fl -U V 112.355" .9. .22. . -..“I£~3."fJZ-'.‘(
\
. 1

tHESxF

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

FROM ”CHRISTIAN PRINCE" T0 "CONSTITUTIONAL KING'l
ATTITUDES OF NEW ENGLAND CLERGYMEN TOWARD

MONARCHY 1715-1776
presented by

Julie Kay Bennett

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in History

A‘ 1 LL”, ,‘L/\’(7‘£\:/‘~—

Major professor

Date ///g /) <1:
/ /

0.7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

LIBRARIES
“

\u

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. flfl§§_will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

FROM "CHRISTIAN PRINCE” TO "CONSTITUTIONAL KING"
THE ATTITUDES OF NEW ENGLAND CLERGYMEN TO MONARCHY
1715 - 1776

By

Julie Kay Bennett

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of History

1982

 

ABSTRACT
FROM "CHRISTIAN PRINCE" TO "CONSTITUTIONAL KING"

THE ATTITUDES OF NEW ENGLAND CLERGYMEN TO MONARCHY
1715 - 1776

By

Julie Kay Bennett

During the first half of the seventeenth century, when
England began to colonize North America, continuing contro-
versy existed in the mother country over the role of the
monarch. English Puritan thoughts on the subject naturally
influenced the attitudes of those who settled New England.
Developments over the next one hundred and fifty years
would first cause an erosion and later a revival of early
Puritan ideas on monarchy. In the end, in revived form,
those early Puritan ideas would help to sustain the move-
ment for Independence within the New England region. Based
on selected sermons of the most active Congregational
clergymen in the Boston area between 1715 and 1776 the
change in attitudes toward monarchy can be determined.

This change involved a shift in view from Christian Prince
to Constitutional King and an accompanying change in the

position of the people.

 

Copyright by
JULIE KAY BENNETT
1982

For Jim &

Bandit

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Early American Imprint Series issued by the
Microprint Corporation was especially useful, for it made
access to the ministers' sermons and discourses possible
at the university.

There were several persons who supported me throughout
my masters program. My family, especially my father and
mother, were dear enough to allow me to use their home and
put up with strange hours while I plugged away at the
material. Their moral support always meant a lot to me.
I also appreciated the playfulness and love of our cat,
Bandit, who kept me company during long hours of writing,
and got me to take much needed breaks to play.

To Jim, thank you for your understanding and putting
up with my tantrums when things looked the worst.

Quite often, when depression starts to take hold
after weeks of writing or research, a friendly face can
work wonders on one's spirits. To all the staff in the
History Department of MSU: keep smiling! Especially
Darleene and Mary.

To Gordon Stewart, Associate Professor of History at
Michigan State University, my thanks for all your

suggestions and points.

iv

And last, but not least, to Stephen Botein, Associate
Professor of History at Michigan State University, a
heartfelt thanks for all your support and direction. Your
help was well appreciated and your peaceful nature quite

often kept me from coming "unglued."

 

 

 

II

III

IV

Biographical Essays
Notes

Primary Sources

Secondary Sources

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vi

Page

17
34
37
41
48
51

 

AUTHOR'S NOTE

 

The quote's from primary sources have been
reproduced as close to the original as possible;

both in spelling and italiziation.

 

During the first half of the seventeenth century,
when England began to colonize North America, continuing
controversy existed in the mother country over the role of
the monarch. English Puritan thoughts on the subject
naturally influenced the attitudes of those who settled
New England. Developments over the next one hundred and
fifty years would first cause an erosion and then later a
revival of early Puritan ideas on monarchy. In the end, in
revived form, those early Puritan ideas would help to
sustain the movement for Independence within the New
England region.

According to Christopher Hill, "James I's theory of
the Royal prerogative had much to command it in law, logic,
and common sense."1 Traditionally royalists argued that
in times of trouble the King had absolute and unrestricted
power "when excercising his right to do what was needful
for the general welfare.” This power was in addition to
the King's ordinary power to make law, which he shared with
Parliament. Royalists also linked the monarch to the
family. Sir Robert Filmer, a staunch Royalist, truly
believed in the ”patriarchal theory of the state” and so

could not accept Hobbes's social contract theory. For

 

 

 

2

Filmer it followed that because "the social contract was a
myth; the contract had not been made, it never could have
been made."2

While the royalists argued in favor of a natural
father, to whom resistance was necessarily illegitimate,
the Puritans advocated the contract theory. As Christopher
Hill has remarked, Puritan "preachers taught a doctrine of
spiritual equality; one good man was as good as another

and better than a bad peer or bishop or king."3

This,
coupled with their belief in covenants, meant that
Puritans were prepared to reject hierarchical theory, and
regard the monarch not "as the head against which no part
of the body can rebel" but as a person entrusted with
authority that could be withdrawn if abused. The goal was
to present a theory that placed control of the community
into the hands of its members.4

According to Michael Walzer, Puritans conceptualized
the monarchy as part of their image of the Ship of State.

This image was established as early as 1615 by Thomas

Adams, who had seen the world as "a sea and man a traveler

encountering sea dangers;" and "heaven was the promised
land." The ship (State) was built to care for the people
with the captain (monarch) guiding its course. "The crew

had signed on to or joined together and hired the captain
to protect the ship. And if the captain acted in such a
way as to harm the interests of his crew, they could

depose him and act accordingly." The distinction between

 

3

the Anglican/Royalist understanding of the body politic
and Puritan contractual theory was crucial because it
meant the difference between the people's duty to obey a
ruler and their right to depose him. Only by asserting
that they were partners in the running of the "ship" could
the people justify resistance to the "captain" who acted
without concern for their welfare.5

This right of resistance was exactly what men like
Milton, Lilburne, Goodwin, and Prynne maintained, in
various forms; it also underlay the fatal conclusion of
Puritan quarrels with Charles I. As their theory of the
state deviated from tradition, so did their image of the
family. The family moved "from the patriarchal to the
conjugal," ridding itself of the authority that the extended
family implied. This shift was needed to reinforce
opposition to state hierarchy, for the people might not
feel justified in ultimately opposing a monarch if they
were still tied to him by natural feelings of submissive-
ness to a patriarch.6

Many of the people who left England and sailed for
America carried with them ideas about the authority of
rulers that had been advocated by dissenters in the mother
country. In America, as in England, controversy arose
over the powers of rulers, local as well as royal. One
side upheld the discretionary powers of magistrates who,
within scriptural limits, should be "free to govern the

commonwealth as they saw fit."7 In Massachusetts, one of

 

4
the strongest of such advocates was John Winthrop. In
his "Speech To The General Court July 3, 1645," Winthrop
argued for a "civil or federal, moral liberty" connected
to the covenant with God. Because the magistrates'
authority came from God, the people had to accept what they
got in the skills of their magistrates. To achieve true
liberty it was best to "quietly and cheerfully submit
unto the authority" set over them.8

On the other hand, Winthrop's numerous opponents
believed that "the citizens themselves had detegated
prerogatives to their magistrates." They expected rulers
to stay within the constitutional boundaries freemen might
set. They also "favored an active political role for
the citizens, while playing down the divine magisterial
authority."9 It was essential for the people to act to
protect their rights and liberty, for they had come together
willingly to form their society and government.

Over the century these attitudes would prevail, at the
local level. Men like William Hubbard, Samuel Nowell, and
Joseph Dudley built a structure of New England politics
that included the theoretical character of a good ruler,
whose duty it was "to protect private property," and a
set of criteria by which the people could judge his
actions. At the same time attitudes toward the English
monarchy began to move in a different direction.10

In 1689, faithful to their earlier theory of resis-

tance, Congregational (the descendants of Puritan

5
philosophy) leaders acted against the oppressive regime of
Sir Edmund Andros. This controversy showed the willingness
of Massachusetts's citizens to fight for the freedom they
had developed under their original charter. Their reasons
for resisting Andros were similar to those used in the
mother country against James II, but after the troubles
with Andros and the negotiations of a new Royal Charter in
1691 logic pointed to a reappraisal of the English monarchy
as an Anglo-American institution. A small but influential
group of congregational ministers in the Boston area, led
by the Mathers, determined that they could protect their
position in the colonies, both religiously and politically,
only if the old covenant doctrine could be "dissociated
from the self-government of the old charter and firmly
attached to the Protestantism of the English crown."ll
This was the strategy the Massachusetts clergy carried
into the eighteenth century, reinterpreting earlier
positions of the Puritans to ensure their 'ecclesiastical
security.‘

The Congregational clergy in Massachusetts thus began
to speak of the monarch as a Christian Prince, reminding
him of his role to protect the people, their rights and
their religion. By speaking of the monarch as Father and
Protector of the people, Congregational clergymen after
the turn of the century abandoned themes associated with
the image of the ship of state. Curiously, their new

themes were much closer to those of the Royalists or

6
Anglicans who had celebrated the body politic and family
state, because of their concern for their ecclesiastical
position.

In the period from the accession of George I in 1714
through mid-century, the theme of the Christian Prince was
prominent in the sermons of Boston's Congregational clergy-
men. During these years Boston clergymen spoke of the
monarch as a Minister of God, as Defender of the Faith and
Constitution, and as Patriarch to the people. It was also
in the self—interest of the Congregationalists to remind
the Hanovers of their responsibilities to their loyal

subjects in New England.

II

In defending monarchy and thereby gaining support of
the Hanovers for New England's compromise with the charter
of 1691, Boston's clergymen speculated on the origins of
royal authority much as the Anglicans had. The person
placed on the throne was considered unique because he was
chosen, not by the people, but by God, as Old Testament
rulers had been. Boston clergymen emphasized this special
"divine" position of the monarch from the time George I
took the throne. Benjamin Colman was minister of Boston's
prestigious Brattle Street Church during the controversy

over the new charter and the colonial wars of the late

 

7
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Coming from
one of the most influential congregational ministers, his
recognition of the monarch's divinity would add weight
to the congregationalists' call on the English monarch to
protect their position in the colonies against the royal
governor and council. This recognition Colman gave when he
exalted the monarch's origins in his sermon on the
Suppression of the Rebellion in 1716, declaring "THAT it

is God of Heaven that makes Men Kings and sets them upon

their thrones." Colman understood that ”Such a KING was
Solomon, ... the Pctaon whom God pitch'd upon and Endowed
to fill the thrown."12 Charles Chauncy, minister to the

First Church of Boston, also acknowledged the uniqueness
of the monarch's position during the rebellion of 1746.

”For the Kingdom,‘ stated Chauncy, ”was given to DAVID and

settled on his Sons forever, by immediate Direction from
the God of Heaven."13
After acknowledging God's authority to choose the
monarch, Colman and his associates speculated on how God
chose a specific ruler. Why did He pick one person and not
another? Why Solomon, or David? In England's case, why
did he pick the Hanovers? All were chosen for their
purity of heart and for the care they took of their people
according to models provided in the Old Testament. In
1727, on the death of George I, Thomas Prince, minister to

the Old South Church of Boston since 1718, explained how

a particular royal line would be chosen. "David came to

 

8

the throne,” he observed, ”because the other lines had
forfeited their privilages for themselves and lines
because of wickedness.”14

David and his line were chosen by God because they
were the best hope for the people and this was how God
chose the Hanovers as well. "Thanks be to God," exclaimed
Benjamin Colman in 1727, "that there is the Ptoiebiant
Houie 06 Hanovca on the throne over us .... The House of
our King is unto us as the House of David, chosen and
raised by the God of Heaven as the present bulwark against
Popciy, and for the security of the true knowledge and
worship of God among us." The Protestant succession was
equated with the House of David to emphasize its distinc-
tive character. Both the House of David and the House of
Hanover were chosen because they protected the peOple's
right to worship God against tyrannts who wanted to be
worshipped themselves.15 By granting God's authority to
place a monarch on the throne over and against the
original dynastic line, Boston's clergymen gave up control
of their own government and placed the monarch on a level
above themselves. By comparing the Hanovers to Old
Testament rulers, Colman and his associates approached the
divine right theory of monarchy usually associated with
Anglicans. The monarch had a claim to the throne, through
God, that the people could not resist. The role of the
people was to acknowledge the monarch's legitimacy, not to

resist him. ”They chube him for their Paince and King,”

9
Colman said of David in 1716; ”own his tight to be over
them, and voluntarily subject themselves to him as their

ruler and leader."16

By accepting God's choice for
monarch, the people acknowledged the superiority of his
positions and wisdom, and willingly subordinated them-
selves to his authority. If they resisted, how could they
expect the monarch to protect them?

Protection was considered the paramount duty of
George I and George II by the Boston clergymen. Each was
expected, as God's servant and head of the people, to
battle against enemies of the state, whether foreign powers
or domestic agents of Anti-Christ. Each was also to
protect the people's institutions, both political and
religious. The analogy to David extended to include the
role of the embattled Prince. Ebenezer Gay, minister to
Hingham, spoke for the New England clergy in 1745 election
sermon before Governor William Shirley, the Council, and the
House of Representatives. Proclaiming that "a good Ruiet,
60a the Sake 05 hii Peopie, incuiieih many Dififiicuiiieé and
Hazaada," Gay went on to say: ”King David wai spirited
for and often personally engaged in the Toils and Perils of
War, ... He Shewed thereby his affectionate Care of his
People, and Zeal to defend them. Every good ruler like
David, is ready, for his People's sake, to engage in
difficult and dangerous Enterprizes, when called there to
Providence."17

To fulfill such weighty responsibilities, the monarch

10
needed assistance from on high. So, in 1727, Thomas
Foxcroft, minister of the First Church, extolled George I
in a funeral sermon by claiming that he ”seemd to be form'd
for the Happiness of Mankind: rais'd up by a Kind of
Providence, to be the common Protector of Euiope, the
Guardian of the Refiotmaiion, and the Defense of Biiiain."

H H

Because his "Royal Person appear'd the visable Favorite

of Providence," George could safely journey into ”Perils

many, in Perils by Sea & Land, in Perils among fiaiAe

Bteihnen, in Perils by secret Traitors, and open Enemies ---."18
From the Congregationalists' point of view, George I

and his successors had to struggle against enemies of the

state who posed the greatest threats to Protestantism.

The pretender was a threat not only because of his claim

to the throne, as the son of King James II, but because he

had grown up in France 'under the Influence of popiéh and

deépaiaie Principles."19

(His Catholic principles were as
threatening to the Congregational position as the Anglicans
missionary encroachment would seem later in the century.)
As Charles Chauncy and Thomas Prince both knew, the
pretender's plot was also a threat because of the foreign
aid he received from the French and Spanish. "And should
the pretended Son of this King James succeed in his
Attempt, under the Countenance of FRANCE and SPAIN, to
ascend the Biitiih Throne," Chauncy wondered, "what might
be expected but that he should be a Plague to the Nation

and its Dependanciei, as was his Father before him?”20

11
This could very well have happened with European help.
This meant that George II and Britain faced a larger threat
than just a single man. Thomas Prince explained in his
thanksgiving sermon at the end of King George's War in
1746 that the European threat was posed by the expansion—

ist nations of ”France, Spain & Sardinia."21

If they
succeeded, they would extinquish Protestantism and local
self-rule in favor of Catholicism and arbitrary government.

This Boston's clergymen could not allow, for such a
state of affairs would place the constitutional and
religious freedom of the New England colonies, as well as
the mother country, in the hands of those who would crush
it. The argument for protection of protestants was an
argument within New England for protection of Congregation-
alists already in power. By linking their position to
that of the Hanovers, Boston's clergymen made clear that
their loyalty to the throne involved loyalty to their
regional heritage as well. In returning this loyalty by
protecting New England, the monarch would also protect
himself from being overthrown.

It was for more than protection of the English
constitution that Boston's clergy argued the monarch was
fighting. They also equated enemies of the monarch,
George, with enemies of the Reign of God. Cotton Mather,
heir to the mantle of clerical leadership, stated the
point in his funeral sermon to George I in 1727. After

expounding on the allegiance owed George II, as to George I,

12

Mather stated, "You cannot look on the Enemies of His
Reign, as any other than Enemies of GOD and His CHRIST,
and His Tauth,” and, Mather continued, "unto all the Good
that a true Bniiain or ChaiAiian can wish for."22 The
Hanovers were tied so closely to the divine order that any
action against them harmed God as well. Not only did the
clergy expect the people to protect God's representative,
but they also expected that representative to act as
protector of God's true religion. ”And what can this.
imply,” exclaimed Thomas Prince in 1728, ”but that Civil
Rulers have the weighty care of the people devolved on
them; And their Superior Office is to seek their Welfare,
to lead them, and to be careful of them, as a faithful
SHEPARD of his Tender flock.”23

To the Congregationalists, theirs was the true
religion the monarch should be protecting. So, in 1727,
Cotton Mather praised George I for serving the interests
of New England. ”We behold, the Caihoiic Spiaii with
which he countenanced the Pnoieiiani Reiigion," Mather
said, ”and we, with the neat 05 can United Bneihnen, were
preserved and protected in the Excercise of our Pane and
Undeéiied Reiigion.”24 According to Mather, George I had
done much "to Restore unto our Immoaiai KING His Throne in
the minds of His People, by asserting a Righteous Liberty
of Conacience for them."25

By preserving the basic tenents of the Protestant

religion, George I justified the faith placed in him by

13
Boston's clergymen, just as the Hanovers handling of
political affairs had done in 1715 and again in 1746. As
Benjamin Colman claimed in 1716, ”the Paetenden to the
Crown and his wneiched Adheaenii were beyond measure sur-
prised and amazed at the wondeaoua Tunn. Scarce could
they believe their own Eyes and Ears," for the establishment
of the House of Hanover had managed to deny the pretender
his claim to the throne.26 And in 1746, following the
failure of another Jacobite plot, the success of King
George's War had proven the willingness of George II to
take up the struggle against France and Spain to protect
England and all Europe against their popish plots.

Rounding out the character of the monarch was his role
as benevolent Father, head of the country and light to the
people. It was as a father that he upheld both government
and religion. This was what was promised by God when he
provided that ”Kings shalt be thy nursing fathers, and
Queens thy nursing mothers ... always tender of their
interests and liberties, and ready to defend them from all

..27

envasions This was traditional Anglican Language,

but it came from Samuel Checkley, minister of the New
South Church, in 1727. Ebenezer Gay, minister of Hingham,
made the same reference three years later in 1730:

There is great Cause of Thankfulness and
Praise to Almighty God, for the Blessing we
enjoy in our Civil Ruler -- That our King is
a nursing Father and our Queen a nursing
Mother, who have expressed their tender Care
of, and Concern for us, their poor but duti-
ful Children, in these distant parts of

14
their Dominion -- That we have such in
immediate Authority over us, as are Men of
Wisdom, Integrity, and Piety: JudgeA, in so
good a measure, an at the 6iaat and
Counieiioni an at the beginning: Oéfiiceaa
who are Peace, and Exactoab Righteousneia
.. 0 let us for Conscience sake study and
perform our Duty to our Rulers! -- Let us
vpry heartily and continually for them.28
Portraying the monarch as Father to the people directly
contradicted the metaphor of the early Puritans that the
family was a "little commonwealth." Instead, the state
had become a large family, with the monarch as the
patriarchal leader. As such, the monarch was expected to
do more for the people. By so designating George I and
then George II, Boston's clergymen were reminding him of
his duty to care for them. ”A good Ruler is the Comfioat

and Joy, and so the Light of his people,’ said Ebenezer Gay

in 1730, "he is their Guide. The Use and benefit of
Light is to make us see, to direct us in our Way."29 By
upholding these responsibilities, the patriarchal monarch
would preserve the mission of New England's patriarchs,
especially where government and religion were concerned.
According to Benjamin Colman in 1716, ”This liberty of
Conscience our Fathers sought, and ask'd and had a Royal
Charter to assure them of, and to secure it unto their
Children after them.”30
By reminding the Hanovers of the compromise of 1691,
clergymen in the Boston area hoped to benefit themselves

from patriarchal protection. At his death George I was

eulogized by Cotton Mather for his "Cane 06 othen Peopieb

15
Safiety.” and by Thomas Prince as a ”person that appeared
always to have a mighty Sense of the Pubtic Inteaebt;
For Retigion ... a thorow Protestant —- Full of Christian
Charity & Genereosity ... Zealous for the true Religion,

”31 Here were

and the Cause of Civil & Religious Liberty.
reasons for faith in the Hanoverian line. Those who
succeeded George I should understand this obligation and
follow a similar policy with as much care and strength.
Such was the language of dutiful and appreciative
children. This was a role very different from that
developed by early English dissenters. Instead of taking
government into their own hands and choosing the monarch,
they were to serve and obey him, as father to the country
as well as special envoy of God.

One of the most important duties of the people was to
Pray for the Monarch. Ebenezer Gay expressed the neces—
sity for such prayer in 1730. ”By praying for those in
Authority, we give Glory to God in a way somewhat

peculiar,” Gay explained, . we emphatically confess him
to be the God 06 Godi ... that Rulers are dependent on
him, and stand in absolute need of his counsel, succour,
and Blessing." In this way, the people insured God's help
for his envoy. But it was also a "Law of Gratitude” which
"obligeth People continually to pray for their Rulers,‘I
because ”it was not proper to expect something for

32

nothing.” Otherwise, the monarch might act contrary to

the people's welfare.

16

But more than prayer was expected from.the people to
their Father and Protector. As Ebenezer Gay explained in
1727, "much Praise is due unto good Rulers from an obliged
People: It is a juit Debt they owe to their Protectors
and Benefactors." Later, in 1745, he called upon the first
commandment: "Honoun thy Fathen Honoun the King." This
could be done by "substantial Demonstrations of Respect,
and affectionate Concern to preserve him, in his honourable

State.”33

As Samuel Checkley put it in 1727, tribute to
the King or the Royal governor was due for the Lord's sake.

As Protestant Princes, the Hanovers were "raised by
God" and constituted "the present bulwork against Popery."
In thankfulness, the people had to be "loyal, faithful,

dutiful and obedient."34

After the death of George I, they
had to renew their allegiance to the Hanoverian line. In
Benjamin Colman's words upon the accession of George II,
”we are hi4 by inclination and choice as well as Oath. We
are hit and on the Aide of true and pure religion."35 By
transferring their loyalty to the son, the people would be
assured of his protection as well.

Both Samuel Checkley and Thomas Prince agreed at the
death of George I that George II should inherit the loyalty
of New Englanders. ”Let us now with one Heart transfer
our whole Faith and Loyalty to the Person of our present
Sovereign," said Checkley. In so doing, ”we may with the

firmst confidence expect that Favor and Protection which

good and gratious Princes extend to a loyal and obedient

17

36 Or in Prince's words: "And now what Remains --

People.”
But that we continue, as there can be no doubt we shall,
the same Affectionate and Loyal Subjects to KING GEORGE II
as we have always been to his ROYAL FATHER.”37
Thus, the obligation of obedience to the monarch did
not end with the death of an incumbent, when the heir was
of the same line and shared the characteristics of his
father. In the first decades of the eighteenth century,
Congregational clergymen in the Boston area had departed
significantly from the early Puritan tradition that
conceptualized a political leader as a captain of the ship
of state. The deviation was distinctly seen in their por-
traying the monarch as a minister and representative of
God, and as the head of the body politic and family, which
left little room for subjects to question his skills or

actions. The Revolutionary implications of early Puritan

political thought had become attenuated.

III

Around the middle of the eighteenth century, a more
critical attitude toward monarchy began to emerge among
Boston's clergymen. This attitude echoed older Puritan
thought, but also reflected a new set of pressures and
controversies. Congregationalists were increasingly con-

cerned with Anglican encroachments under the patronage of

18
the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. This con-
cern was heightened by the ability of the Anglicans to
gain ground during the turmoil of the Great Awakening. In
addition, a new generation of clergymen had come under the
influence of libertarian English political writers who
argued for the rights of the people over and against the
claims of power. Out of these circumstances clergymen
like Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Cooper, and Samuel Mather came
to see the monarch in a different light. Instead of being
a Christian Prince, he was placed on the same level as
ordinary civil magistrates, bound by law and oath to
protect the interests of the people.

Founded in 1701 by Thomas Brady, the S.P.G. had
originally been designed as a missionary organization. But
it soon developed a political program as well. This was
to help introduce royal charters and increase Episcopal

control in the colonies. Missionaries were to act in
conjunction with contemporary political efforts" to bring
dissenters under control. This meant that the S.P.G.
became more concerned with advancing the institutional
interests of the Church of England in the colonies than
spreading the Gospel. It was this emphasis by the S.P.G.
that alarmed Congregational clergymen.

Problems arose as early as 1703, over attempts by
S.P.G. missionaries to settle bishops in the colonies.

With bishops in the colonies, it would be easier to ordain

Anglican ministers and thus increase their numbers. Early

 

19

steps to establish bishops had been taken during Anne's
reign, but had to be dropped upon her death. These efforts
were revived during the reigns of both George I and George
II, but both Hanovers relied on political support from
domestic dissenting interests, so had little reason to
want to aid the Anglicans in the colonies. These setbacks
never discouraged the Anglicans. The arguments for
American bishops continued, with Timothy Cutler and Samuel
Johnson leading the cause in the colonies and Edmund
Gibson, who took over the See of London in 1723, giving
direction from England. With Gibson in charge, mission-
aries on both sides of the Atlantic worked aggressively
to proselytize among other Christians instead of Indians.38

These activities aroused fears among dissenters in
both England and the colonies. Benjamin Colman, for one,
had worked for the S.P.G. and served as a commissioner of
its daughter organization, the S.P.G. in New England and
Parts Adjacent. He had done so out of his concern to
introduce more people to the gospel, but soon became
anxious that the S.P.G. was exceeding its charter role and
functioning as the agent of the Church of England. By 1713
he realized that ”the missionaries were not doing their
true job." This was even more apparent after the Great

Awakening, when Congregational churches 'split over the
issues of the revival," and Anglicans proved successful at
meeting the needs of people lost in the gulf of religious

changes. While some people were swept up in the excitement,

 

20

others were appalled by the new enthusiasm. The Anglicans
appealed especially to the latter group. Because of this,
Jonathan Mayhew and Congregational clergymen like him, who
were also opposed to enthusiasm, had to regard the S.P.G.
as their arch-competitor. Gradually, amid the turmoil of
religious revivals and growing pressure from the S.P.G.,
attitudes toward monarchy began to change.39
No matter that the Hanovers professed to support the
dissenters (including Congregationalists); the Church of
England was the State Church, presided over by the monarch.
It was feared that the position of the Congregationalists
would be further undermined because the monarch was
unwilling to stop the Anglicans from trying to episcopize
New England. Earlier in the century, support of the
monarch had guaranteed the protection of the Puritan
legacy. By mid-century, the prospects were less certain.l'O
At the same time clergymen in the Boston area were
influenced by recent strains of English political thought.
Over the years, of course, liberty had always been
important to New England's clergymen. They had praised the
Hanover line from the beginning, as the ”Scourge of
Tyrants and faithful guardians of civil and religious

liberty. The French were always a threat ”to British
liberty and religion.” By the middle of the eighteenth
century, however, the cause of liberty had crystallized in

the writings of a few Englishmen associated with the

"Commonwealth tradition.” From polemicists like Trenchard

21

and Gordon, the authors of Cato's Letters, clergymen in
New England absorbed political theory that raised the
possibility of resistance to executive tyranny, in the
name of such figures as Milton, Locke, Somers, Harrington,
Sydney and Bolingbroke. The result was a line of argument
that once again contemplated the people's authority to
choose rulers and in some circumstances to depose them.41

Milton, for example, had upheld the people's right to
disobey a ruler who went wrong, although he also believed
that they should accept ”the penalties for disobedience.”
Sydney, on the other hand, had been insistent that a man
"coutd neAiAt and still retain his allegiance to the
government.” Much of this argument derived from his belief
in ”the fact that Kings were set up for the people.” Here
was a man who advocated action to fight "against oppres-
sion.” For Somers, resistance was justified ”only when
'the mischief be grown general,’ and 'Design of the Rulers

ll

became notorious.‘ Furthermore ”the time had to be

right” and popular protest had to be related to the “threat
that provoked it.”l'2
Others speculated that the people had created the
government and thus had the right to "reclaim political
authority" when magistrates were inattentive to the
responsibilities that they were chosen to fulfill. To
insure responsible government, it was important for the

people to watch over the King!"3 Henry St. John, the

Viscount Bolingbrokef'4 and his followers believed liberty

22

was represented in the mixed constitution whose parts were
so balanced that no one part depended on the other. They
argued that it was important for men to "serve the public."
In this capacity they looked to the monarch as a potential
"Patriot King" who would restore "the mixed constitution,"
and not be an "absolute monarch."45

0n the basis of such diverse political thought from
the mother country, clergymen in the Boston area were
prepared to question the absolute authority of the monarch
by the middle of the century. In contrast to the Anglicans
and a few Congregationalists, who continued to hold that
the monarch received his authority from God, Jonathan
Mayhew and others in his circle argued that the monarch
was under the authority of Parliament and that the people
had placed him on the throne subject to the laws of the
realm. Resistance was thus an unavoidable issue for these
clergymen. They reasoned the monarch should not retain
his crown simply by virtue of his dynastic descent if he
were found to be incompetent.46

Out of this thinking the origins of kingship became
defined not in terms of hereditary rights, but rather on
the basis of an original contract. Mayhew, the influential
minister of Boston's West Church, had a substantial
following among clergymen throughout Massachusetts. In the
course of a relatively brief career, which ended with his
untimely death in 1766, he spoke out frequently and

l

eloquently against ”the divine right of monarchy,‘ against

23
”the hereditary, unalienable right of succession,” and
against the despotic, unlimited power of kings that
served "the purposes of ambition and tyranny." Rather,
the Kings of England held the crown by virtue of an
”original contract.” This was the foundation on which
legitimate government was settled.47
In his ”DISCOURSE CONCERNING Unlimited Submission and

Non—Resistance TO THE HIGHER POWERS," delivered in 1750,
Mayhew described the position of the monarch in relation to
the people and other magistrates. From the apostles'
reasoning, Mayhew conceded, God has directed that there
should be magistrates, but not that the monarch be set off
in a unique role above them. Thus Mayhew concluded:

THAT civil rulers, a4 Aueh, are the ordinance

and ministers of God; it being by his per-

mission and providence that any bear rule;

and agreeable to his will, that there should

be Acme peaaoni vested with authority in

society, for the well being of it: THAT

which is here said concerning civil ruler,

extends to all of them in common: it relates

indifferently to monarchical republican and

aristocratical government.‘ "48
Samuel Cooper, who had become the colleague of Benjamin
Colman at the Brattle Street Church in 1746, went a step
further in a statement from his 1761 sermon on the death of
George II. "THERE is no essential Difference between the

monarch and his Subjects, announced Cooper; ”He partakes

of the same Nature with them, and is alike encompassed
with the natural and moral Frailties of Humanity.”49

No longer was the monarch understood as a separate

entity from the Commonwealth. If the monarch was no longer

24
a special envoy of the Lord, with no special "power” over
other magistrates, or immunity from the laws of nature,
where did his authority originate, and what was expected
of him?

Mayhew was concerned to establish the true origin and
purpose of government, by way of diminishing the role of
God in the actual choice of a monarch. The essence of his
arguments placed the right to create government in the
hands of the peOple, with only the initial mandate from
God. In 1754 he stated the point as follows:

All the different constitutions of government

now in the world, are immediately the

creature's of man's making, not of God's

And as they are the creatures of man's making;

so from.man, from common consent, it is that

lawful ruler's immediately receive their

power ... As it is God's ordinance, (to have

government) it is designed for a blessing to

the world. It is instituted for the preser-

vation of men's persons, properties and

various rights against fraud and lawless

violence, ...50
In 1761 he returned to the topic with greater particularity.
Though ”all earthly kings derive their power and authority
originally from him," Mayhew explained; ”God does not
indeed, by any immediate act of his own place a crown upon
the head, and put a scepter in the hand of him, whom he
has ordained to reign, and seat him upon a royal throne.”
Instead, ”He leaves nations (ordinarily I mean) to the
free excercise of their liberty and discretion under the
general law of reason, to chuse their own form of govern-
51

ment, and to model them as best suits them reSpectively.”

Because they are instituted to protect the rights and

25
property of the people, governments and rulers enjoy the
blessing of God. But the people, who have the most at
stake, as they are the ones who will be affected by what-
ever laws are passed, should have the power to choose
their rulers.

The placing of William and Mary on the throne was seen
by Mayhew as an excercising by the people of their right
of choice. "Then it was, that the Glourious REVOLUTION
took place," said Mayhew in 1761, "For the throne being
declared vacant by two grand conventions of the lords and
commons, by means of the abdication, i.e. the tanning away
of King James, the prince and princess of Orange were
etected, and invited into it; and soon proclaimed king and

queen, to all the great joy of all the true friends of

liberty.”52 Thomas Foxcroft agreed, in his 1760 sermon
'upon the ... surrender of montral and the conquest of
Canada.’ Discussing the outcome of the Glorious Revolution,

Foxcroft explained why it was appropriate to elect William
and Mary. The people were acting against James's popish

plots, and such at length was the Union of the whole
Nation in Opposition to the KING'S Religion and Politicks,
that an Invitation was sent to that celebrated General and
Politician the PRINCE of Oaange.” This was "Conduct highly
becoming a free People, justifiable by the great Law of
Self-Preservation.” Because James abdicated his crown and

went into voluntary exile, ”pursuant to natural Right the

Nation was at Liberty to fill the vacant throne by Election

26

of a Successor."53

The struggle to convince the people of their right to
participate in the choice of their government, and keep
their faith, was at times difficult for the Congregational-
ists. What made it most difficult were the contrasting
arguments of the Anglicans. Anglicans were convinced that
God had placed the monarch on the throne. One of the most
prominent Anglicans in the Boston area was Henry Caner,
who arrived at King's Chapel in 1747 to fight against the
”dissenting” interests in America. In 1751, upon the
death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, Caner contended that
religion and comfort were so linked that without God's
aid no government or rule could be established. Remember—
ing that the monarch was not above God, who had the
”reserve of his prerogative to alter, suspend, or overule"
the actions of Princes, Caner explained the role of the
people. ”If it be allow'd us to expect the ordinary
advantage and benefits of that service" that God "hath
placed in their powers," Caner stated there was no reason
not to submit to princes, "since their greater influence
and authority derived to them from the will of GOD, for
the protection and benefit of mankind, seem to warrent that
dependance.” For Caner and others like him, deference to
rulers was a corollary to humility before God, ”the given
06 eveny good and peafiect gifit.”54

From the Congregationalists' viewpoint, there was less

need to preach obedience to authority than to enumerate the

27
rights of the people which, by their own, inclination
limited power. Mayhew was a staunch advocate of popular
liberties. In his 1754 sermon before the Governor,
Council, and House of Representatives Mayhew developed his
rationale for government. "As it is Gods ordinance,” he
argued, ”it is designed for a blessing to the world. It is
instituted for the preservation of mens persons, properties
and various rights, against fraud and lawless violence."55
Such rights had been secured in English society by the
English constitution, and through Parliamentary laws
applied to all people under the realm. Thus government and
laws were meant to control as well as assert power,
including that of the monarch.

In his "Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission ... ”
Mayhew outlined the structure of government limiting the
monarch's power:

The English constitution is originally and
essentially free ... the prerogative and
rights of the crown are stated, defined and
limited by law, and that as truly and
strictly as the rights of any inferior
officer of the state; or indeed any private
subject ... The king, in his coronation oath,
swears to excercise only such a power as the
constitution gives him; And the subject, in
the oath of alligence, swears only to obey
in the excercise of such a power. 6
The declaration of rights presented to William and Mary
when they took the throne was one historical instance of
popular opposition to royal power. According to Mayhew,

the declaration "ascertained the rights of the subject,

and reduced the prerogative, which had been extended

28

beyond all bounds in many preceeding reigns, to its ancient
limits."57

To help guarantee these rights, Parliament had to be
prepared to check the power of the monarch. Looking back
to the Puritan revolt against Charles I, Mayhew identified
Parliament as an institution representing the people.
”Here were two branches of the/legislature against one,”
argued Mayhew; ”two, which had law and equity and the
constitution on their side, against one which was impiously
attempting to overturn law and equity and the constitu-
tion."58

The monarch's use or abuse of power was the critical
issue. For it was by his actions that a monarch earned
the people's loyalty. Hence the importance of royal
character and skill in the discourse of Congregational

clergymen around and after mid-century.59

As Mayhew inter—
preted his life, instead of simply seeking power by
inheritance. The Prince's studies were turned

to those things which surely every Baitiih

King ought to know -- ... Human nature, and

the various tempers and passions of mankind;

in the knowledge of which is chiefly founded

the true art of/governing - the nature and

ends of civil government - the constitutions,

and various interests of the several nations

He was to govern, 0
Here praise of the heir to the throne was phrased in
secular rather than religious terms. Samuel Mather spoke
of Frederick in much the same manner as Mayhew. ”His Royal
Highness, the PRINCE,” noted Mather, ”thorowly understood,

that altho' Government was of Divine Institution, yet the

 

29
Form of it is an humane Ordinance." Further, Frederick
knew that ”the Baitiéh Monarchy was not absolute and
indefeazable, but etective and heneditaaity 50: He saw
clearly, that nothing was iawfiut in the Administration but
what was attowed by the Lawn of the Realm; and that He,
who wears the Crown by the National Consent and Choice, is
not above the laws, nor at Liberty to dispense with them."61
The monarch was no longer loved for being a part of

God's realm, but for his regard for government. The
religious role of the monarch was still important, but in
Mayhew's mind a Protestant ruler should combine "a due
abhorrence of popery” with rejection of ”arbitrary govern-
ment,” both being ”contrary to reason and Christianity;
inconsistant with the natural rights of mankind, and the
truest happiness of human society.”62 All this signified
a different type of King than the one extolled by Boston—
area clergymen earlier in the century. As Mayhew put it in
his funeral sermon George II was:

what may be properly called, a constitutional

King: One who well knew both the extent of

his own prerogative, and the rights of the

people, one who made the laws the rule of his

government, and whom even malice can hardly

accuse of either doing, or attempting to do,

an arbitrary illegal thing, during his whole

reign. And it should be remember'd here,

that the British constitution and laws are so

wise, so excellent, that he who uniformly

makes them the rule of his administration,

must of consequence be a good king; at least 63

he cannot easily be supposed to be a bad one.

The commitment to religion expected of such a ”constitution-

al King” was not that of a leader of the Church Militant so

30
much as an expression of respect for diverse opinion within
the realm.
In Samuel Cooper's words of tribute to George 11, "WE
have lost in our late Sovereign, a steady Patron of

64

religious as well as civil Liberty." Above all, if the
monarch failed to fulfill his responsibilities, or indeed
monopolized power in such a way as to threaten liberty,
the legitimacy of his authority would become questionable.

Out of their fear of tyranny, Boston-area clergymen
became increasingly concerned to establish the limits of
permissible behavior for rulers, and at least to hint at
the acceptable reactions when these limits were "over-
stepped." To the clergymen it seemed advisable to warn the
people against blind confidence in any ruler, and at the
same time prepare them to look for telltale signs that he
was acting out of line.

"It is a very ancient observation, and sufficiently
verified by the experience of later times," observed
Mayhew, "that gaeat men ane not aiwayi wiie .... Human

laws cannot make wisdom hereditary, tho'

65

they may things of
inferior value-thrones and sceptors.” 0n the contrary,
"so far are the princes of the earth from being adequate
objects of trust and hope to us, that they are not always
able to protect themselves." Because of this Mayhew felt
it was wrong "to extol persons of mean accomplishments

and little worth merely because they possess great power

and wealth” and external dignity, rather than to ”speak

31

honourably of real merit."66 Samuel Cooper agreed that the
"outward and civil Distinctions which do, and which ought
to take Place in the Presant State, are too frequently
rated above their True Worth and Importance ."67

Power and wealth could become driving forces, and
”flattery" could make men of little worth more susceptible
to their evil effects. Instead of worrying about praising
the monarch, who was capable of misbehavior, the people
were supposed to be responsible for correcting him.
Resistance was lawful when the monarch went completely
astray and out of control, and it might at least be con-
templated if he turned out to be incompetent. Obedience
was required only as long as the monarch acted as protector
of the people. As Samuel Cooper put it in his sermon
before Spencer Phips, the Council, and House of Representa-
tives in 1756, "absolute unlimited subjection belongs to
brutes, not to men." Upon the death of George II, Cooper
returned to his argument. While civil government was
needed by society and accepted by God, trust in a Prince
”ought never to be absolute and unlimited." As Cooper
continued, "God alone is the proper object of such an Hope
and Dependance; because he alone is absolutely perfect and
immutable.”68

Instead, constant vigilance was necessary because of
the evil talent in all men. "There are not wanting

instances,’ said Mayhew, "of those, who in the first part

of their reign, have justly procurred to themselves

32
universal love and respect, and yet have, long before the
close of it, stained their hands, and royal character,

69 When that

with violence, oppression and blood."
happened, the people of course owed it to themselves to

take a stand and rid themselves of the tyrant. But there
were lesser dangers that also had to be guarded against.

”A being that/is averse to the doing of good to us,"

Mayhew argued, "is certainly unfit to have confidence placed
in him for what we want: so also is one that either knows
not our wants, or how to relieve them: and he is equally
so, who is unable to do it: tho' he had both a disposi—
tion for it, and knowledge sufficient to direct his

"70

actions. This was an argument similar to the "ship of

state" theory that had been advanced by early Puritans,
according to which the sailors (people) came together under
contract to choose their captain (ruler). If he then mis-

led them or acted against their best interest, they could

dismiss him and choose another.71

In his ”Sermon on Unlimited Submission," Mayhew in
effect translated the old metaphor into a classic constitu-
tional statement for his own age. "If the end of all civil
government be the good of society,” he argued;

if this be the thing that is aimed at in
constituting civil rulers; and if the motive
and argument for submission to government,
be taken from the apparent usefulness of
civil authority; it follows, that when no
such good end can be answered by submission,
there remains no argument or motive to en-
force it; ... The hereditary, indefeaseble,
divine right of Kings, and the doctrine on
non resistance, which is built upon the

33

supposition of such a right, are altogether

as fabulous and chimerical, as transubstantia—

tion; or any of the most absurd reveries of

ancient or modern visionaries.72 & 73

Mayhew was more caustic than most of his brethern in

dismissing such "reveries.” Indeed, an elderly colleague
like Thomas Prince could still summon up the language of
previous decades to lament the death of Frederick, who was
"the Hape of Man." In death God destroys ”both the Hope
of the Man himietfi who dieA, and the Hope of his Aunvivoni
also." Because of the loss, Prince prayed,

Let us go on to mourn for all our Sins

against the glourious GOD, and for this aw-

ful Sign of his high Displeasure

Let us earnestly Pray, that the PARLIAMENT,

The Nobteb, the Gentay and Peopie ... be

continually watchful against all Devices of

Enemies, support the King, and do their

utmost to maintain the throne in his blessed

Line as long as the sun endure

But times were changing and Mayhew represented the

trend of the future. By the 1760's, most Congregational
clergymen in the Boston area probably perceived the monarch
as Mayhew did -- not essentially different from lesser
civil magistrates who were subject to the laws of the
country, as were all the people.75 Royal authority had
come from the people, not from God. The strength of the
constitution lay in its protection of the people's rights,
not in glorification of the monarch. Certainly it was no
longer fashionable for Congregational clergymen in the

Boston area to speak of the monarch as the Anglican Henry

Caner did in his sermon upon the death of George II:

34
. wherin the Providence of God calls us

to lament the loss of our Head, our Royal

Master, the political Father of his People,

under whose shadow Experience had taught us

to form Hopes of Safety. -—- ... Where is

now the benevolent Prince, the tender Father

of his People, the Desire of his Subjects

whose Happiness he delighted to Promote?76
For the new generation of congregationalists, language of
this kind was unacceptable. It could lull the people
into sitting helplessly by until conditions were beyond

repair.

IV

In the decade following 1765, when passage of the
Stamp Act aroused colonial fears of oppressive taxation,
conditions threatened to deteriorate beyond repair.
Though Congregational clergymen in the Boston area, like
other colonists, were slow to acknowledge the role of the
monarchy in the transatlantic crisis, they eventually were
prepared to do so -— drawing on the constitutional theory
that had become prominent around and after mid-century.

With Mayhew dead, others emerged to articulate the
tradition of limiting monarchical power. John Lathrop,
minister to the Second Church of Boston, was merely
reiterating the principles of the "Discourse on Unlimited
Submission" when he said in his 1774 Artillery Election
Sermon that the "doctrine of making resistance against

Kings when by arbitrary and tyrannical conduct, they render

35
it impossible for the subjects to live peaceably under
them," was "far from being new." It was "as old as civil
government: It grew up with it." It was a doctrine
"inseparably connected with the Law of self preservation,

"77 And there was a basis in

which is the Law on nature.
positive law for regulating the King. "Those who flatter
the King that he is above the taw," said Lathrop, quoting
Sommers, ”do most notoriously contradict one of the first
axioms of our regal government, which is Lex 6acit Regem;
and he hath originally subjected himself to the law under

78

his Coaonation Oath." Here was a clear rationale for

resisting a monarch who encroached on the rights of the
people.

Such arguments were applied only with circumspection
to George III. Gad Hitchcock, minister at the First
Congregational Church of Hanson and an extremely active
preacher, had been a close associate of Mayhew, so he
predictably contended, in 1774, that George III's authority
derived from principles firmly established during the
Glorious Revolution:

Civil authority is the production of com-
bined society-uu-not born with, but delegated
to certain individuals for the advancement of
the common benefit.

And as its origin is from the people, .. ---
These are principles which will not be denied
by any good and loyal subjects of his present
Majesty King George, either in Great-Britain
or America-nu-The royal right to the throne
absolutely depends on the truth of them --—
and the revolution, an/event seasonable and

happy both to the mother country and these
colonies, evidently supports them, and is

36
supported by them.79
Before the first months of 1776, when Thomas Paine

'

directly attacked George III as a "Royal Brute,‘ clergymen
in the Boston area tried to avoid the natural conclusion
of their logic by expressing hope that the monarch would
disavow his evil ministers. "No Prince would have any

person about him, to advise and incite him to illegal or

unjust actions,’ explained Hitchcock, "and if he had at any

time been forced to it, readily acknowledge his error, and

set all things right again."80

Samuel Langdon, later
President of Harvard, referred in his 1775 "Sermon
Preached Before The Honorable Congress ... Watertown" to
”the machinations of wicked men, who are betraying their
Royal Master.” As Langdon continued:
. May the eyes of the King be opened to see

the ruinous tendency of the measure into

which he has been led, and his heart inclined

to treat his American Subjects with justice

and clemency, instead of forcing them still

farther to the last extremities!

Realistic men knew that the ”last extremities” had
become inevitable. The ability of the Boston—area clergy-
men to make the final case against the King has to be
explained in part by the new emphasis of their political
discourse in previous decades. The ”Christian Prince” was
no longer a vital tradition; the "Constitutional King" was

the standard that ministers had come to preach before as

well as during the Revolutionary crisis.

BIOGRAPHICAL
ESSAYS

BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYS

Henry Caner: 1700-1792, was an Anglican fighting against
thejdissenting' groups in America. Educated at Yale, he
received his ordination in England in 1727. In April of
1747 Caner arrived in Boston from Fairfield, Connecticut

to serve King's Chapel. Although he was a popular man in
his pulpit, and a talented Businessman, he did not get
along well with his assistant Rev. Charles Brockwell, which
caused much rift throughout their partnership.

 

Charles Chauncy: 1705-1787, had a very long and active
career. Ordained junior colleague to Thomas Foxcroft
October 25, 1727, he served the First Church of Boston
well. His close relationship with his father and family
background tied him to the religious and political world of
Boston. His great-grandfather was Harvard President
Charles Chauncy.

While he argued for the toleration of religious
liberty, during the Great Awakening he was a strong advo—
cate for the 01d Light faction. He opposed the Awakening
from its early stages on; an Opposition which rang the
same as his opposition for the Church of England. He
feared that both underminded the Congregational majority.
He felt that itenerant preachers disorganized the parish
structure and the Church of England's activities in the
colonies gave the Congregationalists the same short end of
the stick they "had the Dissenters of England." With these
leanings it was important to call on the monarch to help
assure the security of the congregational majority.

 

Samuel Checkley: 1696—1769, was ordained the first
Minister of the New South Church April 15, 1719. He served
as Chaplin to the House of Representatives, and himself was
accepted by the core of the congregational ministers.
Though he supported the Awakening, while denouncing
iteneracy, his liberalism led to an acceptance of George
Whitefield to the New South pulpit in 1740 and again in
1745. He felt it was important to bring people to the
church, but feared itenerants would disturb the old order.

 

Benjamin Colman: 1673-1747, was minister of Boston's
Brattle Street Church through the controversy of the new
charter, the change in monarchs, and the early colonial
wars of the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
As one of the most active Congregational ministers, he

 

37

38

understood the reasoning for the 1691 compromise and it

was logical for him to call on the monarch to help keep

the congregationalists in their position. He may have been
affected by his tie to Anglican influences: Brattle Street
was closest to the Anglican in "regard to liberal require—
ments for admission and the use of scripture lessons and
the Lord's Prayer." He also served as a commissioner of
the S.P.G. to help bring the people back to the church,
though he could not follow them in their attempts to
prosletize among the congregationalists. For Colman the
Anglican influences and political pressures led to his
development of the picture of the Christian Prince.

Samuel Cooper: 1725-1783, minister to the Brattle Street
Church, where he became Benjamin Colman's colleague in
1746, replacing his father who had died two years earlier.
Both his father and grandfather were ministers. C00per
was one of the most liberal of the dissenting persuasion.
Steadfast in politics, he was abnormally sensitive to
tyranny. He was active during both the French and Indian
War and the American Revolution. He was so active in
politics he was accused of neglecting his pulpit for
politics.

 

Robert Hay Drummond: 1711-1776, received his B.A. from
Christ Church, Oxford on the 25th of November, 1731. From
there he went on a grand tour with his cousin. Upon his
return to England in 1735, he went back to Christ Church
for his M.A. The title of Drummond he received as heir to
his grandfather who died in 1739. He was very close to
Queen Charlote, who acted as his patroness until her death
in 1737. Drummond was elected to the see of York in 1761,
upon the death of Archbishop Gilbert. He also denounced
enthusiasm and opposed Calvinism.

 

Thomas Foxcroft: 1697-1796, minister of the First Church
of Boston, was a stalwart of the orthodox party. Though
against Anglican practices, he could call for protection
from the monarch from his position among the Congregational
clergymen. He would not part with the position of his
colleague Charles Chauncy until the middle of the revivals.
After an initial condemnation of the excesses of the
Reverand James Davenport, he went over to the New Light
faction.

 

Ebenezer Gay: 1696-1787, minister at Hingham, though a
friend of Jonathan Mayhew, he was much closer to the older
ground of people. For it has been said he was closer to
the Calvinism of Benjamin Colman, than to the unitarianism
of Mayhew. Gay worked a liberal and successful revolution
in his church. He had little use for either religious or
political dogmas. His activity among the old core of
congregationalists brought him an understanding of the need
to call on the monarch to protect the congregationalists'

 

39
position.

Gad Hitchcock: 1718-1803, was the first minister of the
First Congregational Church of Hanson. While not living in
Boston, he was an extremely active minister and delivered
several of the public lectures. His belief in civil and
religious liberty for society and religious views led him
to be on the popular side in politics. Hitchcock was
especially active during the pre-revolutionary period.

Samuel Langdon: 1722-1797, was a candidate for Brattle
Street Church, but lost out to Samuel Cooper. Finally
Langdon settled at the First Church in Portsmouth in 1747.
While most of his career was spent in New Hampshire, Langdon
was closely tied to the civil and religious liberals, and
was elected to the Harvard Presidency in 1785. After his
problems there were settled, he spent a great deal of time
in political affairs.

 

John Lathrgp: 1740-1816, was ordained pastor of Boston's
Second Church upon the death of Samuel Checkley in 1768.
While he hoped for a settlement with Great Britain, he

also believed in the independence of the colonies guaranteed
by the charters. Aided, then replaced, Samuel Checkley.
Connected to Calvinism -- though his optimism led him to

the ranks of Unitarianism. Popular; brought Baptists to

the Second Church. Loved places connected to M.C.C.S.,
S.P.G., I.N.A., M.H.S.

 

Cotton Mather: 1633-1728, was of an old family of
ministers. Mather was ordained as his father's colleague
at the North Church, 13th May, 1685. Much of his involve—
ment in calling the Monarch a Christian Prince may stem
from his and his family's involvement in the controversies
with Governor Dudley. Being at the core of the political
arena for so long, he was most apt to help support the call
on the monarch to take the colonialists' side over the
magistrate's.

 

Samuel Mather: 1706-1785, was the last in a long line of
ministers. After his father's death, the Second Church of
Boston chose Samuel to replace him in 1731/2. This posi-
tion he accepted in February of that year and was ordained
to on June 21. Active in town and ecclesiastical affairs.
Suffered many troubles with his congregation, one of which
centered around his opposition to the revivals. During the
Revolution, Samuel was a staunch patriot.

 

Jonathan Mayhew: 1720-1766, his family was very active in
missionary work to the Indians. Mayhew took up the mission
to the Indians upon the death of his older brother Nathan.
At first caught up in the revivals, after 1742 this concern
evaporated. In March of 1746-7, Mayhew was called to the
West Church of Boston, though his ordination was surrounded

 

40

with several controversies. Mayhew attracted the liberal
members of other congregations to the West Church.
Definitely against the S.P.G.'s actions, Mayhew often
argued against Henry Caner, the Anglican minister to
King's Chapel. Though he died before the Revolution, his
sermons added religious justification to it.

Thomas Prince: 1687-1758, born May 15, 1687. Having
grown up during many of the controversies, Prince under-
stood clearly the problems of the early eighteenth century.
Settled as Joseph Sewall's colleague at the Old South
Church of Boston, 1718. While always a strong advocate of
toleration, as an active member in local politics, he saw
the need to protect the Congregational position. Active
in spreading the views of the Great Awakening. Throughout
his career he spoke of the monarch as a Christian Prince.

NOTES

NOTES

1 Christopher Hill, The Century of Revolution 1603-
1714. (London, 1964), pp. 63-641

 

2 Perez Zagorin, A History of Political Thought in
the English Revolution. (London, 1954), pp. 196-98.

3

4 H. G. Alexander, Religion in England 1558-1662.
(London, 1968), p. 171.

5 Michael Walzer, The Revolution of the Saints: A
Study in the Origins of Radical Politics. (Cambridge,
Mass., 1965), pp. 179-83.

6

7 T. H. Breen, The Character of the Good Ruler: A
Study of Puritan Political Ideas in England, 1630-1730.
(New Haven, Conn., 1970), p. 59.

8 John Winthrop, ”Speech to the General Court,
July 3, 1645,” eds. Perry Miller and Thomas,; 2 vols.
(New York, 1970), Vol. I.

 

 

Hill, Century of Revolution, pp. 81-82.

 

 

 

 

Walzer, Revolution of the Saints, pp. 188-89.

 

 

 

9 Breen, Character of the Good Ruler, p. 69.
10

 

Ibid., p. 122.

11 Hill, Century of Revolution, p. 78; Perry Miller,
The New England Mind: From Colony to Province. (Cambridge,
Mass., 1953), p. 163.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 Benjamin Colman, A Sermon Preach'd at Boston in
New England ... (Boston, 1716), pp. 9-107

13 Charles Chauncy, The Council of two Confederate
Kings ... (Boston, 1746), p. 32.

14 Thomas Prince, A Sermon on the Death of King
George ... (Boston, 1727), p. 5.

15

Benjamin Colman, Fidelity to Christ And to the
Protestant Succession In The Illustrious House of

 

41

42

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hanover ... (Boston, 1727), pp. 8-9.

16 Colman, Sermon Preach'd at Boston, pp. 6-7.

17 Ebenezer Gay, The Character and Work of a good
Ruler, and the Duty of an obliged People ... (Boston,
1745), pp. 6-7.

18 Thomas Foxcroft, God the Judge, putting down One
and setting up Another ... (Boston, 1727), p. 26.

19 Chauncy, Council of two Confederate Kings, pp. 26-
27.

20 Ibid., p. 29.

21 Thomas Prince, The Salvations of God in 1746
(Boston, 1746), pp. 13-16.

22 Cotton Mather, Christian Loyalty ... Some Suitable

 

Sentiments on the Withdraw of King Geoggeithe First
(Boston, 1727), p. 22.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23 Thomas Prince, Civil Rulers Raised up by God to
Feed His People ... (Boston, 1728), p. 4.

24 Mather, Christian Loyalty, p. 18.

25 Ibid.

26 Colman, Sermon Preach'd at Boston, p. 11.

27 Samuel Checkley, any of a People to Lay Heart and
Lament The Death of a GoodgKing ... (Boston, 1727), p. 14.

28 Ebenezer Gay, The Duty of Peqple to pray for and
Praise their Rulers ... (Boston, 1730), pp. 32:33.

29

Gay, Character of a Good Ruler, p. 4.

 

3O Colman, Sermon Preach'd at Boston, p. 19.

 

31 Mather, Christian Loyalty, p. 17.

 

 

 

 

32 Gay, Duty of People, pp. 16-17, 21-22.
33 Gay, Character of a Good Ruler, p. 11.
34 Colman, Fidelity to Christ, pp. 8-9.
35 Ibid.

36

Checkley, Duty of a People, p. 4.

 

43
37

38 Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre & Sceptre. (New York,
1962), pp. 25-27, 57.

39 Ibid., pp. 28, 57-58, 84-90; c. c. Goen, Revivalism
and Separatism In New England, 1740-1800, (New Haven, Conn.,
1962), p. 9; Nathan 0. Hatch, The Sacred Cause of Liberty,
(New Haven, Conn., 1977), p. 26.

40

41 Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the
American Revolution. (Cambridge, Mass.,—1967), pp. 34, 43.

42 Caroline Robbins, The Eighteen-Century Commonwealth-

Prince, Sermon On the Death of King George, p. 25.

 

 

 

 

 

Bridenbaugh, Mitre & Sceptre, p. 27.

 

 

 

 

ngn. (Cambridge, Mass., 1959), p. 44; Pauline Maier,
From Resistance To Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the
Development of AmeriCan Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776.
(New York, 1972), pp. 35-39.

43

 

 

Ibid., pp. 27-28.

Bolingbroke's interest in his own career caused him
to take several years to settle his position among the
Court Tories. Even having settled his position by 1703,
Bolingbroke revealed a concern for liberty that set him
apart from the mainstream of Tories, who sided with the
Church of England and ”extoled the royal prerogative."

His main concern for liberty centered around economic
issues and the abuse of power caused by having wealth; this
often blinded him to other issues. Even so, his theory of
the mixed constitution added an interesting twist to
governmental theory. Bolingbroke wished for "a return to
the purity of the mixed state, not any novel and rigid
partitioning of executive and legislative power." Among
his other interests was a covenent theory, similar to
Lock's, though it was limited to a more traditional from
between the Prince and the heads of families. Isaac
Kramnick, Bolingbroke and His Circle. (Cambridge, Mass.,
1968), pp. 99—100, l41-46,4161; H. T. Dickinson, Boling-
broke. (London, 1970), pp. 15, 23, 34.

45

46 James Harrington was another writer who influenced
England during the first half of the eighteenth century.
In his work Oceana published originally in 1737, Harrington
called for "... the devices and form for the preservation
of the liberty which the state was created to preserve, and
the explanation of the manner of achieving stability."
With this work, Harrington added his voice to the fight
for liberty. Robbins, Eighteenth-CenturyCommonwealthman,
p. 34.

 

Kramnick, Bolingbroke and His Circle, pp. 25-34.

 

44

 

 

 

47 Jonathan Mayhew, A Sermon Preach'd in the Audience
of ... (Boston, 1754), p. 5; Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse
Occasioned by the Death of King George II ... (Boston,
176l), p. 27.

48

Jonathan Mayhew, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited
Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers.
(Boston, 1750), p. 10.

 

 

 

 

 

49 Samuel Cooper, A Sermon upon Occasion of the Death
of ... Geogge the Second)... (Boston, I761), p. 11.

50 Mayhew, Sermon Preach'd in the Audience of ...,
pp. 6-7.

51

Mayhew, Discourse Occasioned by the Death of King
George II, pp. 16-17.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52 Ibid., p. 26.

53 Thomas Foxcroft, A Sermon Preached ... On Occasion
of the Surrender Of Montreal, and the Complete Conquest of
Canada ... (Boston, 1760), p. 17.

54 Henry Caner, A Sermon Preached ... Upon Occasion
of the Death of ... King George the Second. 'YBoston, 1761),
pp. 15, I7.

55 Mayhew, Sermon Preach'd in the Audience of, p. 7.

56 Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission,
p. 45m.

57

Mayhew, Discourse Occasioned by the Death of
George II, p. 57.

58
p. 46.

59 In 1751, when Samuel Mather delivered his sermon
upon the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, Boston's
Congregational clergymen were turning to questioning the
role of the monarch and redefining the characteristics of
a good ruler, Mather mourned the loss of Frederick because
he had characteristics which would have made him "a true
father to his people." By father, Mather meant something
much different from the traditional Anglican view of the
patriarchical father, who was not limited by earthly
laws, rather by God. In Mather's View, Frederick could
have become a true political father through his under-
standing that government was mainly of "humane-ordinance;”
the monarchy was limited in its power by the laws of the
realm. Samuel Mather, A Funeral Discourse Preached on the
Occasion of the Death of ... Frederick’Lewis ... (Boston,

 

 

Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission,

 

 

45

 

 

 

 

1751), p. 26.

60 Jonathan Mayhew, A Sermon ... Occasioned by The
Death Of ... Frederick, Prince of wares ... (Boston,
1751), p. 26.

61 Samuel Mather, A Funeral Discourse ... Frederick
Lewis ..., p. 27.

62

Mayhew, A Sermon Occasioned by The Death of
Frederick, p. 29.

63 Mayhew, Discourse, Occasioned by the Death of King
George II, p. 31.

64

 

 

 

 

Cooper, Sermon Upon the Death of George II, p. 32.

 

 

 

65 Mayhew, Sermon Occasioned by the Death of
Frederick, p. 16.

66 Ibid., p. 25.

67

C00per, Sermon Upon the Death of George II, p. 19.

 

68 Ibid., pp. 7-8; Samuel Cooper, A Sermon Preached
in the Audience of his Honour Spencer Phips, Esq. ...,
p. 30.

69 Mayhew, Sermon Occasioned by the Death of
Frederick, p. 12.

70

 

 

 

 

Ibid., pp. 9—10.

71 The change in the status of the people was a key
tie between the positions of "dissenting" groups at the
time of the Glourious Revolution and the Congregationalists
at the time after the Great Awakening. Jonathan Mayhew
called on the recognition of the people's rights in his
arguments in favor of resistance against the divine right
of kings. After the Glourious Revolution, Mayhew stated,
"even many of those, both clergy and laity” who had been
advocating ”the senseless brutish principles of passive
obedience and nonresistance," and the "indefeasable right
of Kings by inheritance," had come over to the fact that
the peoples position had changed. From that point on they
were "exploded by all men of sense ." This connected
the men of the seventeenth century to those of the middle
eighteenth century. It strengthened the argument that the
men in the interim had to change because of their need to
protect their own position after the 1691 compromise.
Mayhew, Discourse Occasioned by the Death of King Geonge
II, p. 27.

72

 

Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission,

 

46
pp. 30—31.

73 The Anglicans agreed with the Congregationalists
that tyranical behavior was to be dreaded from the ruler,
although they continued to differ on how to handle such
behavior. Henry Caner considered that even some of the
men whom God chose could become corrupt. Those who "make
use of their superior power, to support themselves in the
excercise of tyranny and oppression," Caner felt, should
not hold power. For, Caner continued, ”Power in such
hands is rather to be dreaded than chosen," because it
would hurt the people and abridge the rights it was
suppose to protect. But while the Anglicans were against
tyranny, they still placed faith in God and contended that
people should put their faith in rulers, ”since their
greater influence and authority, derived to them from the
will of God, for the protection and benefit of man kind,”

 

Caner explained, "seem to warrent that dependance." Henry
Caner, God the Unfailing Object ... Death of Frederick
Prince of Wales. (Boston, 1751), pp. 6, Iii

74

 

Thomas Prince, God Destroyed the Hope of Man
(Boston, 1751), p. 27.

75 Robert Hay Drummond, elected to the see of York in
1761, gave the coronation sermon on the accession of
George III and Charlotte. In his sermon, Drummond
epitomized the position of the Anglicans. He spoke of
George III in terms of God's grace "that when great and
good Kings reign, they are the means by which God blesses
a people." The monarch bears the weight of government
that his subjects may live easy under it ... If Caner
had been able to convince Anglicans of this, they might
have been able to continue to grow and threaten the
position of the Congregationalists. Robert Hay Drummond,
A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of King George III, And

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Queen Charlotte ... (London, Boston re-printed, 1762),
pp. 8,

76 Caner, Sermon Preached before Frances Bernard,
pp. 7, 21.

77 John Lathrop, A Sermon Preached to the Ancient and
Honorable Artillery Company in Boston ... (Boston, 1774),
pp. 120-21.

78 Ibid., p. 17n.

79 Gad Hitchcock, A Sermon Preached Before ... Thomas
Gage, Esq. .1. His Majesty's Council and ... House of
Representatives ... (Boston, 1774), pp. 21-22.

80

Ibid., p. 24.

47

81 Samuel Langdon, A Sermon Preached Before The
Honorable Congress ... Watertown. ((Watertown, 1775),
p.49.

 

 

PRIMARY SOURCES

PRIMARY SOURCES
(Taken from Early American Imprints Series, issued by the
Redex Microprint Corp.)

Caner, Henry.

God the Only unfailing object of trust ... Death
of FrederiCk, Prince 5f Wales (Boston, 1751).

A Sermon Preached ... upon Occasion of the Death
of ... King George the Second (Boston, 1761).

Chauncy, Charles.
The Council of two confederate Kings ... A

SERMON Occasion'd by the Present REBELLION in
Favour Bf’the Pretender ... (Boston, 1746).

 

Colman, Benjamin.

A Sermon Preach'd at Boston in New England
(Boston, 1716).

Fidelity to Christ And to the Protestant Succes-
sion IN THE Illustrious House of HANNOVER
(Boston,’1727).

Cooper, Samuel.

A Sermon Preached in the Audience of his Honour
Spencer Phips, Esq. ... (Boston, 1756).

 

A Sermon Upon Occasion of the DEATH of ... GEORGE
Ehe Second (Boston, 1761).

Checkley, Samuel.

The Duty of a People to Lay Heart and Lament
The Death of a Good King (Boston, 1727).

 

 

Drummond, Robert Hay.

A Sermon Preached at the Coronation of King
George III and Queen Chaflotte ... (London
Printed; Boston Reprinted ...41762).

 

 

48

49
Foxcroft, Thomas.

GOD the Judge, putting down One and setting up
Another ... (Boston, 1727).

A Sermon Preached ... On Occasion of the Surren-
der Of Montreal, and the Complete Conquest of
Canada ... (Boston, 1760).

Gay, Ebenezer.

The Duty of People to pray for and praise their
Rulers ... (Boston, 1730).

The Character and Work of a good Ruler, and the
Duty of an obliged People ... (Boston, 1745).

Hitchcock, Gad.

 

 

A Sermon Preached Before ... Thomas Gage, Esq.
.. His Majesty's Council and ... House of
Representatives ... (Boston, 1774).

 

Langdon, Samuel.

A Sermon Preached Before the Honorable Congress
. Watertown ... (Watertown, 1775).

 

Lathrop, John.

A Sermon Preached to the Ancient and Honorable
Artillety — Companypin Boston (Boston, 1774).

Mather, Cotton.
A Funeral Discourse Preached on the Occasion of
the Death of)... Frederick Lewis ... (Boston,
1751).

Mayhew, Jonathan.

A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and

 

 

 

 

 

Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers ... (Boston,

1750).

A Sermon Preached at Boston ... Occasioned by The
. Death of ... Fredérick, Prince Bf’Wales

(Boston, 1751).

A Sermon Preach'd in the Audience of ... (Boston,

1754).

A Discourse Occasioned by the Death of King
GEORGE II ... (Boston, 1761).

 

50

Prince, Thomas.

A SERMON On ... Death Of ... King GEORGE
(Boston, 1727).

Civil Rulers Raised np by God to Feed His Pedple
... (Boston, 1728).

The Salvations of GOD in 1746 ... (Boston, 1746).

GOD destroyeth the Hope of Man ... (Boston,
1751).

SECONDARY SOURCES

SECONDARY SOURCES

Alexander, H. G. Religion in England 1558-1662. London:
1968.

 

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American
Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.:—il967.

 

 

Breen, T. H. The Character of the Good Ruler: A Studyyof
Puritan Political Ideas in New England, 1630-17301
New Haven, Conn.: 1970.

 

 

Bridenbaugh, Carl. Mitre & Scepter. New York, New York:
1962.

 

Dickinson, H. T. Bolingbroke. London: 1970.

 

Goen, C. C. Revivalism And Separatism In New England,
1740-1800: Strict Congregationalists and Separate
Bnptists in the Great Awakening. New Haven, Conn.:
I962.

 

 

 

Greenwood, F. W. P. History of King's Chapel. Boston:
1833.

 

Hatch, Nathan 0. The Sacred Cause of Liberty: Republican
Thought and the Millennium in RevolutionaryNew
England. New Haven, Conn.: 71977}

 

 

Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714.
London: 1961.

Kramnick, Isaac. Bolingbroke And His Circle: The Politics
of Nostalgia in the Age ofWalpole. Cambridge, Mass.:
I968.

 

Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial
Radicals and the Developmentof American Opposition
to Britain, 1765-1776: New York, New York: 1972.

 

Miller, Perry. The New England Mind: From Colony To
Province. Cambridge, Mass.: 1953.

Robbins, Caroline. The Eighteenth-Century Commonwealthman:
Studies in the Transmission, Develdpment, and Circum-
stance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration

51

52

of Charles II until the War With the Thirteen
Colonies. Cambridge, Mass.: 41959.

Sibley's Harvard Graduates. Biographical Sketches of
those who attended Harvard College. With Biographi-
cal and other notes by Clifford K. Shipton. Boston,
Mass.: Vol. III, IV, V, VI, VII, XI.

 

Stephen, Leslie. ed. Dictionary of National Biogtgphy.
Vol. XVI. London. -

Walzer, Michael. The Revolution of the Saints: A Study
in the Origin of Radical Politics. Cambridge, Mass.:
1965.

Winthrop, John. "Winthrop's Speech To The General Court,
July 3, 1645,” In The Puritans: A Source Book of
Their Writings. Ed. Perry Miller and Thomas H.
Johnson (2 Vols.). Vol. I, pp. 205-207. New York,
New York, 1938.

 

Zagorin, Perez. A History of Political Thonght in the
English Revoiution. London: 1954.

 

7443

3057