in Salisbury, who were accustomed to hold forth their doctrine to the people on the Sabbath in the absence of the minister. They were both of a Baptist sect in the town, and were inclined to Quakerism. Macy was the first settler of Nantucket afterwards, and Pike one of the proprietors of the island when Macy emigrated thither. In order to stop the preaching o fthe two sectaries the General Court enacted a law making it a misdemeanor for any one to preach on the Sabbath who was not a regularly ordained minister. With regard to this law Robert Pike declared "that those members who had voted for it had violated their oaths as freemen; that their act was against the liberty of the country, both civil and ecclesiastical, and that he stood ready to make his declaration good."
The old notion that the magistrate holds by divine right and is above criticism still prevailed extensively, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the General Court were chosen by the people of the towns. The Court had never been subjected to adverse criticism before, and the members were horrified at the blasphemy, as it seemed to their sensitive souls. Wherefore they passed an order declaring that Lieutenant Robert Pike had been guilty of defaming the General Court, and ordered that he should be disfranchised, disabled from holding any public office, bound to his good behavior, and fined twenty marks, equal to thirteen pounds, six shillings and eight pence. p29
Once I saw that the controversy involved Quakers I understood why some of my ancestors
had signed the petition. John Emery would be brought before the Salem Court ten years
after the Pike incident for entertaining Quakers in his house. Tristram Coffin likewise was
known to associate with Quakers and several of his children would become Quakers
themselves.
For Robert Pike to speak up against the General Court took a certain amount of courage,
since Quakers in the eyes of the colonial government were only a little better than
Catholics. But it was in total character for the man. Four decades later he would speak out
again and criticize the abuses of the witchcraft trials. I recommend the Whittington article
for anyone interested in more information on his life.
The Robert Pike incident was troublesome, but it was not as divisive and long lasting in
Newbury as the controversy that was slowly simmering before it exploded.
To be continued.
was partially successful, as James Currier details in his History of Newbury Part 1
p165:
"The objectionable order relating to public preaching in the
colony was repealed August 30, 1653 ; but at the same time
it was enacted " that every person that shall publish and main-
taine any hetrodoxe and erronjous doctorine shalbe lyable to
be questioned and censured by the County Court where he
liveth according to the meritt of his offence." *
The sentence imposed upon Lieut. Pike was not revoked
until several years later, as appears from the following order
adopted by the General Court October 23, 1657 : —
In ansr to the peticon of Robert Pike, humbly desiring ye courts
favo"" his fine being paid, to remitt to him & release him from the other
pte of the Courts former sentence against him, M"" Worcester ye pastor
of ye church at Salisbury appearing on ye behalfe of the peticoner and
acknowledging himself much bound to the court if they would be
pleased to graunt ye said Pikes request, the court grants his request. t
* Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. iv., part I., p. 151.
t ibid., p. 313.
Nathan Whitington's article in The New England Magazine gave me a bit
more background on what prompted the General Court's law and Robert Pike's
objections to it.
It seems that there were a Joseph Peasley and a Thomas Macy in Salisbury, who were accustomed to hold forth their doctrine to the people on the Sabbath in the absence of the minister. They were both of a Baptist sect in the town, and were inclined to Quakerism. Macy was the first settler of Nantucket afterwards, and Pike one of the proprietors of the island when Macy emigrated thither. In order to stop the preaching o fthe two sectaries the General Court enacted a law making it a misdemeanor for any one to preach on the Sabbath who was not a regularly ordained minister. With regard to this law Robert Pike declared "that those members who had voted for it had violated their oaths as freemen; that their act was against the liberty of the country, both civil and ecclesiastical, and that he stood ready to make his declaration good."
The old notion that the magistrate holds by divine right and is above criticism still prevailed extensively, notwithstanding the fact that the members of the General Court were chosen by the people of the towns. The Court had never been subjected to adverse criticism before, and the members were horrified at the blasphemy, as it seemed to their sensitive souls. Wherefore they passed an order declaring that Lieutenant Robert Pike had been guilty of defaming the General Court, and ordered that he should be disfranchised, disabled from holding any public office, bound to his good behavior, and fined twenty marks, equal to thirteen pounds, six shillings and eight pence. p29
Once I saw that the controversy involved Quakers I understood why some of my ancestors
had signed the petition. John Emery would be brought before the Salem Court ten years
after the Pike incident for entertaining Quakers in his house. Tristram Coffin likewise was
known to associate with Quakers and several of his children would become Quakers
themselves.
For Robert Pike to speak up against the General Court took a certain amount of courage,
since Quakers in the eyes of the colonial government were only a little better than
Catholics. But it was in total character for the man. Four decades later he would speak out
again and criticize the abuses of the witchcraft trials. I recommend the Whittington article
for anyone interested in more information on his life.
The Robert Pike incident was troublesome, but it was not as divisive and long lasting in
Newbury as the controversy that was slowly simmering before it exploded.
To be continued.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
TROUBLE IN PARADISE PT2
The General Court (the legislature of Massachusetts) was not amused by the reaction
of the citizens of the towns that had presented petitions in support of Robert Pike, and
did what governing bodies in America have often done in sticky situations: they
appointed a committee to investigate why people had signed the petition. Among
those appointees was my ancestor, William Gerrish. I think the report submitted
about the signers from Newbury reflects his prickly temper. It also produced an
amusing and terse encounter with another of my ancestors, John Emery.
Again, the story is from John James Currier's History of Newbury Vol.1 pp163-4
My ancestors' names are in red:
"This petition, with several other petitions from neighboring towns, was presented
to the General Court at a session held May 14, 1654. The deputies as well as the
magistrates were evidently disturbed and irritated by this unexpected display of
friendship for Lieut. Robert Pike, and promptly appointed a committee of investigation.
In answer to the petiCon of Hampton, Salisbury, Newbery, Haverill & Andover, subscribed by severall in each toune, this Court cannot but deeply resent that so
many psons of seuerall tounes, condiCons & relations, should combine together
to psent such an vnjust & vnreasonable request as the revoaking the sentance past
the last Court, agt Left Robe Pike & the restoring of him to his former libertie,
wthout any peticon of his oune, or least acknowledgment of his great offence, fully
proved against him, which was no lesse then defaming this Court, and charging them
with breach of oath &c wch the peticoners call some words lett fall by occasion.
The court doth therefore order in this extraordinary case, that Mr Bradstreet for
Hauerill & Andover, Capt Wiggins for Hampton, Capt Gerrish & Nicho Noies for Newbery, & Mr Winsly & Mr Bradbury for Salisbury, shall & heereby are appointed Comisioners to call at a time as they shall think meete & require a reason of theire
vnjust request & how they came to be induced to subscribe the sd peticon & so make theire retourne to the next sessions, that the Court may consider how to pceed farther therein."
In October, 1654, Capt. William Gerrish and Nicholas Noyes reported to the General Court the reasons given for signing the petition by the men of Newbury: —
Francis Plummer and Robert Morse say the reason is because he is a useful man, and thought they might petition without offence. It was in the liberty of the Court to accept
it or reject it and . . . they could not see they had done amiss in petitioning.
John Bishop being desired to go into the meeting house to explain .. . about the petition he said he could not stay, but the constable said he must. He came into the house before us; said, would the General Court have the reasons, they are in the petition, and that was all he would say, and so turned his back and away he went
Benjamin Swett saith every free subject hath liberty to petition for any that had been
in esteem, without offence to any.
John Emery demanded our Commission and the sight of the petition, and then would answer. Being produced, he answered we had no power to demand who brought him the petition; and hearing John Bond make answer, told him he was a wise man in a bold, flouting manner. His carriage we conceive was (insulting). f
Others said they were friends of Robert Pike and out of respect for him they petioned for his release, while others confessed that they were ignorant of the words spoken by him & sentence imposed upon him by the Gen. Court and intended no offence to that
honorable body in asking for his release.
After a careful examination of the answers returned by the men from Newbury and
other towns in the vicinity, the General Court ordered November 1, 1654, the petitioners whose answers were not satisfactory to appear at the county court and give bonds in
the sum of ten pounds to answer for their several offences. The names of the Newbury
men "to be summoned by warrant from the dark of the court" were: "Jno Emery, Sen,
Jno Hull, Jno Bishop, Benjamin Swett, Daniell Thirston, Jun. Joseph Plomer,
Daniell Cheny, Jno Wilcott." Ŧ
*Massachustts Colony Records, vol. Iv., part I., p. 104.
t Massachusetts Archives, vol. K., p. 299. "The New Puritan," pp. 44 and 45.
I Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. K., part I., p. sic."
I can imagine the scene between my two ancestors: John Emery giving his terse
answers to the questions and William Gerrish bristling at his "insulting" attitude.
I also need to see if I can find the petitions from the other towns to see if there
are others of my ancestors in the list of signees.
To be continued.
of the citizens of the towns that had presented petitions in support of Robert Pike, and
did what governing bodies in America have often done in sticky situations: they
appointed a committee to investigate why people had signed the petition. Among
those appointees was my ancestor, William Gerrish. I think the report submitted
about the signers from Newbury reflects his prickly temper. It also produced an
amusing and terse encounter with another of my ancestors, John Emery.
Again, the story is from John James Currier's History of Newbury Vol.1 pp163-4
My ancestors' names are in red:
"This petition, with several other petitions from neighboring towns, was presented
to the General Court at a session held May 14, 1654. The deputies as well as the
magistrates were evidently disturbed and irritated by this unexpected display of
friendship for Lieut. Robert Pike, and promptly appointed a committee of investigation.
In answer to the petiCon of Hampton, Salisbury, Newbery, Haverill & Andover, subscribed by severall in each toune, this Court cannot but deeply resent that so
many psons of seuerall tounes, condiCons & relations, should combine together
to psent such an vnjust & vnreasonable request as the revoaking the sentance past
the last Court, agt Left Robe Pike & the restoring of him to his former libertie,
wthout any peticon of his oune, or least acknowledgment of his great offence, fully
proved against him, which was no lesse then defaming this Court, and charging them
with breach of oath &c wch the peticoners call some words lett fall by occasion.
The court doth therefore order in this extraordinary case, that Mr Bradstreet for
Hauerill & Andover, Capt Wiggins for Hampton, Capt Gerrish & Nicho Noies for Newbery, & Mr Winsly & Mr Bradbury for Salisbury, shall & heereby are appointed Comisioners to call at a time as they shall think meete & require a reason of theire
vnjust request & how they came to be induced to subscribe the sd peticon & so make theire retourne to the next sessions, that the Court may consider how to pceed farther therein."
In October, 1654, Capt. William Gerrish and Nicholas Noyes reported to the General Court the reasons given for signing the petition by the men of Newbury: —
Francis Plummer and Robert Morse say the reason is because he is a useful man, and thought they might petition without offence. It was in the liberty of the Court to accept
it or reject it and . . . they could not see they had done amiss in petitioning.
John Bishop being desired to go into the meeting house to explain .. . about the petition he said he could not stay, but the constable said he must. He came into the house before us; said, would the General Court have the reasons, they are in the petition, and that was all he would say, and so turned his back and away he went
Benjamin Swett saith every free subject hath liberty to petition for any that had been
in esteem, without offence to any.
John Emery demanded our Commission and the sight of the petition, and then would answer. Being produced, he answered we had no power to demand who brought him the petition; and hearing John Bond make answer, told him he was a wise man in a bold, flouting manner. His carriage we conceive was (insulting). f
Others said they were friends of Robert Pike and out of respect for him they petioned for his release, while others confessed that they were ignorant of the words spoken by him & sentence imposed upon him by the Gen. Court and intended no offence to that
honorable body in asking for his release.
After a careful examination of the answers returned by the men from Newbury and
other towns in the vicinity, the General Court ordered November 1, 1654, the petitioners whose answers were not satisfactory to appear at the county court and give bonds in
the sum of ten pounds to answer for their several offences. The names of the Newbury
men "to be summoned by warrant from the dark of the court" were: "Jno Emery, Sen,
Jno Hull, Jno Bishop, Benjamin Swett, Daniell Thirston, Jun. Joseph Plomer,
Daniell Cheny, Jno Wilcott." Ŧ
*Massachustts Colony Records, vol. Iv., part I., p. 104.
t Massachusetts Archives, vol. K., p. 299. "The New Puritan," pp. 44 and 45.
I Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. K., part I., p. sic."
I can imagine the scene between my two ancestors: John Emery giving his terse
answers to the questions and William Gerrish bristling at his "insulting" attitude.
I also need to see if I can find the petitions from the other towns to see if there
are others of my ancestors in the list of signees.
To be continued.
Friday, August 09, 2013
TROUBLE IN PARADISE PT1
If you have Pilgrim or Puritan ancestors, you need to know how religion
affected their lives.
Religion was an integral part of life in early colonial Massachusetts. This is no
great surprise, considering it was founded by two religious groups. But I don't think
many of us understand how entwined it was with the colonial government. Awhile
back when I was doing a series on my ancestor William Gerrish, I came across two
stories that about religious disputes in the town of Newbury, Massachusetts. They
involved Gerrish and several other ancestors on both sides of the arguments. My
interest was caught by the fact that many of the men had known each other for years
and had served together as town officials peaceably (well, except for Gerrish). But these
two incidents divided Newbury, the first slightly and the second on a wider scale. One
was started by the government, the other by a congregation and soon involved the
General Court and several neighboring towns as well.
I have to admit here that as a Catholic (and wouldn't my Puritan ancestors be horrified
by that) I don't know much about the finer theological points of Congregationalist
church in 17th century New England, so my focus is more on the social and political
aspects of what took place in Newbury. The first incident took place in 1653, and involved a man named Robert Pike. This is from John James Currier's book History
of Newbury, Mass., 1635-1902 , Volume 1 pp.162-163:
PETITION FOR THE RELEASE OF ROBERT PIKE.
The General Court passed an order, May 18, 1653, declaring it to be unlawful for any
person to preach in any town in the colony without the consent of the elders of four neighboring churches or by the approval of the county court. Robert Pike, of Salisbury,
boldly denounced this act as an unjustifiable interference with the personal rights and privileges of freemen, and farther said "several churches had called theire members to accompt which did act in that lawe making, and that some places were about to show
theire minds to the Generall Court about it." *
August 30, 1653, Lieut. Pike was ordered to appear at the General Court and answer for his intemperate zeal and seditious speech. He was disfranchised September 7, 1653) and prohibited from holding public office in the town or in the colony. A fine of twenty marks, equal to thirteen pounds, six shillings, and cightpence, was imposed as an additional penalty; and he was required to give bonds for his good behavior during the court's pleasure.*
The prompt and vigorous measures adopted by the General Court to assert its rights and protect its members from criticism and censure aroused a strong feeling of indignation among the inhabitants of Newbury, Haverhill, Andover, Hampton, and Salisbury. Petitions were prepared and circulated in these towns asking that the fine and punishment imposed upon "Lieutenant Robert Pike" be remitted. Several of these petitions are on file at the State House in Boston, but many of the signatures can hardly be deciphered and some are illegible. The petition from Newbury reads as follows : f—
The humble petition of the inhabitants of Newbury, to the honored General Court now assembled at Boston, showeth:
That whereas our loving friend, Lieutenant Robert Pike, of Salisbury, hath by occasion, as it is witnessed against him, let fall some words for which the honored Court hath been pleased [to censure him] we having had experience that he hath been a peaceable man and a useful instrument ... do therefore humbly desire this honored Court that the said sentence may be [revoked] and that the said Lieutenant Pike be . . restored to his former liberty. So . . . pray &c
* Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. hr., part I., p. 156.
t Massachusetts Archives, vol. B., leaf 209. See also " The New Puritan,** pp. 44 and 45.
There followed a list of the men from Newbury who signed the petition. In the
book the names are in three columns. I've used red to mark the names of those who
are my ancestors:
Richd. Kent, Jun.
Wm Moody
Daniel Peirce
Geo. Little
Saml Moody
Richd. Dole
John Poore
Dan Thurston
Joseph Plummer
Richd Thurly
John Wolcot
John Hull
Rob. Adams
Wm Chandler
John Tillotson
John Baily
John Wheeler
Rob. Cooper
Richd. Kent, Sen.
Wm Titcombe
John Bartlett
Tho. Browne
Richd. Bartlett
Gyles Cromlome
Aquilla Chase
Edw. Richardson
Wm Richardson
John Bishop
Sam Poore
John Hutchins
Wm Sawyer
Richd. Fitts
John Bond
Chris Bartlett
James Ordway
Edwd. Woodman
Stephen Swett
Wm Ilsly
Tho Smith.
Benj Swett
Joseph Swett
Steph. Greenleaf
Anthony Morse
Henry Lunt
Solomon Kyes
Tristram Coffin
Francis Plummer
Sam. Plummer
Dan Thurston
Wm Cottle
John Rolfe
John Muslewhite
John Emery, Sen.
John Emery, Jun.
Sam Moore
Nich. Batt
John Cheney Jr
Daniel Cheney
This petition, along with several others from other towns. would prompt a reaction
from the General Court, and a curt conversation between two of my ancestors.
To be continued..
affected their lives.
Religion was an integral part of life in early colonial Massachusetts. This is no
great surprise, considering it was founded by two religious groups. But I don't think
many of us understand how entwined it was with the colonial government. Awhile
back when I was doing a series on my ancestor William Gerrish, I came across two
stories that about religious disputes in the town of Newbury, Massachusetts. They
involved Gerrish and several other ancestors on both sides of the arguments. My
interest was caught by the fact that many of the men had known each other for years
and had served together as town officials peaceably (well, except for Gerrish). But these
two incidents divided Newbury, the first slightly and the second on a wider scale. One
was started by the government, the other by a congregation and soon involved the
General Court and several neighboring towns as well.
I have to admit here that as a Catholic (and wouldn't my Puritan ancestors be horrified
by that) I don't know much about the finer theological points of Congregationalist
church in 17th century New England, so my focus is more on the social and political
aspects of what took place in Newbury. The first incident took place in 1653, and involved a man named Robert Pike. This is from John James Currier's book History
of Newbury, Mass., 1635-1902 , Volume 1 pp.162-163:
PETITION FOR THE RELEASE OF ROBERT PIKE.
The General Court passed an order, May 18, 1653, declaring it to be unlawful for any
person to preach in any town in the colony without the consent of the elders of four neighboring churches or by the approval of the county court. Robert Pike, of Salisbury,
boldly denounced this act as an unjustifiable interference with the personal rights and privileges of freemen, and farther said "several churches had called theire members to accompt which did act in that lawe making, and that some places were about to show
theire minds to the Generall Court about it." *
August 30, 1653, Lieut. Pike was ordered to appear at the General Court and answer for his intemperate zeal and seditious speech. He was disfranchised September 7, 1653) and prohibited from holding public office in the town or in the colony. A fine of twenty marks, equal to thirteen pounds, six shillings, and cightpence, was imposed as an additional penalty; and he was required to give bonds for his good behavior during the court's pleasure.*
The prompt and vigorous measures adopted by the General Court to assert its rights and protect its members from criticism and censure aroused a strong feeling of indignation among the inhabitants of Newbury, Haverhill, Andover, Hampton, and Salisbury. Petitions were prepared and circulated in these towns asking that the fine and punishment imposed upon "Lieutenant Robert Pike" be remitted. Several of these petitions are on file at the State House in Boston, but many of the signatures can hardly be deciphered and some are illegible. The petition from Newbury reads as follows : f—
The humble petition of the inhabitants of Newbury, to the honored General Court now assembled at Boston, showeth:
That whereas our loving friend, Lieutenant Robert Pike, of Salisbury, hath by occasion, as it is witnessed against him, let fall some words for which the honored Court hath been pleased [to censure him] we having had experience that he hath been a peaceable man and a useful instrument ... do therefore humbly desire this honored Court that the said sentence may be [revoked] and that the said Lieutenant Pike be . . restored to his former liberty. So . . . pray &c
* Massachusetts Colony Records, vol. hr., part I., p. 156.
t Massachusetts Archives, vol. B., leaf 209. See also " The New Puritan,** pp. 44 and 45.
There followed a list of the men from Newbury who signed the petition. In the
book the names are in three columns. I've used red to mark the names of those who
are my ancestors:
Richd. Kent, Jun.
Wm Moody
Daniel Peirce
Geo. Little
Saml Moody
Richd. Dole
John Poore
Dan Thurston
Joseph Plummer
Richd Thurly
John Wolcot
John Hull
Rob. Adams
Wm Chandler
John Tillotson
John Baily
John Wheeler
Rob. Cooper
Richd. Kent, Sen.
Wm Titcombe
John Bartlett
Tho. Browne
Richd. Bartlett
Gyles Cromlome
Aquilla Chase
Edw. Richardson
Wm Richardson
John Bishop
Sam Poore
John Hutchins
Wm Sawyer
Richd. Fitts
John Bond
Chris Bartlett
James Ordway
Edwd. Woodman
Stephen Swett
Wm Ilsly
Tho Smith.
Benj Swett
Joseph Swett
Steph. Greenleaf
Anthony Morse
Henry Lunt
Solomon Kyes
Tristram Coffin
Francis Plummer
Sam. Plummer
Dan Thurston
Wm Cottle
John Rolfe
John Muslewhite
John Emery, Sen.
John Emery, Jun.
Sam Moore
Nich. Batt
John Cheney Jr
Daniel Cheney
This petition, along with several others from other towns. would prompt a reaction
from the General Court, and a curt conversation between two of my ancestors.
To be continued..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)