NEW TRANSCULTURALISMS, 1400–1800

# **Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698**

**haig z. smith**

## New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800

Series Editors

Ann Rosalind Jones, Department of Comparative Literature, Smith College, Northampton, MA, USA Jyotsna G. Singh, Department of English, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA Mihoko Suzuki, Center for the Humanities, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

This series, now published by Palgrave Macmillan, presents studies of early modern contacts and exchanges among the states, polities, cultures, religions, and entrepreneurial organizations of Europe; Asia, including the Levant and East India/Indies; Africa; and the Americas. Books in *New Transculturalisms* will continue to investigate diverse figures, such as travelers, merchants, cultural inventors—explorers, mapmakers, artists, craftsmen, and writers—as they operated in political, mercantile, sexual, affective, and linguistic economies. We encourage authors to reflect on their own methodologies in relation to issues and theories relevant to the study of transculturalism, translation, and transnationalism.

More information about this series at https://link.springer.com/bookseries/15712 Haig Z. Smith

Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698

Haig Z. Smith Faculty of English Language & Literature University of Oxford Oxford, UK

New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800 ISBN 978-3-030-70130-7 ISBN 978-3-030-70131-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022. This book is an open access publication.

**Open Access** This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.

The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover image: frontispiece, Henry Lord, A Display of Two Forraigne Sects in the East Indies Vizt: The Sect of the Banians the Ancient Natiues of India and the Sect of the Persees the Ancient Inhabitants of Persia Together with the Religion and Maners of Each Sect (1630), published with permission of the Rector and Scholars of Exeter College, Oxford.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG

The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

#### Praise for Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698

"This important study looks at the central place of religion in the contrasting governance of English overseas companies across the seventeenth century and across the globe, from Boston to Bombay. It identifies three models—pastoral, theocratic and ecumenical—of religious governance and it deepens our understanding of the complex relationship between trade, politics and religion in the development of these companies and the growth of empire."

—Kenneth Fincham, University of Kent, UK

"With both conceptual precision and an expansive, global field-of-view, Smith reveals the distinctively corporate mechanisms that structured religious encounters in the early modern world and, in the process, places religious governance at the centre of our understanding of seventeenth century English expansion overseas."

—William Pettigrew, Lancaster University, UK

"This detailed but wide-ranging study shows the important place that religion occupied in the management and reputation of early modern England's overseas companies, both in North America and Asia. It will be a valuable read for anyone wishing to learn about how England established a presence in the wider world."

—Thomas Leng, University of Sheffield, UK

## Acknowledgements

Many people have helped in the completion of this book. I am much obliged to the librarians, archivists, staff at the British Library, in particular the librarians in the Asian and African Studies Reading Room at the BL which became a second home during my Ph.D.; I would also like to thank the archivists at the National Archives at Kew, the Dorset and Oxford Record Offices, the London Metropolitan Library, as well as the Lambeth Palace, Magdalene College, and Tamil Nadu State Archives. I would also like to express my sincerest gratitude to Joanna Bowring for their help and patience as well as Exeter College, and Exeter College Library at the University of Oxford for providing the permission to use Henry Lord's frontispiece as the front cover of this work.

I am also indebted to those who have supported me financially over the last eight years. The Leverhulme Trust who funded the PEIC (Political Economies of International Commerce) Project and my Ph.D. and the European Research Council who funded TIDE project (Travel, Transculturality, and Identity in England, 1550–1700) and my Postdoctoral research. I would also like to thank the Hakluyt Society for supporting my research in India with a short-term research grant which although prematurely cut short and delayed by the Covid-19 pandemic has led to a number of exciting and ongoing collaborations.

I would like to thank my doctorial supervisor and mentor Professor William Pettigrew. Since my first undergraduate seminar in 2009 his advice and encouragement have been invaluable. Likewise, I am indebted to my secondary supervisor Dr Edmond Smith, who despite always concluding that religious history and Puritans are a yawn, has been a constant support without whom this book would have never been finished. Furthermore, I am extremely grateful to Professor Kenneth Fincham and Dr Gabriel Glickman who both offered positive and helpful advice as my Ph.D. examiners.

I am also very grateful to Professor Nandini Das, whose guidance during my post-doc has enabled me to develop my Ph.D. research into a monograph. Moreover, my time on the TIDE project at both the University of Liverpool and Oxford has provided many opportunities to widen my approach to global exchanges and English literature. This project received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 681884).

I cannot express my gratitude enough to Professors Jyotsna Singh, Mihoko Suzuki, and Annie Jones for their comments, support and most of all incredible patience and kindness whilst this monograph went through its many iterations. Likewise, I am also very grateful to the editorial team at Palgrave in particular Sam Stocker and Megan Laddusaw who have been a pleasure to work with.

My warmest thanks to Liam Haydon, Tristan Stein, Tom Leng, Ben Marsh, Eva Joanna Holmberg, Aske Brock, Emily Mann, Misha Ewan, Lauren Working, Tom Roberts, Emily Stevenson, Phil Stern, Ruchika Sharma and Professor Pius Malekandathil for their invaluable support, ideas and good conversation. I would especially like to thank Dr Simon Mills for his guidance and knowledge made this work so much richer; George Van Cleve, who never doubted the value of the Massachusetts Bay Company; and Joao Vincente De Melo whose late night conversations helped shape my understanding of the wider European religious expansion. I am also indebted to A.K. Srikumar for all his help in getting this work finished.

I would like to thank a particular group who have no vested interest in me, other than being the unfortunate souls who are my friends and who have endured me wittering on about religion and overseas expansion in the seventeenth century for the last eight years. I would particularly like to thank Matthew (Gimli) and Sarah Thomas, Daniel O'Donoghue, Alan Fletcher Simon Levy, Robert Newman, Pip Gregory, Kristian Harrison, Mervyn Turner, Daaneesh Noray, Ed Hick, Oli Davis, Anthony O'Neil, Sion Pritchard, Matthew Henderson, Kiff and Ray Lloyd, Rach Smith, Ben Smitton, Paul Stone, Kit Bentley, and all those who have not been named and who have supported me for the last decade. Thank you all for, the many beverages you supplied me with while a poor student, but most of all supporting, listening and at the very least providing the illusion of interest when I have needed it most.

Most of all I would like to thank my family who above all have supported and encouraged me ensuring that I see this project through to completion. Gina, Mark, Emma, Josh and Toby, Donald, Barry, Jen Wilf, Primrose, Will, Jean and Jenny McCullouch, Victoria Mitchell, Anit and Sonya Kapoor, Prerna, Rohit, and Natasha, thank you all. To Aparna Kapoor who despite a passionate dislike of all things historical has fought the pain and read through this book several times, I am forever grateful. I want to also pay tribute to my Grandparents, James and Sal whose influence and knowledge were foundational to my understanding of many of the concepts in this book. Most of all I would like to thank my parents Alastair and Sally. Without their boundless support (and early investment in Horrible Histories books) I would not be where I am today. Finally, to Lochan Amar Smith, I am sure you will avoid reading this like the plague, but this book is dedicated to you.

## Contents


## 'A Just Government'—Empire, Religion, Chaplains and the Corporation

On 15 September 1622, the poet, onetime MP, lawyer and cleric John Donne delivered a sermon in the grounds of the old cathedral at St Paul's Cross, in which he argued the importance of religion to the governmental success of the Virginia Company (VC). Donne demonstrated, in his inimitable style, that structured religious governance would lead to the company successfully establishing control over English and non-English peoples in its colony. It would also ensure the advancement of Protestantism and English authority abroad, thus providing an 'example of a just Government to other Companies'.<sup>1</sup> Donne compared the VC to an unseen celestial being, whose religious mission was the corporation's conscience, its moral backbone, of which the temporal '*Seals*, and *Patents*, and *Commissions*' were the company's 'wings'. By merging a religious mission with the constitutional authority of a corporation, Donne believed the VC could 'fly the faster' towards both commercial and spiritual success.2 The company would act as an evangelical body spreading both Protestantism and English authority across the world and through its

<sup>1</sup> John Donne, 'A sermon Preached at St. Pauls Cross', September 15, 1622, in Donne, *Five sermons upon special occasions (Viz.) 1. A sermon preached at Pauls Crosse. 2. To the Honorable the Virginia Company 3. At the consecration of Lincolnes Inne Chappell. 4. The first sermon preached to K. Charles at St. James, 1625. 5. A sermon preached to his Majestie at White-hall, 24. Febr. 1625* (London: 1626), p. 35.

<sup>2</sup> Ibid., p. 28.

© The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_1

1

emerging colonial empire. According to Donne, by establishing a godly, 'just government', the VC and its members would be 'bearing witness in Jerusalem' and 'Judea', or the city of London and country.<sup>3</sup> Donne went further, declaring in the language of the Church that, like the 'apostles' whose 'dioceses' were 'enlarged, farther than Jerusalem, farther than Judea', the company would perform 'miracles' in Virginia.4

Some years earlier, Daniel Price had quoted Donne's friend Thomas Morton, the Dean of Gloucester, who had used similar language when describing the Virginia enterprise.<sup>5</sup> Morton declared that 'it is a Voyage, wherein every Christian ought to set to his helping hand, seeing the Angel of Virginia cryeth out to this land, as the Angel of Macedonia did to Paul, O come and help us'.6 Quoting from the book of Acts 16:9, both Morton and Price presented the conversion of the Native Americans of Virginia in the same manner that Paul claimed to be called by God to convert the Macedonians.7 Just as the apostle Paul had been responsible for converting the Greeks, so too had the VC and English been called to proselytise to Native Americans in Virginia. Twenty years later, in 1629, the seal of the Massachusetts Bay Company (MBC) used the same example as in Morton's sermon to justify their presence in New England, presenting a Native American declaring 'Come over and help us'.<sup>8</sup> In the eyes of Morton, Price, Donne and later the leaders of the MBC, trade and commerce were 'God's own invention', and trade would not obstruct the company's religious obligation to both establish and spread Protestant government abroad.<sup>9</sup> In fact it would actually ensure it. As a result of clear religious governance over their English personnel and the peoples over whom they claimed jurisdiction, overseas companies

<sup>3</sup> Ibid., p. 35.

<sup>4</sup> Ibid.

<sup>5</sup> Stanley Johnson, 'John Donne and the Virginia Company', *English Literary History*, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1947), p. 128.

<sup>6</sup> Quoted in Daniel Price, *Sauls Prohibition Staide... with a reproofe of those that traduce the Honourable Plantation of Virginia* (London: 1609), sig. F3r.

<sup>7</sup> 'Where a vision appeared to Paul in the night. There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us', Acts 16:9.

<sup>8</sup> Cathy Rex, 'Indians and Images: The Massachusetts Bay Colony Seal, James Printer, and the Anxiety of Colonial Identity', *American Quarterly*, Vol. 63, No. 1 (2011), pp. 61– 93.

<sup>9</sup> Ibid., p. 34.

would not only ensure the spread of Protestantism and English authority, but also, succeed in their commercial mission, and according to Donne, provide an 'example of a just Government to other Companies'.<sup>10</sup> Donne saw the interactions of England's overseas companies with non-Christians across the globe as an opportunity to advance and combine the Protestant faith and English authority abroad in its emerging colonial empire. Such calls to evangelise the 'natives' became the bedrock of early colonial settlements, encouraging political, religious and financial support for organisations that coordinated English expansion abroad.

Donne joined the likes of Morton, Samuel Purchas, Edward Huntington, Robert Frampton, Edward Reynolds and many other influential clergymen, all of whom promoted the expansionist activities of English overseas companies. However, the clergy were not the only advocates of using religion to advance English expansion abroad. Courtiers, politicians, imperial agents and scientists all engaged with religion to highlight the spiritual and temporal benefits of expansion, seeing it as a tool to secure and develop English governmental control abroad. Furthermore, as English companies continued to advance English territorial designs, the prism of religion became an increasingly important means to frame diplomatic, commercial, political and religious interactions with peoples across its emerging colonial empire.

One month after his September 1622 sermon, Donne gave another, this time to the members of the VC. Preaching from the book of Acts, Donne again discussed the importance of religion and religious governance for the success of the corporation.11 Donne sought to further reinforce the biblical justification of commerce by ordering the VC's members to be, through their activities, 'a Light to the Gentiles, that sit in darkness'.12 Like Richard Hakluyt, who had advocated that by 'planting of religion among those infidels', English overseas expansion was to the

<sup>10</sup> Ibid., p. 35.

<sup>11</sup> Donne, *Five sermons*, pp. 1–65.

<sup>12</sup> Ibid., p. 2; for Edward Coke's description of corporations, see Steve Sheppard, ed., *Selected Writings of Sir Edward Coke*, Vol. I (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2003), pp. 120–196, particularly p. 181.

'glory of God', Donne also resolutely promoted the evangelical possibilities that overseas trading companies offered English Protestants.13 For Donne and his contemporary clergymen such as Hakluyt, as well as numerous Church leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbot, Bishops of London John King and George Montaigne, Bishop of Durham William James and Bishop of Bath and Wells Arthur Lake, evangelism was a profitable double-edged sword.<sup>14</sup> England's global expansion was strengthened when the 'principal end is not gain, nor glory, but to gain Souls to the glory of God' and consequently the success of this spiritually enhanced expansion was not only measured in souls gained, but also financial profit.15 Financial success not only benefited the nation, but also those clergy who touted the spiritual 'end' of the company's mission. Gaining souls was a lucrative business for all investors, including the likes of Donne, Hakluyt and Abbot, and it was in their interest to encourage their congregations to support these companies.

Donne advocated the responsibility of the English to evangelise in the new commercial and territorial regions into which English companies were expanding. In the case of the VC, Donne himself had expressed an active interest in being involved in the administration of the company, requesting 'to be secretary of Virginia'.<sup>16</sup> In his first publication, the polemical tract Pseudo-Martyr, Donne explained to his readers why this mission was important and how it would succeed. According to him, the English were to be 'instructers', who would gently encourage peoples across the globe to incorporate together forming 'a company of Savages'.17 In doing so, he believed, they would naturally 'consent

<sup>13</sup> Richard Hakluyt (elder), *Pamphlet for the Virginia Enterprise* (1585), in E. G. R. Taylor, ed., *The Original Writings and Correspondence of the Two Richard Hakluyts*, 2 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1935), II: p. 327.

<sup>14</sup> All these bishops were involved in one or more of the following companies: the Virginia, East India, Muscovy, Guinea, Spanish, Northwest Passage Companies and the Irish Society. George Montaigne would also go on to become the Archbishop of York.

<sup>15</sup> Donne, 'To the Honourable the Virginia Company', in *Five Sermons*, p. 28.

<sup>16</sup> John Chamberlain to Dudley Carelton, February 14, 1609, in Norman Egbert McClure, ed., *The Letters of John Chamberlain*, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, PA: The American Philosophical Society, 1939), I: p. 284; Johnson, 'Donne and the Virginia', p. 127.

<sup>17</sup> John Donne, *Pseudo-martyr. Wherein out of certaine propositions and gradations, this conclusion is evicted. That those which are of the Romane religion in this kingdome, may and ought to take the Oath of allegiance* (London: 1610), pp. 84, 172.

and concur to a civil manner of living'.<sup>18</sup> For Donne and his contemporaries, civilising was wrapped up in ideas of establishing and imposing godly order and control over communities.<sup>19</sup> One of the most effective ways to establish civility was through the incorporation of people into the membership of a corporate body that would then govern their daily lives. The VC and other overseas companies functioned as both regulators and active exemplars of English control either by encouraging through example or by coercing peoples into incorporating themselves into Protestant civility. Developing out of the religious politics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Protestant civility tied 'religious or moral rather than courtly ideals' to ideas of expansion and Englishness, offering a justification to counter Catholic expansion and providing an alternative example.20

Colonial promoters formulated a means through such civility to both theoretically and practically regulate the personal lives (both religious and secular) of individuals and groups that were incorporated into the emerging empire.<sup>21</sup> Donne concluded that 'instructers' would encourage non-English peoples to adopt English forms of governance by incorporating themselves into a 'Company', or companies, thereby forming 'a Commonwealth'.<sup>22</sup> To Donne's early modern audience, the Protestant faith was intrinsically linked to governmental civility, and the action of a group incorporating themselves into one governmental and religious body was also a clear sign that they either already had or were willing to adopt the 'saving knowledge, and Faith in our blessed Saviours Passion'.<sup>23</sup> Overseas companies, whether the VC, MBC, Levant (LC) or East India (EIC), were more than merely commercial actors, they were

<sup>18</sup> Ibid., p. 172.

<sup>19</sup> Michael Braddick, *State Formation in Early Modern England* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001); Steve Hindle, *The State and Social Change in Early Modern England, 1550–1640* (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

<sup>20</sup> Dilwyn Knox, 'Erasmus' *De Civilitate* and the Religious Origins of Civility in Protestant Europe', *Archive for Reformation History*, Vol. 86 (1995), p. 10.

<sup>21</sup> John Darwin, 'Civility and Empire', in Peter Burke, Brian Harrison, and Paul Slack, eds., *Civil Histories: Essays Presented to Sir Keith Thomas* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 321.

<sup>22</sup> Donne, *Pseudo-martyr*, p. 83.

<sup>23</sup> Ibid., p. 84.

agents and examples of English civil governance abroad.<sup>24</sup> They were the institutional 'instructers' tasked with advancing and establishing English governance in its emerging colonial empire, and a defining feature of this governance was its evangelical, Protestant agenda.

## Defining Governance

For various companies and their members in the early modern period, governance meant different things at different times, as they sought to deal with the commercial, legal, cultural and social pressures in England's emerging colonial empire. In the simplest terms, B. Guy Peters has described the main aim of governance today as to provide 'direction and control for society and the economy'.<sup>25</sup> In the early modern period, this was complicated by the delegation of sovereignty, and thus governance, to organisations that operated in geographies 'beyond the state'—most notably the corporation.26 Governance, therefore, was a mechanism of social control that functioned irrespective of the fragmented and disparate modes of authority that made up the early modern state. Governance, in this context, represented strategies for imposing 'direction and control' on the part of corporations over their members, employees and wider constituencies. This was not limited to social or economic activity, and Edmond Smith has shown how 'corporations used governance to refer to many aspects of their activities', including the religious lives of their members and employees.27

Religious governance was used by many companies to assert and advance company authority through various direct and indirect means.

<sup>24</sup> Andrew Phillips and J. C. Sharman, *Outsourcing Empire: How Company States Made the Modern World* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2020), pp. 1–22.

<sup>25</sup> B. Guy Peters, 'Governance as Political Theory', in David Levi-Faur, ed., *The Oxford Handbook of Governance* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 19.

<sup>26</sup> Levi-Faur, 'From "Big Government" to "Big Governance"?', in Levi-Faur, ed., *Governance*, p. 3; Philip J. Stern, *The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); Lauren Benton, *A Search for Sovereignty: Law and Geography in European Empires, 1400–1900* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).

<sup>27</sup> Edmond Smith, 'Governance', in William Pettigrew and David Veevers, eds., *Corporations as Protagonists in Global History* (Leiden: Brill, 2018), p. 166; These ideas are expanded further in Edmond Smith, Merchants: The Community That Shaped England's Trade and Empire, 1550–1650 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021).

Building upon Smith's definition of corporate 'political governance' that illustrates the role of the corporation in developing laws and political structures in order to 'hold power over people who were not members of the organisation', this book introduces the important role of religion in shaping these laws and structures.28 It goes further still, by demonstrating that the pervasive role of religion in the development of England's overseas empire requires a distinct interpretation and analysis that presents and examines religious governance as a distinctive structure of government. In doing so, this work highlights one of the ways in which the disparate and divergent forms of authority in England's emerging colonial empire can be connected and offers a means to use entangled imperial and religious practices to reassess the evolution of English colonial authority.

Seventeenth-century overseas religious governance can be divided into three models: pastoral, theocratic and ecumenical. Emerging from the dual desire to secure corporate authority abroad and to evangelise to expand the corporations' spiritual and territorial jurisdiction, these models trace the development of religious governance across England's overseas companies. These models served both to police the behaviour of those who came within its ambit and to advance their jurisdiction over those who would traditionally be considered beyond their authority. The models that each company established show how its members believed their mission to make profit would be achieved.

In the context of England's overseas companies, pastoral governance was a means of controlling and policing the lives and interactions of the companies' flock overseas. Pastoral governance was founded in the extensive authority given by companies to chaplains to govern over the spiritual lives of members of the company, as well as the day-to-day activities and interactions of those who went abroad. Obsessed in these early years with securing their commercial mission, company leaders sought, through the chaplain, to minimise the prospect of harmful behaviour. In doing so, officials hoped to mitigate the risks of apostasy, drunkenness, prostitution, gambling and all manner of perceived vices, thereby securing their good reputation amongst the local peoples. Furthermore, through pastoral governance, the chaplain would police diplomatic, intellectual and religious interactions; meanwhile, securing the good behaviour of company personnel would begin to develop passive evangelism. This

<sup>28</sup> Ibid., p. 167.

was a process that involved what one EIC agent described as a 'pious fraud' as the company attempted to convert local Indians to Protestantism by 'allowable guile'.<sup>29</sup>

Theocratic governance in overseas companies recognised God as its supreme leader and religious law as being absolute. Companies that adopted theocratic governance sought to secure and perpetuate control by aggressively enforcing a policy of exclusivity, defining the boundaries of a distinctively English polity. Thus, would-be members were required to confess to sharing the theological beliefs espoused by the company leadership. Participation in corporate life was restricted to those who claimed to follow the same religious ideology. Those in the company's jurisdiction who did not conform to or follow its members' religious governance often faced persecution, forced conversion, banishment and even execution.

Amongst England's overseas corporations, theocratic governance in its most extreme form emerged in the MBC. One event that illustrates the company's theocratic governance occurred between 1659 and 1661, when the legislature of the MBC executed three Quakers, also known as the Boston martyrs, for their religious beliefs.30 In one of the first acts against Quakers, a General Court held in Boston in 1656 declared them to be 'a cursed sect of heretics' and ordered that any Quaker found in the colony be fined and imprisoned, concluding that if this did not change their views they were to be 'sentenced by the Court of Assistants to banishment'.31 This was followed by a series of acts in 1657 and 1658, as well as the 'Cart and Whip Act' in 1661, all of which imposed further draconian punishments on the 'Vagabond Quaker', including their 'apprehending, whipping and conveying'.32 Moreover, the final act also allowed for the execution of Quakers who continued to remain in or

<sup>29</sup> British Library (BL) India Office Records (IOR) G/36/105 Letter from Bombay to the Council at Surat October 21, 1668.

<sup>30</sup> Carla Gardina Pestana, *Protestant Empire: Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World* (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), p. 133.

<sup>31</sup> John Fox, *Fox's Book of Martyrs: Or, The Acts and Monuments of the Christian Church; Being a Complete History of the Lives, Sufferings, and Deaths of the Christian Martyrs; from the Commencement of Christianity to the Present Period*, 2 vols., ed., T. Pratt (New York, NY: William Borradaile, 1829), II: p. 544.

<sup>32</sup> Ibid., pp. 545–546; Nathaniel Shurtleff, ed., *Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay in New England* (Boston, MA; William White, 1854), IV, part II: p. 3 (hereafter *RCM* ).

return to the colony.33 As Quakers, Mary Dyer, Marmaduke Stephenson and William Robinson were perceived to be a threat to the MBC's authority, and were all subsequently sentenced to banishment, imprisonment and eventually execution for their beliefs. In this formulation, religious governance was remained narrowly focused on a specific form of Protestant civility that forcefully promoted as the governing norm of corporate life in a given geography.

Ecumenical governance represented a merged response, in which company officials begrudgingly accepted diversity and worked with it. For England's overseas companies in the seventeenth century, the variety of peoples and faiths they encountered and governed meant that, for some, ecumenical governance was the only way they could secure their commercial positions. William Bulman has illustrated in relation to the imperial project Tangier that a 'variety of economic, military, diplomatic and political considerations' resulted in the formation of a 'de facto toleration'; the same can be said for England's commercial enterprise in India.<sup>34</sup> Ecumenical governance was a response to ensuring stability in its emerging colonial empire following the Restoration. Although religious conformity was to be striven for, in reality it was to be put aside in favour of stability. In Bombay, the English faced the same problems as in Tangier, forcing the adoption of sufferance as an 'economic, diplomatic, political and military necessity' that would ensure 'non-Anglican populations remained quiescent'.<sup>35</sup> However, unlike Tangier, which remained a crown colony until it was abandoned in 1684, Bombay, as with all other English territories in India, fell under the control of the EIC in 1668. Subsequently, the EIC had to absorb previous arrangements made under the Crown whilst preserving its own governmental autonomy and agenda. Like the Crown governors, the EIC leadership had to balance religious aspirations with reality. For the company, commercial and political stability were paramount. Ecumenical governance arose as a means to preserve these two pillars whilst appeasing the religious sentiments of all involved. Whether in the freedom to practise religion or engage in commerce, or in including these religious groups in the government

<sup>33</sup> Ibid., IV, part II: p. 4.

<sup>34</sup> William J. Bulman, *Anglican Enlightenment: Orientalism, Religion and Politics in England and Its Empire, 1648–1715* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 212.

<sup>35</sup> Ibid., p. 215.

of the corporations, ecumenical governance offered the closest representation of a corporate religious government that included multiple faiths.

By using these models, it becomes possible to assess the differing roles of religious governance in several of England's seventeenth-century overseas companies and to assess the distinct agendas regarding governance connecting these companies across the globe. These discrete models of governance illustrate how, through similar yet adaptable foundations, companies developed administrative frameworks to control the religious behaviour and practices of those under their authority.

During the seventeenth century, England's overseas companies developed ideas of a 'just government' that involved using religion as a mechanism to regulate the behaviour of their personnel overseas. Moreover, it was also a means to incorporate non-English people into adapted forms of English governance in the Mediterranean as well as across the Atlantic and Indian oceans. To understand the development of ideas surrounding imperial authority in early modern English colonies, it is necessary to recognise both the interconnectedness and integration of concepts surrounding the movement of goods, peoples and knowledge across various national and transnational boundaries in the seventeenth century. Sebastian Conrad has developed this view in global history: situating the field as part of the 'spatial turn', he has argued that a 'unit' or a location is related to a variety of 'scales', which can be regional, national, transnational or global, thereby moving beyond a discussion of connection, and into an examination of the 'large-scale structural integration' of ideas and practices.36 One way to do this is to move across traditional geographic and cultural boundaries, to investigate and integrate the connected historical experiences of various English and non-English actors and authorities, and study how they instructed each other and shaped the development of government in England's early empire. As institutional bodies that were connected by the same legal origins and shared similar governmental privileges, England's overseas companies offer insight into the global development of English imperial governance in the early modern period.

This period saw rapid commercial and territorial expansion, putting English into contact with other cultures and faiths in India, the Levant,

<sup>36</sup> Sebastian Conrad, *What Is Global History?* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), pp. 15, 67, 136.

America, Japan, Africa and Persia. As Andrew Phillips and J. C. Sharman have pointed out companies such as the EIC, LC and MBC became 'primary mediators' that connected England or Europe 'with the rest of the world'.37 Whilst this was most directly the case for those men and women who travelled abroad in the service of companies, English people in their domestic settings—through the food they ate, the fabric they wore and the books they read—were all indirectly exposed to the world beyond Europe. Through a detailed investigation of the place of religion in framing the encounters and government of English overseas companies, this book investigates the development of English authority in its emerging factories, cities, lands and colonies in the period between 1601 and 1698: specifically, by undertaking a comparative study of five corporations that were integral to the foundation of overseas corporate behaviour in the seventeenth century.38As an in-depth study of five overseas companies (the VC, LC, EIC, MBC and Plymouth Company [PC]), this book examines one structural element (religious governance) of the eclectic character of English governmental expansion overseas in the seventeenth century, which also included proprietary grants, royal colonies and urban corporations.39 In doing so, it offers a detailed comparative analysis of the global development of governance in England's early empire that is at once both chronologically and geographically broad based.

All of England's overseas trading companies, whether they operated in the Mediterranean or the Indian, Atlantic or Pacific oceans, were

#### <sup>37</sup> Phillips and Sharman, *Outsourcing Empire*, p. 2.

<sup>38</sup> Companies chartered following the Restoration such as the Newfoundland, Royal African and Hudson's Bay companies, whose presence in overseas corporate governance does not map onto the whole century, are not included. Likewise, the Muscovy Company does not feature in the monograph as its records, both before and after the great fire (1666), are incomplete and so in relation to the other companies can only provide a fragmented comparison.

<sup>39</sup> For more information on the role of proprietary grants, royal colonies and urban corporations in the development of English governmental expansion see Vicki Hsueh, *Hybrid Constitutions: Challenging Legacies of Law, Privilege, and Culture in Colonial America* (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010); Mary Sarah Bilder, 'English Settlement and Local Governance', in Michael Grossberg and Christopher L. Tomlins, eds., *The Cambridge History of Law in America* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 63–103; Tomlins, 'Legal Cartography of Colonization, the Legal Polyphony of Settlement: English Intrusions on the American Mainland in the Seventeenth Century', *Law and Social Inquiry*, Vol. 26, No. 2 (2001), pp. 315–372.

of 'the same ilk'.<sup>40</sup> They shared the same legal and political origin through their charters, although there were clear differences between the settlements and colonies they established. Whether joint stock, regulated or both, all these companies owed their commercial and governmental rights to their charters. These charters established analogous commercial, religious, political and diplomatic missions, whilst also defining levels of autonomy and sovereignty that leaders and members could enjoy. However, despite sharing similar governmental and legislative capabilities, companies utilised their charter privileges differently, leading to the establishment of radically different forms of English governance abroad. Through overseas companies, the different parts of England's emerging empire shared more than just structural or legal similarities with each other. It was also the companies' imperative to regulate the behaviour of the populations they governed over that strongly connected them. The means they used to achieve this both distinguished each company's governmental character from the others and linked them together. Religion became an important component in each company's governmental apparatus, highlighting the comparable development of governance in England's early empire.

Just as in England, religious governance in England's companies could both divide and connect those it sought to bring together. In various geographies, it was used to unite diverse religious communities. These charters established analogous commercial, religious, political and diplomatic missions, whilst also defining levels of autonomy and sovereignty that leaders and members could enjoy. However, whilst it could encourage the development of an inclusive government, religious governance could also lead to the creation of exclusionary regimes that ostracised certain religious and cultural groups in order to ensure the dominance of another. In company jurisdictions in different environments, religious governance at times broke down, highlighting the fractious nature of religious life in the seventeenth century. The companies developed the pastoral, theocratic and ecumenical models to manage the sending of ministers, writing of laws, spreading of evangelism and administration of churches. These models helped to form the character and identity of corporate governments with religious underpinnings both in England and abroad.

<sup>40</sup> Philip J. Stern, 'British Asia and British Atlantic: Comparison and Connections', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 63, No. 4 (2006), p. 700.

Whilst assessing the development of corporations through the practice of religious governance, we can ask three central questions: first, how did corporate flexibility facilitate the establishment of overseas companies as distinguishable bodies that operated as extensions of English authority abroad? Second, how did companies develop distinct ways of controlling the religious behaviour of the English settlers as well as the peoples who came under their jurisdiction—including Animists, Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Orthodox Armenians and Jews? Thirdly, was the control and regulation of religious behaviour via a 'Protestant civility' crucial to the success of their emerging colonial enterprises?

#### Emerging Empire: Internal Imperial and Iberian Inspiration

Imperialism, in particular 'the language and symbolism of empire', has had a long history in the British Isles.41 During the sixteenth century, medieval texts such as Geoffrey of Monmouth's *Historia regum Britanniae* received renewed popularity as various monarchs wished to convey imperialism as an internal process of unification within the British Isles. John Dee used this language when discussing 'the lawfull British and English jurisdiction over Scotland', describing 'this incomparable Brytish Empire' in which all the inhabitants across the island were the 'true and natural born subjects of this Brytish Empire'.42 However, the development of global trade and commerce in the sixteenth and seventeenth century changed the conception of empire from an insular process of unification to a maritime-commercial ideology that could be global in scope. This ideology was not only formulated to counter papal domination and Catholic global expansion, but also to legitimise English colonialism and commerce.43 The Spanish and Portuguese, according to English colonial thinkers, had no right to monopolise overseas expansion and trade, as the seas were 'natures commons'.<sup>44</sup> Samuel Purchas argued

<sup>41</sup> David Armitage, *The Ideological Origins of the British Empire* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 34.

<sup>42</sup> John Dee, *General and Rare Memorial Pertayning to the Perfect Arte of Navigation* (London: 1577), pp. 8, 14.

<sup>43</sup> Armitage, *Ideological Origins*, pp. 107–109.

<sup>44</sup> Samuel Purchas, *Hakluyt Posthumus, or Purchas His Pilgrimes*, 5 vols. (London: 1625), I: p, 5.

that, according to the law of nature, the seas belonged to everyone, and as such commerce upon them was 'to be enjoyed by all'.<sup>45</sup> In principle, this common right gave the English as much a claim to New World trade and expansion as their Iberian counterparts.

Although Catholic overseas expansion had been taking place since the medieval period, 1492 marked a turning point in not only Iberian and Catholic, but also European, overseas expansion. Five years after the Spanish began to settle America, Vasco da Gama, the Portuguese explorer, sailed around the Cape of Good Hope and in 1498 reached India, landing in Calicut. These two moments marked the genesis of Catholic overseas expansion that would lead to both Spain and Portugal laying claim to territory in the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans and dominating commerce into Europe, to the envy of their counterparts and acting as the inspiration for future English expansion.46 By the time English Protestants were attempting to govern over territory in the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific oceans in the seventeenth century, the Iberian nations had long-established centres of Catholic governmental authority in these regions. The conquest of Goa in 1510, followed by Malacca (1511) and Ormuz (1515), led to the establishment of permanent Portuguese settlements in the Indian Ocean, which became centres of political, commercial and religious power. By 1530, Goa had become the 'centre of the vast networks of the *Estado da Índia*' and marked the 'remarkably rapid rise to power of the Portuguese' in the Indian Ocean.47 As Ângela Barreto Xavier and Ines Županov have illustrated, Goa became an important centre for Catholic religious, political and cultural power as well as learning.<sup>48</sup> The Portuguese in 1534 established the bishopric of Goa, confirming Portugal's religious and political power and aspirations in the Indian Ocean. Goa was to act as a base of operations for the *Estado da Índia*, to 'impose a religious monopoly' not only on Goa but

<sup>45</sup> Ibid.

<sup>46</sup> Alison Games, *The Web of Empire: English Cosmopolitans in an Age of Expansion, 1560–1660* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), p. 11; Phillips and Sharman *Outsourcing Empire*, pp. 29–32.

<sup>47</sup> Ananya Chakravarti, *The Empire of Apostles: Religion, Accommodatio, and the Imagination of Empire in Early Modern Brazil and India* (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 45, 48; Phillips and Sharman, *Outsourcing Empire*, pp. 30–31, 35–36.

<sup>48</sup> Ângela Barreto Xavier and Ines G. Županov, *Catholic Orientalism: Portuguese Empire, Indian Knowledge (16th–18th Centuries)* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).

also on India as a whole.<sup>49</sup> Alongside the establishment of a centre of the Catholic Church, Portuguese expansion also involved the expansion of other Catholic orders that, although operating outside of the Portuguese state, worked for them. This included Carmelites, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians and Jesuits, all of whom went to India 'as part of the Portuguese ecclesiastical system of '*Padroado*'.50 The latter of which became the primary focus of the antagonism of the English, 'who feared the Jesuits above all other religious orders'.<sup>51</sup> In particular, the English upon their arrival in India envied the Jesuits' religious successes, which they said were 'poisoning [India] with the Coloquintida of Popery', as well as their commercial and diplomatic accomplishments at the Mughal Court.<sup>52</sup> The long-established presence at the Mughal Court was first established by Akbar, who invited them to court to both learn about their faith as well as a means for 'realising commercial rapport with the Portuguese'.<sup>53</sup> Although they were not to be successful in converting Akbar, they did make some impression, the *Ain-i-Akbari* noting the 'learned monks' who came from Europe and who 'have an infallible head, called Papa' and that Akbar ordered Prince Murad to 'take a few lessons in Christianity'.54 By the time that the English arrived in India, the Jesuits' position was embedded at Akbar's court and through them the Portuguese had obtained 'access to the wide variety of commodity streams coming from Mughal territory' that the English also wanted access to.

Over the sixteenth century, the Portuguese in India merged both religious and commercial aspirations in order to secure their territorial expansions abroad. To the English, their Iberian counterparts were both an inspiration and an adversary. The religious governance on which the Portuguese success was established was something that the English

<sup>49</sup> Chakravarti, *Empire of Apostles*, p. 47.

<sup>50</sup> Pius Melekandathil, *The Mughals, The Portuguese and the Indian Ocean: Changing Imageries of Maritime India* (New Delhi: Primus, 2013), p. 15.

<sup>51</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 224.

<sup>52</sup> Patrick Copland and Peter Pope, *Virginia's God Be Thanked, or a Sermon of Thanksgiving for the Happie Successe of the Affayres in Virginia This Last Yeare, Hereunto Are Adjoyned Some Epistles, Written First in Latine, and Now Englished, By Peter Pope, an Indian Youth, Who Was, Baptized, In London*, *December 22, 1616* (London: 1622), p. 30.

<sup>53</sup> Melekandathil, *The Mughals, The Portuguese*, p. 27.

<sup>54</sup> Ab¯ul Fazl All¯ami, *The Ain-i-Akbari*, trans. H. Blochmann and H. S. Jarret, Vol. 1 (Calcutta: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1873), p. 182.

wanted to both mirror and oppose, presenting themselves as the Protestant alternative. England's emerging colonial empire of the seventeenth century arose out of this combining of traditional ideas of internal imperialism (that had been taking place since the medieval period in the British Isles) and the growth of international commerce and Iberian expansion in the sixteenth century.

## Corporate Formation and the Origins of Corporate Religious Governance

Although companies had been used to regulate governance and advance English commercial interests since the medieval period, between 1601 and 1698 both the Crown and Parliament used corporations to advance English commercial and territorial objectives globally. They established commercial relationships with communities across the globe, shaping English colonialism throughout this period.55 From the commercial relationships with the Mughal and Ottoman courts to the establishment of permanent settlements on the east coast of America, the structure of the corporation was used to legitimise English commercial and territorial expansion.

Corporate structures provided both the legal space and protection to establish diverse but connected forms of autonomous governance across the globe. The government of early modern England was an 'incorporation of local communities into a national society and state', structured and regulated by the corporations.<sup>56</sup> Various forms of corporations administered towns and cities, such as the livery companies, urban corporations and guilds, whilst other forms of trading companies were pervasive throughout England's developing urban centres. Yet a commercial company's administration was defined by its unsettled and flexible position, being both autonomous and subordinated to the Crown.57 This

<sup>55</sup> William Pettigrew, 'Corporate Constitutionalism and the Dialogue Between the Global and Local in Seventeenth-Century English History', *Itinerario*, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2015), p. 488.

<sup>56</sup> Phil Withington, *Society in Early Modern England: The Vernacular Origins of Some Powerful Ideas* (Cambridge: Polity, 2010), p. 4.

<sup>57</sup> Thomas Hobbes, *Leviathan, or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Common Wealth, Ecclesiastical and Civil* (London: 1651), pt. 2, ch. 29, p. 174; Pettigrew, 'Corporate Constitutionalism', p. 489.

unclear position allowed for corporate government to develop almost independently of the state. This line was further blurred with overseas companies, whose charter privileges and distance from the metropole allowed them to develop government independently from the state, but also in some respects to subject themselves to the authority of another Crown or state.58

Those who supported corporate spaces (towns and boroughs) had an 'expansive, ambitious and essentially civic humanist conception' of them.<sup>59</sup> Offered by the monarch, the act of incorporation presented town inhabitants with greater autonomy over civic finances and social and educational institutions.60 Moreover, according to Henry Manship, a town clerk in Great Yarmouth, incorporation allowed people to 'live the more commodiously together and frame themselves a Commonwealth'.<sup>61</sup> Another commentator saw corporate spaces as a 'state of citizens', whose autonomous government provided citizens with parliamentary representation and privileges, the right to sue in law, as well as economic rights to establish markets and craft guilds.<sup>62</sup> They unified groups of people into commonwealths or societies, whereby they could better police and govern the behaviour of their members. In the 7th edition of Edward Phillips famous dictionary *The New World of Words*, the terms 'community' and 'society' were described as 'a Corporation' or 'a Company of several persons' were people had 'in common, partnership… united in civil society for their mutual advantage' as well as being 'several persons joined together for some common interest'.<sup>63</sup> Similarly, William Sheppard highlighted how corporations 'fram'd' together men into a 'Body

<sup>58</sup> Philip J. Stern, '"A Politie of Civill & Military Power": Political Thought and the Late Seventeenth Century Foundations of the East India Company-State', *Journal of British Studies*, Vol. 47, No. 2 (2012), pp. 263–267, 283.

<sup>59</sup> Phil Withington, *The Politics of Commonwealth: Citizens and Freemen in Early Modern England* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 10.

<sup>60</sup> Robert Tittler, *The Reformation and Towns in England: Politics and Political Culture, c. 1540–1640* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 153.

<sup>61</sup> Thomas Wilson, *The State of England anno. dom. 1600*, ed. F. J. Fisher (London: Camden Misc, XVI, 1936), p. 20; Henry Manship, *The History of Great Yarmouth*, ed., Charles J. Palmer, (Great Yarmouth: L.A. Meall, 1854), p. 23.

<sup>62</sup> Withington, *Politics of Commonwealth*, p. 8.

<sup>63</sup> Edward Phillips, *New world of words* ed. John Kersey (1720), 'community', 'society'.

Politic'.<sup>64</sup> To early moderns, corporations were 'the best of Polities', as they ensured good government by policing the religious, political, commercial and social behaviour of their members.65 Alongside their civil characteristics, urbanised corporations were increasingly associated with the expansion of commerce, as economic independence allowed incorporated communities to regulate trade. The proliferation of corporations in this manner in the early modern period can be seen as a response by communities, as well as local and national authorities in England, to organise and govern over different aspects of society.

## A History of Corporate Religious Governance

Religion had long been and important history in the development of corporate life in overseas trading companies, having evolved out of a governmental tradition established by monastic corporations in the medieval period.<sup>66</sup> The medieval Church has been described as being made up of a 'network of corporate entities', which included dioceses, monasteries and cathedral chapters, all of which were defined by their members, and the 'web of individual rights' that had been granted to them and various ecclesiastical authorities by the papacy and crown.<sup>67</sup> These rights were not dissimilar to those granted to seventeenth-century urban and trading corporations by the crown and parliament.68 These connections were noted by many seventeenth-century political, legal and religious commentators. The famous jurist Edward Coke pointed out

<sup>64</sup> William Sheppard, *Of corporations, fraternities, and guilds. Or, a discourse, wherein the learning of the law touching bodies-politique is unfolded, shewing the use and necessity of that invention, that antiquity, various kinds, order and government of the same. Necessary to be known not only of all members and dependants of such bodies; but of all the professours of our common law. With forms and presidents, of charters of corporation* (London: 1659), p. 1.

<sup>65</sup> Ibid., pp. 1–3.

<sup>66</sup> For a more in-depth discussion of the work in this section, see Haig Smith, 'Religion'; Pettigrew and Veevers, *Corporations as Protagonists*, pp. 137–162.

<sup>67</sup> Charles Reid, '*Rights in Thirteenth-Century Canon Law: A Historical Investigation*' (unpublished PhD diss., Cornell University, 1995), p. 6; Bruce P. Frohnen, 'Individual and Group Rights: Self-Government and Claims of Right in Historical Practice', in Bruce P. Frohnen and Kenneth L. Grasso, eds., *Rethinking Rights: Historical, Political, and Philosophical Perspectives* (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2009), p. 111.

<sup>68</sup> Frohnen, 'Individual and Group Rights', pp. 112–115.

the connections between the corporation and '*Collegium* or *Universitas*', whilst others noted that Protestant—in particular Puritan—congregations were 'Distinct Corporations *or* Churches of *Christ*'.69 Even the EIC's agent in Madras, Streynsham Master, drew on this parallel, writing in 1668 that the government of the EIC factory should be 'more like unto the College, Monasteries or a house of Religion'.70 The ideas and structures of seventeenth-century overseas company governance developed within the merging language of religious and secular corporate structures. Their members joined together 'covenanting' and establishing bodies that were commercial congregations not dissimilar to those in a church. Whether merchants joined together in a trading company, or Puritans whose churches had 'Covenanted to be a Church Body', both formed social entities connected by the shared language of corporations and commerce. For example, one commentator described a church as a 'Company of Christians', whilst another explained the protestant community as sharing 'Joint-Stock of religion', in which all would 'bear a great adventure', both financial and spiritual.<sup>71</sup>

By understanding religious governance as a mechanism through which authorities directed and governed over peoples and overseas territories, we can better understand the eclectic but connected governmental characters, identities and styles that allowed a company to govern over 'its own employees and corporators'.72 Religious governance was not simply eclectic and innocuous but was carefully constructed as a means to establish, expand, enforce and regulate English authority across the globe. Through an assessment of how religious governance regulated interactions between religious communities under company control, we can recognise the role of numerous faiths in the development of English authority abroad, as well as attempts 'to incorporate… into their

<sup>69</sup> Edward Coke, *An Abridgement of the Lord Coke's commentary on* Littleton, (London: 1651), sect. 412, 413; L. F., *A speedy remedie against spirituall incontinencie Shewing it to be sinfull in any, to heare, a false ministrie. With a briefe description of a true Church of Christ* (Amsterdam: 1641); Stern, *Company-State*, p. 6.

<sup>70</sup> BL IOR EUR Mss E/210 Unsent letter by Streynsham Master.

<sup>71</sup> Ibid.; Samuel Kem, *An olive branch found after a storme in the northern seas. And presented to his Majesty in a sermon at the court in New-Castle* (London: 1647), p. 11.

<sup>72</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, p. 6; Edward Cavanagh, 'A Company with Sovereignty and Subjects of Its Own? The Case of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1670–1763', *Canadian Journal of Law and Society*, Vol. 61, No. 1 (2011), pp. 25–50.

own system' both English and indigenous peoples or 'corporators'.73 However, to understand the importance of the incorporation of various peoples into, and exclusion from, England's emerging colonial empire, emphasis needs to be placed on the 'corporate' identity and character of this expansion. The character of overseas government was formed through a dual process that involved various religious groups navigating the 'delicate balance of a strict hierarchy and consultative government' in companies that might facilitate or halt English expansion.74 At the same time, all English companies in the Mediterranean, as well as the Atlantic and Indian oceans, tried to regulate cross-cultural dialogues that could both enhance and damage their regional authority.

#### Religion in England

An important factor in the development of the authority in England's overseas companies was the religious identity of its members. The early Stuart Church in England was formed out of dispute and discussion in an 'arena of lay activism and, at least potentially heterodox, doctrinal debate'.<sup>75</sup> Just as in England, religious heterogeneity, dispute and denominational difference were commonplace characteristics of the English corporate communities abroad. Furthermore, the clergy in England 'were themselves deeply fragmented, and so could provide no uniformity to overseas ventures' and the 'English state' was also 'unable to express, impose or sustain any single religious settlement' abroad.76 This meant that although religion was 'consistently transported' abroad as a means to regulate the lives and behaviour of English and non-English peoples across the globe, its implementation was varied and diverse. It allowed for the successful creation of a Congregational theocracy in North East America whilst undermining the religious governance of other colonies. In India, Protestant diversity helped in the development of a policy of religious sufferance, although at the same time caused friction between factors who complain of 'confusion amongst ourselves' when it came to

<sup>73</sup> Karen Kupperman, *Indians & English: Facing Off in Early America* (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), p. 1.

<sup>75</sup> Peter Lake, *The Boxmaker's Revenge: 'Orthodoxy', 'Heterodoxy' and the Politics of the Parish in Early Stuart London* (Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001), p. 5.

<sup>76</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 253.

<sup>74</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, p. 11.

religious governance within the company's factories and proselytisation of the local peoples.77 This occurred in part due to the 'schismatic, and dispersed nature of religious settlement during decades of instability at home' being emulated abroad.78

Across England, the 'polyphony' of Protestant communities defined in differing ways how religion was to be governed. These communities contained, in varying degrees and sizes, the variety of factions that had developed in the Church of England through the years after the Reformation.<sup>79</sup> The fractured unity that defined the early Church of England was also mirrored in England's overseas trading companies.<sup>80</sup> Various groups lived and worshipped together as members of the Church of England (in its broadest definition), whilst sharing in the same communal debates surrounding the theology and the Church in England.81 Therefore, it is important to identify and outline the terms used in this work to describe these various religious groups and denominations who were, particularly, Conformist, Anglican, Nonconformist and Puritan.

Throughout this work, Conformist and Anglican are used interchangeably to refer to those individuals and groups who broadly remained and worked within the framework of the Church of England. Wary that the

<sup>77</sup> Streynsham Masters to Samuel Masters, 9 December 1678, in Michael Hunter, Antonio Clericuzio, and Lawrence M. Principe, eds., *The Correspondence of Robert Boyle, 1636–1691*, 6 vols. (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2004) VI: p. 446 (hereafter *BC*); Stern, *Company-State*, p. 111.

<sup>78</sup> Ibid.

<sup>79</sup> Peter Lake, 'Introduction: Puritanism, Arminianism and Nicholas Tyacke', Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, eds., *Religious Politics in Post-reformation England: Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tyacke* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2006), p. 12.

<sup>80</sup> Judith Maltby, 'From Temple to Synagogue: "Old" Conformity in the 1640's–1650's and the Case of Christopher Harvey', in Peter Lake and Michael Questier, eds., *Conformity and Orthodoxy in the English Church, c. 1560–1660* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2000), pp. 88–120.

<sup>81</sup> For the broad spectrum of Protestantism in seventeenth-century England, see also Peter Lake and Michael C. Questier, eds., *The Anti-Christ's Lewd Hat: Protestants, Papists and Players in Post-reformation England* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2002); Diarmaid MacCulloch, 'The Latitude of the Church of England', in *Religious Politics*, pp. 41–59; Paul Seaver. 'Puritan Preachers and their Patrons', in *Religious Politics*, pp. 128–142; Leo F. Solt, *Church and State in Early Modern England, 1509–1640* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp. 82–87. For a discussion of different strands of Puritanism and debate and discussion, see Randall J. Pederson, *Unity in Diversity: English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–1689* (Leiden: Brill, 2014).

term Anglicanism may obscure 'the firmly Reformed character of the Church of England' in the early modern era, this work uses the term to describe someone who represented or operated within the parameters of the Church of England between 1601 and 1660.<sup>82</sup> Unless stated otherwise, Anglican functions merely to differentiate from groups such as Congregationalists in the MBC, who to various degrees separated themselves from the broad religious community that the Church of England represented in this period.

Similarly, terms such as Nonconformist and Puritan are used interchangeably to refer to various groups who wished to either reform, or distance or separate themselves from, the theology and episcopal authority of the Church of England. These terms encompass the various Nonconformist Protestant groups that emerged during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers and Anabaptists. However, having illustrated the various groups mentioned, it is vital to stress that it is not always clear in the historical records to which group individuals belonged. The sheer variety of Protestant ideologies that arose in this period and their overlapping beliefs means it is often difficult to place an individual with any confidence.<sup>83</sup> For many of the individuals discussed in this book, these problems make it difficult, even impossible, to trace which specific group they belonged to, other than knowing that they were Nonconformists, Puritans or Conformists.

It is also worth pointing out that not all the individuals who can be labelled as Nonconformist and Puritan were schismatic. Many of the individuals in the MBC and PC were extreme examples of those groups of Nonconformists, who because of ecumenical, confessional and theological differences wished to separate entirely from the Church of England.<sup>84</sup> By separating from the Church of England and establishing their own Church governance, they highlight the adaptability of terms such as Conformist and Nonconformist in this period—those that separated from

<sup>82</sup> John Coffey and Paul C. H. Lim, 'Introduction', in Coffey and Lim, eds., *The Cambridge Companion to Puritanism* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 4.

<sup>83</sup> Natasha Glaisyer, *The Culture of Commerce in England, 1660–1720* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2006), pp. 74–75.

<sup>84</sup> Dewey D. Wallace Jr, 'Puritan Polemical Divinity and Doctrinal Controversy', in Coffey and Lim, *Puritanism*, pp. 206–222.

the Church of England became both Conformists to their own governing Church and Nonconformists to the English Church they left.<sup>85</sup> However, many Puritans in England's overseas companies remained within the fold of the Church of England. For example, George Downing, John Haynes and John Angier all returned to England after being ministers in the MBC and entered the Church of England, conforming to various degrees after the Restoration.86 Similarly, the early EIC chaplain, Patrick Copland, before becoming a Congregationalist in later life, preached to the company's personnel from an Episcopal background.<sup>87</sup> Likewise, several chaplains in the VC, such as Alexander Whitaker and Richard Buck, although harbouring Puritan sympathies, still administered to their congregations as members of the Church of England.88

When defined within the complex layering of religious life in seventeenth-century England, the various terms—Nonconformist, Anglican, Conformist and Puritan—emphasise the cacophony of religious voices and the 'tell-tale signs of contest and anxiety' in English communities both in England and abroad during this period.89 By understanding these terms within the framework of English overseas companies, we can see how English religious identity influenced global expansion. Terms such as Nonconformist, Anglican, Conformist and Puritan not only highlight how ideas of conformity and nonconformity evolved across the

<sup>86</sup> William L. Sachse, 'The Migration of New Englanders to England, 1640–1660', *The American Historical Review*, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1948); R. C. Richardson, *Puritanism in North West England: A Regional Study of the Diocese of Chester to 1642* (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1972), pp. 42–43, 50–51, 98, 104, 113; Susan Hardman Moore, *Pilgrims: New World Settlers & the Call of Home* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 2007), pp. 70, 138–139, 145, 153, 159, 163.

<sup>87</sup> Samuel Hugh Moffett, *A History of Christianity in Asia 1500–1900*, 2 vols. (Ossining: Oribis Books 2007), II: p. 237.

<sup>88</sup> Philip L. Barbour, *Pocahontas and Her World* (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970), p. 133; David Hackett Fischer, *Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), p. 233.

<sup>89</sup> Lake, 'Anti-Puritanism: The Structure of a Prejudice', in Fincham and Lake, eds., *Religious Politics in Post-Reformation England* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell and Brewer, 2006), p. 90.

<sup>85</sup> For a discussion of how conformity evolved and adapted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Fincham, 'Clerical Conformity from Whitgift to Laud', in Lake and Questier, *Conformity and Orthodoxy*, pp. 125–157; Lake, 'Moving the Goal Posts? Modified Subscription and the Construction of Conformity in the Early Stuart Church', in *Conformity and Orthodoxy*, pp. 179–205.

century, but also how they were influenced by foreign experiences as well as shaped them. Religious governance was not a black-and-white story that involved the successful exportation and imposition of a uniform order. Instead, it was a patchwork of authorities within which religion and religious divisions shaped the character and style of government. Experiences of overseas expansion and the evolution of religious governance and life differed not only in the East and the West but also within these geographies. Broadly, the two geographies can be split into two categories of influence: panoptic and intramural. In North East America, the experiences of those in the MBC in shaping their religious ideas and politics were panoptic. Those who migrated to Massachusetts and New England established their own government, ecumenical order, militias, ecclesiologies and educational institutions and subsequently sought to export them abroad. Their experience of establishing a 'godly republic' was panoptic in its vision, hoping to influence wholesale religious and political change on both sides of the Atlantic.90 Unlike the MBC, those involved in the EIC and the LC saw their experiences influence change in a more inconspicuous manner, shaping ideas in educational and ecclesiastical institutions in England rather than influencing wider political religious life. The intramural influence of the LC and EIC was based on the experiences of those who went abroad in their service; through their encounters with other faiths and cultures, as well as their intellectual pursuits, they guided, to various degrees, policies and initiatives in various institutions. Although not as all-encompassing as the panoptic vision of the MBC, the intramural influence of the experiences of those in the EIC and LC was no less important in shaping change in England.

An assessment of these overseas corporate communities clarifies our understanding of Protestant division and unity and how it impacted governance abroad in this period. As Alison Games has commented, the overseas companies provided an arena in which religious governance could be conducted through 'heterogeneity, dispute, [and] experimentation'.<sup>91</sup> Overseas companies became the structural frameworks that implemented political, academic and social debates surrounding religion overseas and connected these debates and experiments with England.

<sup>90</sup> Michael P. Winship, *Godly Republicanism: Puritans, Pilgrims, and a City on a Hill* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012).

<sup>91</sup> Games, *The Web of Empire*, p. 253.

For example, in New England, seventeenth-century corporate ideas about religious governance overseas had their foundations in the domestic debates on the relationship between the Church and the English state. Recent discussions concerning the dynamic between English expansion overseas and the debates surrounding the monarchy, the Church and state, the episcopacy, sacraments and religious liberty have often focused on the Atlantic world. Described as an 'umbilical connection', the focus in much of the literature has been on the manner in which the English, within a broad spectrum of Protestantism, were able to act upon religious debates in England whilst expanding across the Atlantic.<sup>92</sup> However, notably lost in the discussions on the religious debates in the Atlantic world is the influence of the corporate structure that was key to the establishment of many of these religious polities.

Meanwhile, those individuals who travelled eastward became part of small but diverse Protestant communities that were microcosms of English religious life. These communities, whether on ships, in factories or in towns, took with them the same doctrinal and political debates mirroring religious life at home.<sup>93</sup> For instance, on one occasion an EIC chaplain was accused of being in 'contempt of the public service of God' for refusing to preach from the Book of Common Prayer.94 Although working within religiously pluralistic environments, officials perceived the cause of many of their religious concerns to be Protestant diversity. Officials protested that the divergent Protestant theologies represented amongst the companies' personnel, especially their ministers, impeded any opportunity to evangelise in the religiously cosmopolitan environments in which they operated.<sup>95</sup> The diverse religious environments that company

<sup>92</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*, p. 46; *Making Heretics: Militant Protestantism and Free Grace in Massachusetts, 1636–1641* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002); Winship, 'Godly Republicanism and the Origins of the Massachusetts Polity', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 63, No. 3 (2006), pp. 427–462; J. S. Maloy, *The Colonial American Origins of Modern Democratic Thought* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008)*.*

<sup>93</sup> Daniel Goffman, *Britons in the Ottoman Empire 1642–1660* (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1998), p. 5.

<sup>94</sup> William Foster, ed., *The English Factories in India 1618–1669*, 13 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1906–27), XIII: p. 284.

<sup>95</sup> Streynsham Masters to Samuel Masters, 9 December, 1678, *BC*, VI: p. 446; The Earl of Winchilsea to the Earl of Southampton, August 13, 1664, *Report on the Manuscripts of Allan George Finch*, Vol. I (London: H.M. Stationery Office, 1913), p. 326 (hereafter *Finch Mss.*); Stern, *Company-State*, pp. 110–11.

personnel operated in provided intellectual links between faiths, helping to form networks that connected English religious and political leaders to their eastern counterparts. For example, personnel in the LC acted as intermediaries and interlocutors between the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church. Likewise, the EIC brokered diplomatic exchanges with the Armenian traders and other religious communities in India.96 Chaplains, and others, further connected England to the outside world and to the religious communities in its emerging colonial empire by writing about their experiences, producing pamphlets, tracts and books in which they described the various religious communities and forms of religious government they encountered.<sup>97</sup> These works not only introduced a domestic audience to new forms of religious authority foreign to English readers, but also engineered a 'new global geography of empire' that centred on developing forms of English colonial governance.<sup>98</sup>

## The Company Chaplain

Central to understanding the development of religious governance in England's overseas companies is recognising the figure of the company chaplain. Through their various responsibilities, whether teaching, preaching, advising, policing or writing, chaplains were figures that influenced almost every aspect of daily life, both in and outside England. As

<sup>97</sup> For works relating to the religious knowledge exchange, see Henry Lord, *A display of two forraigne sects in the East Indies vizt: the sect of the Banians the ancient natives of India and the sect of the Persees the ancient inhabitants of Persia· together with the religion and maners of each sect collected into two bookes* (London: 1630); William Biddulph, *The travels of certaine Englishmen into Africa, Asia, Troy, Bythinia, Thracia, and the Blacke Sea And into Syria, Cilicia, Psidia, Mesopotamia, Damascus*, *Canaan, Galile, Samria, Judea, Palestina, Jerusalem, Jericho, and to the Red Sea: and to sundry other places. Begunne in the yeare jubile 1600* (London: 1609). For the theories of knowledge exchange and the establishment of political power in England seventeenth-century companies, see Miles Ogborn, *Indian Ink: Script and Print in the Making of the English East India Company* (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007); Haig Smith, 'Risky Business: The Seventeenth-Century English Company Chaplain, and Policing Interaction and Knowledge Exchange', *Journal of Church and State,* Vol. 60, No. 2 (2018), pp. 226–247.

<sup>98</sup> Ogborn, *Indian Ink*, p. 22.

<sup>96</sup> R. W. Ferrier, 'The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries', *The Economic History Review*, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), pp. 38–62.

historians have pointed out, early modern chaplains 'were the versatile, ubiquitous … supporting actors of early modern cultural life'.99 However, studies of the early modern period have often considered them marginal figures due to 'their sheer ubiquity', combined with a 'relative invisibility in the formal record, and performance of very diverse roles'.100 As important figures in households, embassies, royal courts, universities and overseas companies, chaplains could exert influence at almost every level of English society, enjoying 'a surprisingly extensive degree of influence and agency'.101 This is particularly the case for chaplains in England's overseas companies, who were influential figures in framing, enforcing and expanding English religious, commercial, diplomatic and eventually political authority abroad.

England's overseas companies recognised the importance and influence of chaplains in their organisations, implementing strict selection processes for the position to ensure the right individuals took on the responsibility. In the EIC, LC and VC, most vacancies arose when the incumbent chaplain returned or requested to return home, was ill or, as was often the case, died. Occasionally, in the case of the LC, chaplains would return home with the ambassador. Once the company received news of a vacant position, they would advertise the post, sometimes sending letters to the universities of both Oxford and Cambridge.102 Candidates would then apply or make themselves known to directors for support, a practice that lasted throughout the history of the EIC.

In the EIC and VC, two to three candidates were selected—and in the LC often as many as four or five—to give a sermon before the company members.<sup>103</sup> These sermons were occasionally open to the

<sup>99</sup> Hugh Adlington, Thomas Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, 'Introduction', in Hugh Adlington, Thomas Lockwood, and Gillian Wright, eds., *Chaplains in Early Modern England: Patronage, Literature and Religion* (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2013), p. 8.

<sup>100</sup> Fincham, 'The Roles an Influence of Household Chaplains, c. 1600-c. 1660', in Adlington, Lockwood, and Wright, *Chaplains in Early Modern England*, p. 11.

<sup>101</sup> Adlington, Lockwood, and Wright, 'Introduction', in Adlington, Lockwood, and Wright, *Chaplains in Early Modern England*, p. 4.

<sup>102</sup> Daniel O'Connor, *The Chaplains of the East India Company 1601–1858* (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2012), p. 17.

<sup>103</sup> BL IOR B/5 24 March, 1613; Simon Mills, *A Commerce of Knowledge: Trade, Religion, and Scholarship between England and the Ottoman Empire, c. 1600–1760* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 19–25; John B. Pearson, *A Biographical Sketch of* public and were often very popular. In 1662, Samuel Pepys, although himself dismissive of the sermon, described seeing 'many strangers and coaches coming to our church' because a sermon was 'to be preached by a probationer of the Turkey Company, to be sent to Smyrna'.<sup>104</sup> On most occasions, the company chose the text for these sermons, and although it has been suggested that they 'do not demonstrate any clear connection to the unique trials of ministering overseas', they often focused on proselytising or regionally specific issues concerning apostasy or in the case of the Levant, Christian enslavement.<sup>105</sup> For example, the LC set one candidate 1 Peter 3:19: 'By the which he also went, and preached unto the spirits that are in prison', a possible metaphor for a 'spiritual' prison regarding the Islamic faith of the people of the Ottoman empire, as well as a reference to the many Europeans who were enslaved by pirates and others in the Mediterranean. In 1622, the VC 'appointed' Mr. Leat Isaiah 9:2: 'The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they dwelled in the land of shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined'.<sup>106</sup> However, occasionally candidates, such as John Covel, were allowed (in this case by the LC) to select their own texts.107 Impressive sermons were often printed at the expense of the company; the LC on fifteen occasions provided the £5 for the printing of 500 copies of the sermon.108 The purpose of these sermons was to assess the ability of the candidate to administer to the English communities abroad. Many years after he had given his trial sermon before the LC, the then Bishop of Gloucester, Robert Frampton, was said to have recalled that its purpose was to provide 'a specimen of his ability to instruct young

*Chaplains to the Levant Company, Maintained at Constantinople, Aleppo and Smyrna, 1611–1706* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1883), p. 9; Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 225.

<sup>104</sup> R. Latham and W. Mathews, eds., *The Diary of Samuel Pepys*, 11 vols. (London: Bell & Hyman, 1970–84), III: pp. 259–260.

<sup>105</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 225.

<sup>106</sup> Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 71; 'At A Court Held for Virginia', 16 January, 1621, in Susan Myra Kingsbury, ed., *The Records of the Virginia Company of London: The Court Book, From the Manuscripts in the Library of Congress*, 4 vols. (Washington, VA: Government Printing Office, 1906–1935), I: p. 575 (hereafter *RVC*).

<sup>107</sup> Eliab Harvey to John Covel, 17 March, 1669, BL Add. Ms 22910 f.19; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 71.

<sup>108</sup> Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 73; Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 225.

men of which the factory generally consists'.109 The trial sermons, or 'Rehearsal Sermons' as the VC styled them, were a major part in the selection of ministers in the VC, LC and EIC during the seventeenth century. However, in the EIC this changed with the 1698 charter, which, instead of a sermon, required that a minister had the approval of the Bishop of London and be licensed.110

For most of the history of the EIC and LC in the seventeenth century, denominational affiliation, although a concern, did not impact on the selection or choice of ministers. In the case of the EIC, this was most probably a policy of necessity to fill positions falling vacant due to the high mortality rate. Of the 99 known chaplains sent out through the seventeenth century, approximately 26% died either en route to or in India.<sup>111</sup> As will be discussed, this did not stop company leaders from complaining about the presence of Nonconformist groups. However, despite occasional grumbling, for much of the seventeenth century EIC officials recognised the necessity of filling chaplains' positions, and so were willing to turn a blind eye to denominational difference. On the other hand, the LC's relationship with Protestant heterogeneity was often determined by internal political and religious conflict, making chaplain selection slightly more complex. At various points, the company became a hotbed of support for the Nonconformist or ultra-Conformist causes. This was often to do with who was in power in England and how it affected the leadership of the company both at home and abroad. During the Interregnum, the LC became a haven for chaplains who had been royalist supporters, and following the Restoration, it similarly harboured a small group of vocal Nonconformists.112 For both companies, the denominational leaning of their leadership was often reflected in the selection of chaplains. However, successful selection often came down to the ability and reputation of the candidate rather than their theological affiliation, as the companies were often keen to fill positions quickly.

<sup>109</sup> T. Simpson Evans, ed., *The Life of Robert Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester* (London: Longmans, 1876), p. 23 (hereafter *LRF* ).

<sup>110</sup> Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 74; O'Connor, *Chaplains*, p. 18.

<sup>111</sup> Figures calculated from S. J. McNally, *The Chaplains of the East India* Company (London: India Office Records, 1976).

<sup>112</sup> Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 74; Gary de Krey, *A Fractured Society: Politics of London in the First Age of Party, 1688–1715* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), p. 102.

Another way in which the EIC, LC and VC assessed the ability of candidates was through detailed testimonials from senior ministers and other notable referees. Although not always true, the aim of these testimonials was to find out if the candidates were men of 'known Ability, Orthodox in Religion, and well affected to the present Government' and if their qualities included learning, sobriety, orthodoxy and piety.<sup>113</sup> For example, Mr Robert Staples, a minister in London, applied to the VC with testimonials 'from many Divines resident in this City', claiming that he was 'of honest conversation and a good Scholar'.114 One EIC applicant in 1614 despite being 'no great scholar' was given a position because testimonies described him as an 'esteemed and honest man and a good teacher'.115 In the LC and EIC, following the trial sermons, these testimonials were read out before the members of the company present at a General Court, following which a vote was cast by a show of hands and eventually a chaplain was selected to administer to the company's personnel abroad.<sup>116</sup> This process was not always successful in selecting the right candidate, as occasionally the company officials received information showing that the chaplain did not live up to their standards. In 1617, EIC officials in England were horrified to receive information that their selection for a chaplain to spar with the Jesuits at Surat had turned out to have the 'most licentious, ungodly liver' and that he preferred 'his epicurism, drunkenness and intolerable insolent pride before the divine worship of God'.117 Similarly, in 1607 the LC warned Mr. Biddulph, their chaplain at Aleppo, that he was too argumentative and threatened him with dismissal.<sup>118</sup> Although the individual company archives do contain accounts of rogue chaplains, they make up only a small number of cases.

<sup>113</sup> The National Archives, Kew, (hereafter TNA) SP 105/156 f.90; Company to Consul Rycaut, 1 Sept 1670; TNA SP 105/113, f. 119r; William Hussey and others to Consul Metcalf, June 1688, TNA SP 105/114, f.432; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 74.

<sup>114</sup> 'Meeting of the Committee 30 October, 1621', *RVC*, I: p. 544.

<sup>115</sup> Court Minutes of the East India Company, 27 January, 1614, *Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: East Indies, China and Japan, 1617–1621*, ed. W. Noel Sainsbury (London Her Majesty's Public Record Office, 1870), p. 273 (hereafter *CSP East*).

<sup>116</sup> TNA SP 105/152 f.241; SP 105/154 f.270; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 72.

<sup>117</sup> Attestations against William Leske, minister to the English factory at Surat, 8 January, 1617, *CSP East*, p. 9.

<sup>118</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 226.

However, this small number of cases illustrates the importance that the company placed in carefully selecting chaplains to go abroad to ensure that they carried out their important responsibilities diligently.

Alongside ability and reputation, there were several other deciding factors that company officials considered when selecting chaplains; these included their age, marital status and education. Age was often a concern as company officials worried about the 'gravity' of the individuals they sent out.119 One EIC candidate was rejected due to his age as the company believed that it would be 'unsavoury to have a young man reprove ancient men, especially of such vices as may reign in themselves'.120 Similarly, there was no firm marital policy in any company, although most successful candidates tended not to be married. However, in one case in the EIC, a married candidate was successful, as he informed the court that he wished to distance himself from his wife. He confessed openly to the company that 'his chief cause desiring this employment' was that his wife was 'a woman whose life and conversation is incompatible and not to be endured and with whom he never intends to have any conversation or fellowship'.121 Another factor in the selection of chaplains was their education. In most cases, successful candidates were educated at the universities of Oxford or Cambridge. In the LC, approximately 14% of the chaplains sent out held Bachelor of Divinity degrees and 32% held or would go on to hold doctorates in divinity, well above the average for local parish ministers in England.122

The selection of religious personnel in the MBC shared some similarities with its counterparts in the East; however, choosing a minister remained firmly in the hands of individual church congregations. Unlike in the EIC and LC, where the company conducted the selection of the chaplain, church congregations elected ministers in the MBC. This had its foundations in the Nonconformist traditions that the MBC members rigidly enforced in Massachusetts. However, the process, which involved a sermon and religious testimony, shared some similarities with the corporate trial sermons of the EIC and LC. Unlike its counterparts in the East who selected religious personnel back in England, the founding

<sup>120</sup> Quoted in O'Connor, *Chaplains*, p. 18.

<sup>122</sup> Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 71.

<sup>119</sup> 12 January 1608, BL IOR B/3, f. 70*vr*.

<sup>121</sup> Court Minutes of the East India Company, 5 January 1629, *CSP East*, pp. 603–604.

of Harvard College allowed the MBC to educate and train religious personnel locally, although they would first have to receive a bachelor's degree before being offered any theological training.<sup>123</sup> The anonymous author of *New England's First Fruits* recalled how the MBC in its early days 'longed for' educated ministers to 'advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity', dreading that if they did not do so they would 'leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches, when our present Ministers shall lie in the Dust'.124 This served two purposes: first, in theory, it secured a constant supply of religious personnel, although this was not always the case. Second, it was a way of maintaining religious uniformity, an issue that plagued the selection of chaplains in England's eastern companies. However, despite establishing several fellowships and other financial and social incentives for Harvard graduates to stay in Massachusetts, it often proved hard for the MBC to prevent these godly young men from migrating to England to minister there.125 For the MBC, the selection of religious ministers was an equally important task and required a rigorous system of selection. Although the process of selection in the company had different foundations to its eastern brethren, they shared similar characteristics. Moreover, MBC ministers and EIC, VC and LC chaplains all shared the same responsibilities: they policed and governed the companies' members, providing spiritual and social security to their communities.

The position of a company chaplain carried with it several spiritual, financial and professional incentives that were attractive to certain groups of people. In the MBC, the incentive was the establishment and maintenance of a godly republic. Those who wished to be ministers in the company's jurisdictions shared the members' Congregationalist faith in which the project had its religious foundations. Throughout the century, many chose to migrate to Massachusetts and administer to the Church there for religious and political reasons, often fleeing what they believed to be persecution in England, to engage in a godly project across the

<sup>124</sup> Anonymous, *New England's First Fruits* (London: 1643) quoted in ibid., p. 325. <sup>125</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 75, 82, 92, 103.

<sup>123</sup> Mark A. Peterson, 'Puritanism and Refinement in Early New England: Reflections on Communion Silver', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 58, No. 2 (2001), pp. 325– 326; Samuel Eliot Morison, *The Founding of Harvard College* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), p. 8.

Atlantic.126 There was not always a uniform migration of ministers to New England, and the MBC reacted harshly, punishing and often banishing anyone who wished to preach a doctrine that was not in line with their own theology. Throughout its history, the MBC used banishment to 'keep their community free from undesirables', but this proved futile in ensuring religious and social unity. Between 1630 and 1631, Boston, Salem and Charlestown alone banished 1.4% of their combined population. This included the merchant Thomas Morton, a drunkard named Thomas Grey and Henry Lynn, who was given the sentence for 'writing into England falsely and maliciously against the government'.127

In the case of the EIC and LC, there were also more temporal incentives for individuals to seek employment as chaplains in overseas commercial companies. Firstly, the pay was attractive, often as good if not better than a parish living. For much of the century, pay varied between £50 and £100 a year, in addition to accommodation and often a stipend to acquire books and other materials.<sup>128</sup> In the English communities abroad, this positioned them as second only to the president or chief factor of the factory, above factors, surgeons and others. In the EIC, chaplains although unable to trade privately, could invest in the joint stock, whilst in the LC they could invest and trade, and often did so with great success.129 According to his biographer, Edward Smyth, whilst chaplain in Smyrna between 1689 and 1692, was involved in successfully trading in the company, so much so that he made 'great Advancement of his Private Fortune'.<sup>130</sup> A chaplaincy in England's overseas companies also offered individuals such as Edward Pococke, Robert Huntington and Henry Lord the ability to engage in academic pursuits and establish

<sup>126</sup> Ibid., pp. 16–31; T. H. Breen, *Puritans and Adventurers: Change and Persistence in Early America* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), pp. 9–13.

<sup>127</sup> Nan Goodman, 'Banishment, Jurisdiction, and Identity in Seventeenth-Century New England: The Case of Roger Williams', *Early American Studies*, Vol. 7, No. 1 (2009), pp. 109–110.

<sup>128</sup> TNA, SP 105/148, f. 219; Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 22; O'Connor, *Chaplains*, pp. 18–19; A. C. Wood, *A History of the Levant Company* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935), pp. 222–223.

<sup>129</sup> O'Connor, *Chaplains*, p. 19; TNA SP 105/156, p. 175.

<sup>130</sup> Quoted in Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 77.

contacts that would advance their own interests.131 As one LC chaplain wrote, 'I am confident that there are no such advantages for study to any other Englishmen abroad in all the world, as I have here'.132 Through their positions as company chaplains, many an individual gained 'access to networks of power at an early stage of his career', and in doing so they gained patrons and contacts across the globe that would later help them advance their own careers.133 Many individuals saw the position of company chaplain and the governmental opportunities it provided as a chance to advance their own professional and financial standing positively, whether this was in politics, the army, academia or the Church.

Despite their differences, it was through the interactions with local peoples and the possibilities of evangelism that chaplains in all of England's overseas companies were connected by a similar spiritual incentive. From America to India, Japan to the Middle East, non-Christian peoples provided a religious incentive for some chaplains to go abroad and spread the gospel. Although the zeal for this cause varied across the century, it was for some individuals and companies an incentive that remained throughout this period.

## Conclusion

By understanding the role of religious governance in policing the behaviour of English corporate 'congregations' overseas, we can trace the evolution and connection between ideas of authority, identity and government in England's emerging colonial empire. This book places the development of religious governance in overseas corporations at the centre of early modern ideas of English empire and colonisation. It assesses how each corporation refined ideas of authority, offering an account of the varied and complex experiments that influenced the multifarious directions of English governmental expansion.

Starting in 1601 with the chartering of the EIC and ending before the 1698 chartering of the new EIC and Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, this book covers almost the entire seventeenth century,

<sup>131</sup> Adlington, Lockwood, and Wright, 'Introduction', in *Chaplains in Early Modern England*, p. 4. See also Chapter 4.

<sup>132</sup> Quoted in Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 77.

<sup>133</sup> Adlington, Lockwood, and Wright, 'Introduction', in *Chaplains in Early Modern England*, p. 4.

offering an in-depth analysis of the global development of English governance in its emerging colonial empire. Although it does not cover every English overseas company active in this period, or every form of colonial settlement, it does provide a new way of understanding government formation and corporate identity in the early modern era. It also shows how religious governance shaped the behaviour of English expansion in the seventeenth century. Moreover, the religious, cultural and diplomatic interactions between English and non-English communities across the globe are traced, as is also the manner in which they informed the development and character of governance in England's early colonial empire. By doing so, this volume highlights new ways of understanding English officials' efforts to globally regulate the behaviour of their personnel, as well as their efforts to incorporate non-English people into English governmental control. This approach straddles boundaries, integrating the experiences of various individuals and communities into the governmental history of the early English empire, accentuating how they instructed each other in the construction of colonial governmental identity in England's early empire.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## The Virginia Company and the Foundations of Religious Governance in English Commercial Expansion

Published by the Council of Virginia, three years after the VC had established Jamestown in 1607, *A true and sincere declaration* was the first of many attempts by the company's leadership to appeal to the public for support.<sup>1</sup> The governors of the company led by John Smith declared the company's mission and its 'Principal and Main Ends' were to 'preach, & baptise into Christian Religion' the local Native American, in particular Algonquin, population.<sup>2</sup> Although religious evangelism had been factored into the founding mission of the VC, after three difficult years it became an important element in securing support for the company in England. The first three years of the settlement's existence had been disastrous: drought, starvation and poor relations with local Native Americans had led to 80% of the first settlers dying. Investors in England were frustrated by the lack of any financial return on their speculative investments, and supporters of overseas expansion were concerned by the company's failure to establish a secure settlement. Despite the dire experiences of

<sup>1</sup> *A true and sincere declaration of the purpose and ends of the plantation begun in Virginia of the degrees which it hath received; and meanes by which it hath beene advanced: and the resolution and conclusion of his Majesties councel of that colony, for the constant and patient prosecution thereof, untill by the mercies of God it shall retribute a fruitful harvest to the kingdome of heaven, and this common-wealth* (London: 1610).

<sup>2</sup> Ibid., p. 2.

© The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_2

37

the settlers, the tract's authors sought to reassure supporters in England that the company could succeed. Its authors believed success could only be achieved when the VC leaders and backers established Protestant religious governance in Virginia, thereby striving for a *'Religious* and *Noble*, and *Feasible* end'.<sup>3</sup>

For the leaders of the VC who published *A true and sincere declaration*, religious governance provided a model of governmental authority that framed how the company, its personnel and the polities that they controlled behaved. Moreover, in England, the religious mission of the VC reinforced what was perceived to be the nations, and thereby the company's spiritual and missionary destiny in America and subsequently was it 'principal means of promotion' for the whole Virginia enterprise.4 Investigating England's first company to have colonial control over a territory outside of the British Isles, this chapter develops our understanding of Protestant evangelism as a governmental tool to control behaviour, as well as defining the early development of English government abroad and Anglo-indigenous interactions both before and after 1624.<sup>5</sup> Furthermore, it highlights how governance could be used as a tool to evangelise, fulfilling not only worldly goals but also advancing

<sup>3</sup> Ibid., p. 1.

<sup>4</sup> Andrew Fitzmaurice, '"Every Man, That Prints, Adventures": The Rhetoric of the Virginia Company Sermons', in Lori Anne Ferrell and Peter McCullough, eds., *The English Sermon Revised: Religion, Literature and history 1600–1750* (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 24. The link between sermons, evangelism, public support and the financial success of the VC in England has been well examined by historians; see Francisco J. Borge, 'Prayer for Purses: The Rhetoric of Compensation in the Virginia Company Sermons', *Prose Studies: History, theory, Criticism*, Vol. 32, No. 3 (2010), pp. 204–220.

<sup>5</sup> Edward L. Bond, *Damned Souls in a Tobacco Colony: Religion in Seventeenth-Century Virginia* (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000), p. 76; David R. Ransome, 'Pocahontas and the Mission to the Indians', *Virginia Magazine of History and Biography*, Vol. 99, No. 1 (1991), pp. 81–94; Helen C. Rountree, *Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough: Three Indian Lives Changed* (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006); Kupperman, *Facing Off* ; Kupperman, *Settling with the Indians: The Meeting of English and Indian Cultures in America, 1580–1640* (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1980); Armitage, *Ideological*, pp. 62–67, 83–84, 91–96; David Sacks Harris, 'Discourses of Western Planting: Richard Hakluyt and the Making of The Atlantic World', in Peter Mancall, ed., *The Atlantic World and Virginia, 1550–1624* (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007), pp. 410–453; Borge, 'We (Upon Peril of My Life) Shall Make the Spaniard Ridiculous to All Europe: Richard Haklut's 'Discourse' of Spain', in Daniel Carey and Claire Jowitt, eds., *Richard Hakluyt and Travel Writing in Early Modern Europe* (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 167–176.

spiritual aims. Instead of focusing on the intense factionalism that plagued the company's leadership and government in London, the chapter investigates the company's government in Virginia.<sup>6</sup> Through an analysis of the surviving charters and other institutional documents, it highlights how the VC in Virginia was successful in developing a consistent governmental identity. It discusses how the need to populate their settlements encouraged the swift development of strict religious laws and codes for the pastoral policing of unruly English populations and local peoples. It also examines the role of evangelism as a policy that was enacted in opposition to the spread of Catholicism and Iberian power in the Atlantic. Furthermore, it traces the expansion of the company's jurisdiction over Native American populations through religious governance, whilst ensuring continued financial, spiritual and political support in England. Moreover, the chapter explores the organisation and formation of the Church and evangelism in Virginia and how educational programmes in these environments monitored behaviour and conversion.

For many of those involved in either the spiritual or the temporal aims of the company (or both), their success was ensured through the adoption of religious control over both goals. The VC was foundational to the establishment of English governance abroad, marking the first moment that English overseas companies would be employed to control territory overseas as well as use religion to secure their positions at home and abroad. Chartered for commerce whilst also regulating the behaviour of English people abroad, the formation and development of the VC marked a moment in which corporations began to claim authority over the daily lives of English and local communities overseas.

## Protestant Evangelisms in Opposition to Catholicism

From the late sixteenth century onwards, English expansionist policy had for the most part been centred on Protestant and Catholic religious

<sup>6</sup> Smith, *Merchants*, pp. 57–95; Theodore Rabb, *Jacobean Gentleman: Sir Edwin Sandys, 1561–1629* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), pp. 353–386; Robert Brenner, *Merchants and Revolution: Commercial Change, Political Conflict, and London's Overseas Traders, 1550–1653* (New York, NJ: Verso, 2003), pp. 100–105; W.F. Craven, *Dissolution of the Virginia Company: the failure of a colonial experiment* (New York, 1932).

tensions as England and its Iberian competitors competed for supremacy in the Atlantic. These moments of expansion included aggressive policies of internal colonisation in Ireland and the Highlands, buccaneering against Spanish shipping, and small privately funded colonial attempts in North and South America. During the sixteenth century, English overseas expansion had remained somewhat small scale. Even if the charting of the Muscovy and Levant Companies is included as the high point of English commercial expectations in this period, the reality was that they would not be formidable commercial entities until the following century. The focus of English and Scottish expansion in this period had been internal, as both the Tudors and the Stuarts had sought to secure their internal frontiers in both Ireland and the Highlands. In doing so, Protestant monarchs, and the governments of the two kingdoms, believed they were combating the threat of a Catholic menace dangerously close to their shores. Similarly, Elizabethan foreign policy was centred on the legally sanctioned piracy against Spain and Portugal.

James, upon ascending the English throne brought to the table ideas that he had cultivated in Scotland, in his attempts to tame Gaeldom; these concerned the use of religious governance to ensure the successful transportation of Anglo-centric authority abroad. In doing so, James framed English expansion within an international dialogue that pitched of 'Protestant godliness against Catholic ungodliness'.7 Early imperial theorists such as Hakluyt and Purchas were 'propagandists for militant Protestantism', who argued for an English equivalent to Spanish colonisation in the Atlantic, as a means to enhance the standing of Protestant rulers.8 Richard Hakluyt the Elder had advocated this as one of the reasons for overseas expansion, writing that it was a national obligation for 'Princes of the reformed religion' to spread the Protestant faith

<sup>7</sup> Alison Cathcart, 'Scots and Ulster: The Late Medieval Context', in William P. Kelly and John R. Young, eds., *Scotland and the Ulster Plantations: Explorations in the British Settlements of Stuart Ireland* (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2009), p. 72.

<sup>8</sup> Nicholas Canny, 'The Origins of Empire: An Introduction', in Canny, William Roger Louis, and Alaine M. Low, eds., *The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Origins of Empire* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 4; Richard Hakluyt, *Divers Voyages Touchinge the Discoverie of America* (London: 1582); Richard Hakluyt, *A Particular Discourse Concerninge the Greate Necessitie and Manifolde Commodyties that are Like to Growe to this Realme of Englande by the Weasterne Discoveries Lately Attempted… Known as Discourse of Western Planting* (London: 1584); Samuel Purchas, *His Pilgrimes*.

abroad.<sup>9</sup> In doing so the English would prevent the spread of Catholicism and with it the territorial advances of Spain and Portugal across the globe. This would not only increase the international prestige of the English monarch and nation, but would also maintain their 'providential role… to defend the achievements of the Reformation and to oppose the power of Spain, which was identified as the bulwark of papist superstition, both in Europe and beyond'.<sup>10</sup> Expansion overseas and religion had long been firmly connected, mutually encouraging each other, whilst also enhancing national prestige. However, James's accession to the English throne secured the status of religious governance as a tool for the spread of English authority and civility overseas.

Through the VC charters, the propagation of Protestantism and the desire to establish English authority permanently abroad meant that governance, specifically religious, became a crucial tool of corporate expansion overseas. In the 1606 charter, the company was considered a means to spread the Protestant religion 'to such people' who were perceived to be living 'in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God'.11 Moreover, it could also be used to establish and embed English authority over those who conventionally lay beyond the jurisdiction of the English state. Similarly, the VC's second charter (1609) called for the 'Conversion and Reduction of the People in those Parts unto the true Worship of God and Christian Religion'.12 By establishing English religious governance in Virginia, the company would prevent 'the Superstitions of the Church of Rome' and Catholic nations from establishing further footholds in America.13 James believed that by settling Protestantism in America they would in time convert 'the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts' and in doing so bring them 'to human Civility'.14 As the preacher Robert Gray declared, it was the duty of the English 'to bring the barbarous and savage people to a civil and Christian kind of government'.15 The company's understanding of civility was


<sup>9</sup> Hakluyt, *Western Planting*.

<sup>10</sup> Canny, 'Introduction', in *Origins of Empire*, p. 20.

<sup>11</sup> *The First Virginia Company Charter* (1606).

<sup>15</sup> Robert Gray, *A good speed to Virginia* (1609), sig. C2r.

part of a two-pronged mission, the first to advance Christianity and the second to establish English authority, thereby ensuring Native Americans was 'subject to a civil authority' that was recognisably English and Protestant.<sup>16</sup> Native Americans' incivility was defined by their lack of faith and poor use of the land they had been given in abundance. Thus, English colonisation and the process of imparting civility were presented as a form of economic, spiritual and social exchange. Although one-sided, this exchange was defined by the fact that 'the Indian has had an excess of land but lacked faith and civility, whilst the English had faith and civility to spare but not enough land'.<sup>17</sup> Civility in Virginia was tied to both religion and the land; preachers such as William Crashaw could argue at once that 'we will take nothing from the savages by power nor pillage' and that they would 'take from them only that they may spare us: first, their superfluous land, secondly their superfluous commodities'.18 This transaction was distorted further by Crashaw, who concluded that it was done 'out of our humanity and conscience' and that it ultimately weighed in favour of the Native Americans, who obtained more out of it. Crashaw concluded that Native Americans would obtain 'namely such things as they want and need and are infinitely more excellent than all we take from them, and that is 1. Civility for their Bodies, 2. Christianity for their souls. The first to make them men, the second, happy men'.19 Through this exchange, those who had been brought into Protestant 'civility' would find themselves incorporated in the wider 'settled and quiet Government' of the English Church, state and corporation.20

Unlike in the charters granted by Elizabeth and James I to the EIC in 1600 and 1609, the VC charter included a clause on religion, or more appropriately evangelism, positioning it as an obligation of the company. The VC was required to evangelise, as the advancement and establishment of Protestantism and English authority in Virginia was the desire of the

<sup>16</sup> Ethan H. Shagan, *The Rule of Moderation: Violence, Religion and the Politics of Restraint in Early Modern England* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), p. 212; Lauren Working, *The Making of an Imperial Polity: Civility and America in the Jacobean Metropolis* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), p. 75.

<sup>17</sup> Shagan, *The Rule of Moderation*, p. 208.

<sup>18</sup> Crashaw, *A Sermon preacher in London before the right honourable the Lord De La Warr, Lord Governor and Captain General of Virginia…* (1609), sig. D3v–D4r.

<sup>19</sup> Ibid.; Shagan, *The Rule of Moderation*, p. 210.

<sup>20</sup> *The First Virginia Company Charter* (1606).

monarch, and a key responsibility delegated to the company. Following its second charter in 1609, Gray advocated conversion by any means necessary, including force.21 Gray argued that 'a Christian king may lawfully make war upon barbarous and Savage people, and such that live under no lawful or warrantable government' and by doing so 'make conquest of them'.22 For Gray and many others, the VC became the arm of the state through which England's Protestant duty of conversion, conquest and civilising the 'uncivilised' could be achieved. The 'civilising effect' of the propagation of Protestantism was portrayed as a national duty and 'so Noble a Work' that, along with the establishment of religious governance, it was entrenched in the language and ethos of the VC.<sup>23</sup>

From the company's inception, Algonquins played a prominent role in the public image of the corporation as the agents for promoting the spread of Protestant civility to the indigenous peoples. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the company's mission to spread Protestantism amongst Native American peoples was considered integral from the outset, enshrined as an obligation in all the VC's corporate charters. By spreading Protestantism amongst the Native American populations, the company's religious leadership were not only concerned with their immortal souls, but through conversion, bringing them into the company's jurisdiction and under its authority. Very quickly, many from all ranks and elements of the corporations sought to get to work on fulfilling this 'most pious and noble end of this plantation'.24

## Population

The company's leadership, particularly those abroad, were conscious of the need to ensure that their populations were governed effectively in accordance with English religious and secular customs. Company officials adapted different aspects of English authority to secure control of their English population in Virginia, one of which was religious governance. This does not mean, however, that the VC did not also draw

<sup>23</sup> *The First Virginia Company Charter* (1606).

<sup>24</sup> 'Virginia Council, Instructions Orders and Constitutions… To… Sir Thomas West Knight Lord La Warr, 1609/10', in *RVC*, III: p. 27.

<sup>21</sup> Gray, *A good speed to Virginia* (1609), sig. C2v.

<sup>22</sup> Ibid., sig. C4r.

on governmental experience from other areas, such as the military, Privy Council, Parliament and ambassadors. Out of the eleven men who held varying positions of authority in Virginia between 1607 and 1624, seven had a military background, having either served in Ireland or seen action in several conflicts within Europe.25 The transition from military leadership to governing over a civilian population was no doubt difficult for many of these men. This was made worse by the fact that many of the civilians they governed were more prone to evading authority than following it. Due to high mortality rates, and stories of hostile Native American populations, the VC struggled to populate its settlements. As the company became increasingly desperate, officials turned to convicts as manpower to populate its lands. The by-product of this was that settlements in Virginia became associated with undesirable, morally ambiguous populations, whose presence put at risk the company's secular and spiritual missions. When recalling his time in Virginia, John Smith wrote exactly of this, complaining that in England the colony's leadership and the company were blamed for 'not converting the Savages'.26 Smith combated this allegation by pointing to the population of the colony, writing that the leadership cannot be blamed 'when those they sent us were little better if not worse'.27 For the VC, this population placed strain on the company and its spiritual mission to evangelise, as their behaviour risked bringing Protestantism and its authority into disrepute.

For several of the Virginia governors, the solution was to adopt 'Lawes divine, moral and martial'; in other words, a code of laws that incorporated religious governance with militaristic order in its enforcement.<sup>28</sup> For many, martial law was the only way to ensure success and

<sup>25</sup> Governors Wingfield, Smith, Percy, De La Warr and Yeardley and Deputy Governors Dale and Gates all had military careers before entering service in the Virginia Company, whilst Governor Ratcliffe and Lieutenant Governor Argall had naval careers either before or after service in the company. Furthermore, De La Warr also served as a Privy Councilor to both Elizabeth I and James I, whilst Wingfield sat as a Member of Parliament and Gates was Ambassador in Vienna prior to VC service. For the individual biographies, see *Oxford Dictionary of National Biography* (Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www. oxforddnb.com/view/article/13745 [accessed 3 July 2016].

<sup>26</sup> John Smith, *Advertisement For the unexperienced Planters of New-England, or anywhere* (London: 1631), p. 5.

<sup>27</sup> Ibid.

<sup>28</sup> William Strachey, *For the colony in Virginia Britannia. Lawes divine, moral and martial, &c* (London: 1612).

good governance; as Lieutenant Governor Thomas Gates declared, 'no good service can be performed, or war well managed, where military discipline is not observed'.29 Although not officially the leader of the colony Gates, on behalf of the absent governor Thomas West, Lord Delaware, saw himself as the company's leader in Virginia. He concerned himself primarily with establishing and maintaining good godly governance over those English settlers who migrated to Virginia. To do so, he ensured that those who were sent by the company into his jurisdiction observed the laws and religious customs of England, and what he saw as an Englishman's true charge, the 'principal care of true Religion'.30 Of the 37 laws that Gates set down, the first seven articles directly involved the Church or its ministers, whilst over a third of them in some way had religious connotations. For Gates, 'the word of God' tied 'every particular and private man, for conscience sake to obedience' and the authority of the company's leaders.31 Along with articles reinforcing laws and punishments against recognisable crimes such as murder, theft, embezzlement and slander, Gates made provision to ensure harsh punishments for blasphemy and Sabbath breaking. Further, he set down strict and regular religious observance in the colony to twice daily, seeing routine communion as ensuring, through the individual, a civil society. He wrote that those who prepared 'themselves at home with private prayer' would be 'better suited' for public life and worship.32 Six years later, the General Assembly in Virginia renewed Gates's laws reaffirming and reinforcing the position of the Church, religion and ministers in the colony.33 For company officials, the enforcement of strict religious observance was a necessity. This was not only because God demanded it, but also because religious governance provided the moral framework from which civil society could be established and governed.

Company officials quickly established authority, structuring and implementing religious governance in their plantations in Virginia as a means to ensure commercial success. Despite this, the VC was not seen as an

<sup>33</sup> James B. Bell, *Empire, Religion and Revolution in Early Virginia, 1607–1786* (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2013), p. 34.

<sup>29</sup> Ibid., p. 1.

<sup>30</sup> Ibid.

<sup>31</sup> Ibid., p. 7.

<sup>32</sup> Ibid., p. 4.

enterprise of prosperity or commercial success, being known rather as a financial quagmire based on commercial 'fairy tales and hopes', associated more with death, conflict and disreputable populations.34 The reasons for the VC's apparently slow progress in achieving their initial promise of substantial financial gain would have been a familiar topic of conversation to contemporaries, and one that the company's leadership were acutely aware of. For ministers such as Patrick Copland, who was employed by the VC to generate fresh support for the company, the answer was obvious. They had abandoned the 'principal ends of the Companies in following the business of the Plantations'.35 Amongst the many groups that disputed ideas in the VC, ministers and preachers formed their own distinct but connected group, offering 'a mode of political advice' through sermons and religion.36 Not surprisingly, for preachers the principal aim for the company was the orderly governance of the religious and secular lives of the English settlers and indigenous peoples who lived within the jurisdiction of the VC.

Just as the VC had authority over English settlers, it had also been entrusted with the responsibility of converting local Algonquin Indians and bringing them under the company's religious governance, thereby assimilating them into the English fold and securing English dominion there. Conversion became an element of the corpus that secured dominion or imperium in America.<sup>37</sup> Just as forts, and a strong physical presence in an area, demonstrated to foreign powers geographic

<sup>34</sup> John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton, August 1, 1613, in *Letters*, I: p. 407.

<sup>35</sup> 'A relation of the late proceedings of the Virginia and Sumer Islands Companies, in answer to some imputations laid upon them, together with the discovery of the grounds of such unjust objection, and a Remedy proposed for the better avoiding the like inconveniencies hereafter; Humbly present to the Kings most Excellent Majestie by the said Companies, April 12, 1623', in *RVC*, II: p. 362.

<sup>36</sup> Fitzmaurice 'Every Man, That Prints', p. 35. For more on faction and dispute in the VC, see Kenneth R. Andrews, *Trade, Plunder and Settlement: Maritime Enterprise and the Genesis of the British Empire, 1480–1630* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), pp. 323–327; L. H. Roper, *The English Empire in America, 1602–1658: Beyond Jamestown* (Abingdon, Oxfordshire; Routledge, 2009), pp. 29–31, 87–92, 108–111; Brenner, *Merchants and Revolution*, pp. 216–220.

<sup>37</sup> Ken Macmillan, *Sovereignty and Possession in the English New World: Legal Foundations of Empire, 1576–1640* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 186–187; Macmillan builds upon the ideas and themes given by Anthony Pagden in *Lords of All the World: Ideologies of Empire in Spain, Britain and France c.1500–c.1800* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995); David Armitage, *Ideological Origins*.

and administrative permanency, so too did conversion, which symbolised not only spiritual prestige but also permanent sovereignty over local populations. In his sermon to the company, the minister William Symonds used the language of imperium to demonstrate how conversion if not obtained through other means would be done through might.<sup>38</sup> Preaching on Genesis 12, Symonds compared God's call to Abraham to England's call to settle Virginia, reminding his congregation of the patriarchs' struggle, and how 'in a strange Country' they were to be wary and 'look for enemies' and that as enemies there was 'a *warrant*' by 'God's ordinance to bring a curse upon them, and to kill them'.<sup>39</sup> For Symonds, the spiritual, cultural and political conversion of the land and people of Virginia to English notions of Protestant civility was the ultimate goal of the company and the nation, and should be achieved by any means possible, whether 'education' or force.

Although some of the criticism was aimed at the company's apparent inability to secure consistent profits, ministers and preachers linked financial criticism to the VC's lack of vigour in pursuing their religious aims. As one petition to James I put it, the 'propagating of Christian Religion in those Barbarous parts' would be the only way that the English would enlarge 'your kingdom' as well as increase the 'Revenue for the enriching of your people and for the future strength this State'.40 However, by 1624 it was becoming apparent that the VC had failed, at least on the face of it, to combine religion and trade sufficiently. Growing internal factionalism, falls in profits, the massacre in 1622, and the failure of the company's religious responsibility all eventually led to the Crown revoking its charter.41 The history of the VC in the first two decades of the seventeenth century provided the leadership of its contemporary companies instances of religious governance abroad that they could use to mould or replicate or ignore altogether.

<sup>38</sup> William Symonds, *Virginia. A sermon preached at White-Chappel, in the presence of many, honorable and worshipfull the adventurers and planters for Virginia* (London: 1609), sig. Gv.

<sup>39</sup> Ibid., sig. Gv, G2r.

<sup>40</sup> 'Relations of the Late Proceedings', April 12, 1623, in *RVC*, II: p. 362.

<sup>41</sup> Craven, *Dissolution*.

#### Presence of an Ecclesiastical Structure

Throughout the company's history, the clergy were called upon to support its religious mission in Virginia. However, it was in the early period of its existence that the clergy in England played their most vital role in securing support for the company. Sermons were crucial in pushing the 'humanistic vision and ideology of the new colony' concerning moral and civic virtues, including the pursuit of spiritual and temporal glory and an active life.42 Furthermore, clergymen responded to the possibility that Virginia and its luxurious commodities represented a corrupting influence, by highlighting how they would instead benefit the state and society by elevating the role of evangelism and therefore England's international standing and power.<sup>43</sup> Between 1609 and 1612, the company embarked on a publicity campaign that was centred on the use of sermons reinvigorating the waning support for the company. In 1609 alone, the VC funded eight orations to encourage public engagement, seven of which were sermons, of which only three publications are available.<sup>44</sup> Between 1610 and 1622, a further nine sermons were preached before the company, including one by John Donne and another by EIC minister Patrick Copland.45 Ministers from amongst the humanistic community including Donne and the dean and future Bishop of Durham, Thomas Morton, called for support of the company's religious and secular mission in America.<sup>46</sup> They blamed the difficulties that the company was facing on its financial rather than spiritual focus. These sermons combined the proselytising mission of the company with that of financial success, suggesting

<sup>42</sup> Fitzmaurice, 'Every Man, That Prints', p. 24.

<sup>43</sup> Fitzmaurice, *Humanism and America: An Intellectual History of English Colonisation 1500–1625 (Ideas in Context)* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 1–7.

<sup>44</sup> Ibid., pp. 25–26; For the sermons preached at Paul's Cross: Richard Crakanthorpe, March 24, George Benson, May 7, and Daniel Price, 25 May; at Whitechapel: Symonds, *Virginia. A sermon*; Robert Grey, *God Speed to Virginia*, April, Dean of Gloucester, Thomas Morton (later Bishop of Durham), preached of the lawfulness of colonising, and Robert Tynley, *Two Learned Sermons: The One of the Mischieuous Subtiltie and Barbarous Crueltie, the Other of the False Doctrines and Refine Heresis of the Romish Synagogue. In the First are ExAmined Passages of that Libell Written by a Prophane Fugitiue [Robert Parsons] Against the Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance, in the Seconde are Answered Many of the Arguments Published by Rob. Chambers, Priest, Concerning Popish Miracles* (London: 1609).

<sup>45</sup> Copland and Pope, *Virginia's God Be Thanked*.

<sup>46</sup> Working, *Imperial Polity*, pp. 69–71.

that only through the former could the latter be achieved. The Dean of Ely Cathedral, Robert Tynley, argued that the principal mission of the company was to remove, through Christian evangelism, 'the chains of error and ignorance' that the local Algonquins lived under.47 According to Tynley, in doing so the company could 'assuredly expect the fruits which usually accompany such godly enterprise'.48 Similarly, William Symonds, whose patron was Robert Bertie, Lord Willoughby, compared the work of the English to that of the biblical patriarch, Abraham. He wrote that it was only in fearing God, as Abraham had done, that the VC's planters would receive the blessing of God and 'grow into a nation formidable to all the enemies of Christ'.<sup>49</sup> The humanistic vision of clergymen and the company's leadership continued throughout the company's existence, in which the mercantile aims of the company were bonded with its religious governance.

Ensuring that enough ministers were being sent out to secure the VC's authority and the 'comfort of the souls of the inhabitants' of Virginia (whether English or Native American), the company attempted to offer incentives to encourage ministers to travel there.50 This involved a lucrative stipend of up to £200 a year, as well as offering land, sometimes amounting to 100 acres, with a guarantee of six tenants to work the land.51 Alongside these financial rewards, the VC ensured that their ministers were protected under the company laws. After reiterating that no man could 'blaspheme God's holy name' nor 'see any traitorous words against his Majesties Person', Gates, in the fifth of his codes, ensured protection under the law for the company's ministers in Virginia.52 The law required that all company workers 'hold them [ministers] in all reverent regard' or they would be punished by publicly asking for forgiveness or face a whipping.53 Both royal and company authorities sought to ensure that Virginians duly respected the ministers of the established

<sup>49</sup> Symonds, *Virginia*, p. 35.

<sup>50</sup> February 22, 1620, in *RVC*, I: p. 314.

<sup>51</sup> Virginia Company, Instructions to George Yeardley, November 18, 1618, in *RVC*, II, 102; February 22, 1620, in *RVC*, I: p. 314.

<sup>47</sup> Tynley, *Two Learned Sermons*, p. 67.

<sup>48</sup> Ibid., p. 68.

<sup>52</sup> Strachey, *Lawes divine, moral and martial*, p. 3. <sup>53</sup> Ibid.

Church. By firmly backing the authority of church ministers, they aimed to ensure that the VC's own religious authority and religious governance were observed.

Furthermore, a strong church leadership provided the foundations to extend the company's missionary agenda and Protestant call to arms, which continually re-emerged in the subsequent charters of the company. In each case, it reinforced the importance of religion and religious governance in the development of the corporation. The 1612 charter of the VC reminded its members of their obligation in the 'reclaiming of people barbarous to civility and humanity' through Protestant evangelism. It was the perception of the English governmental leaders that the VC would bring back into the Christian family those who had, through geography, been lost. As with the lost thirteenth tribe of Israel, the Protestant members and leaders of the VC would reclaim the Native Americans from their 'defection from the true knowledge of God', as they shared the same biblical 'descent and beginning'.54 It was believed that the presence of the English corporation and its reformed Protestant government could transform an environment and its people 'like our native country'.<sup>55</sup> For those concerned with the evangelism of the Native Americans, this involved coercing them away from their chief deity, whom the English believed to be the Devil incarnate. Crashaw lamented that 'Satan visibly and palpably reigns there', so much so that it was not comparable to 'any other known place of the world'.<sup>56</sup> The company further saw connections between the deity Okee and the Devil in the practices of their powerful priests. They saw the eradication or the erosion of the priests' power in the Native American communities as the first step to achieving the evangelical mission of the company and establishing English authority.

## Evangelism and Education

To evangelise successfully and secure the company's authority over Native Americans, VC officials instituted a programme of Christian education aimed at eradicating Native American religious and cultural customs and

<sup>54</sup> Strachey, *The Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia* (London: Hakluyt Society, 1849 [1612]), p. 45.

<sup>55</sup> Strachey, *Lawes divine, moral and martial*, sig. G4*v*.

<sup>56</sup> Alexander Whitaker, *Good Newes from Virginia sent to the Counsell and Company of Virginia, resident in England* (London: 1613), p. IX.

replacing them with Protestant English ones. In 1611, the company wrote to Lord Delaware lamenting English relations with the local Algonquins claiming that this had been a 'great hinderance of planting Christianity', which was 'the chiefest thing in our intention though not the first in prosecution is and ought to be… the reducing of those Savages to the true knowledge of God'.<sup>57</sup> From an early stage, the company sought to bring Native Americans under its religious governance through the introduction of a formal education programme for the indigenous children of Virginia. A long-time supporter of the colony Alexander Whitaker described this mission as a direct order from God, and as such the prime goal of the colony. Whitaker wrote in his foreword to *Good news from Virginia* that he had received a calling from God to evangelise the Native Americans in Virginia.<sup>58</sup> Moreover, he compared the Native Americans to the Britons prior to the arrival of the gospel on English shores, arguing that the local Algonquins needed the charity of Christianity to progress towards temporal and spiritual civility. He then legitimised this action by pointing out that all people are the biblical descendants of Adam. Due to this, he believed that Native Americans had 'reasonable souls and intellectual faculties as well as wee' and so were susceptible to conversion, especially through education.59 The use of biblical descent or origin to sanction evangelism was not uncommon. Popular contemporary theories on the origins of the Native American peoples were that they descended from one of the lost thirteen tribes of Israel or Ham.60 William Strachey argued that, as descendants of Ham, Native Americans had been deprived of the paternal religious guidance of Noah, and that from Ham 'the ignorance of the true worship of God tooke beginninge, the inventions of heathenisme, and adoration of false gods, and the devil'.61 According to

<sup>57</sup> Virginia Company to Lord Delaware March 1611, Magdalene College, Ferrar Papers (FP) 30.

<sup>58</sup> William Crashaw, forward, in Whitaker, *Good Newes*, p. 3.

<sup>59</sup> Ibid., p. 24.

<sup>60</sup> For more on theories of the Lost Tribes of Israel, see Chapter 4; for more on the ideas of a shared religious history between Native Americans and English, see John Corrigan, 'Amalek and the Rhetoric of Extermination', in Chris Beneke and Christopher S. Grenda, eds., *The First Prejudice: Religious Tolerance and Intolerance in Early America* (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press, 2011), pp. 53–72; Kupperman, *Facing Off* , pp. 118–120.

<sup>61</sup> Strachey, *The Historie of Travaile*, pp. 45–47.

Strachey in 'not applying' himself 'to learne from his father the knowledge and prescribed worship of the eternal God' Ham had taken the 'first universial confusion' and brought 'the travails and idolatry' into America.<sup>62</sup> Taking the place of Noah, the VC would offer the opportunity for Native Americans to learn the knowledge of the Christian faith and the 'eternal God' thereof. To many, the VC was a vehicle for evangelism, a corporate St Augustine, continuing his works as apostle to the English by spreading the Christian faith he brought to England, and taking it as 'Apostles to Virginia'.63 For Strachey, the responsibility of Noah and St Augustine, had now fallen to the English, to evangelise and teach the Native Americans to worship the Christian God. By converting Algonquin men, women and children, Whitaker and Strachey were extending the spiritual boundaries of English religious governance. In doing so, they were solidifying the jurisdictive control of the company over those Protestants, both English and Algonquin, who fell within its geographic control. If achieved, evangelism not only secured the English the authority of the company, but it also visibly affirmed the permanence of Protestantism abroad.

For many contemporaries, the conversion of Powhatan's daughter, Matoaka, whilst also affirming Whitaker's calling, was proof of the success of educational evangelism. Better known as Pocahontas, Matoaka converted to Christianity after several years in captivity under Whitaker's tutelage. Her conversion and subsequent marriage to John Rolfe, as well as the birth of her child Thomas Rolfe, led to a request from the company in 1616 for her to accompany her husband and son back to England. Upon her arrival in England, Matoaka, or Lady Rebecca Rolfe as she became known, was thrust into public life, attending receptions and masques hosted by both the King and Queen, as well as being entertained by the Bishop of London at Lambeth Palace.64 In the lead-up to

<sup>62</sup> Ibid., p. 46.

<sup>63</sup> Whitaker, *Good Newes*, p. IV.

<sup>64</sup> On the masque that Matoaka saw, see 'The Vision of Delight', in Stephen Orgel, ed., *Ben Jonson: Selected Masques* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press 1970); for Pocahontas's meeting with the Queen, see McClure, *Letters*, II: pp. 49–50; or Matoaka at Lambeth Palace, Samuel Purchas, *Hakluyt Posthumus or Purchas His Pilgrimes*, 19 vols. (Glasgow: Maclease, 1905), XIX: p. 118; Dagmar Wernitznig, *Europe's Indians, Indians in Europe: European Perceptions of Native American Cultures from Pocahontas of the Present* (Lanham: MD; University of America Press 2007), p. 18.

Matoaka's voyage to England, John Smith wrote to Queen Anne asking that she treat her with kindness, recalling how she saved his life. Smith suggested that it would be crucial for the Queen to meet Matoaka, as she was the 'first Christian ever of that Nation, the first Virginian [to] ever speak English, or ha[ve] a child in marriage by an Englishman' and as such God had made 'her his instrument'.<sup>65</sup> For Smith, any refusal to meet her would have been detrimental to the fate of the English and Christian mission in Virginia, as 'her present love to us and Christianity might turn to such scorn and fury, as to divert all this good to the worst of evil'.66 Many in the VC, held similar belief's to Smith, perceiving Matoaka conversion as being part of a divinely ordained plan, and so the company granted John Rolfe £100 and ordered that they should both return to Virginia, where Matoaka was to work towards 'the planting and propagation of Christian religion'.67 However, the prospect of being used as an agent of the English to convert her fellow Native Americans to Christianity, and thereby erode their sovereignty, must have been unbearable for Matoaka.68 Matoaka's story is illustrative of the much wider policy of evangelism that the company adopted. This was grounded in the education of Native American children who were taken from their parents and taught English customs and Christianity. Although it proved far from effective, the company's leaders hoped the children would return to their families after their education, as agents themselves of the company's authority and religious governance. Firmly anglicised, the VC believed they would be taken back by their people and would slowly encourage others to replace Native American religious customs with that of Protestant English authority.

By the time Matoaka left for England, the company's leadership had become wary of the power of the Native American religious leaders,

<sup>65</sup> Kupperman, ed., *Captain John Smith: A Select Edition of His Writings* (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988), pp. 69–71.

<sup>67</sup> Warrant, 10 March 1617 Council in London to John and Rebecca Rolfe, FP 72; Warrant of Edwin Sandys and John Wrote to Thomas Smythe, 10 March 1617, in Ransome, 'Pocahontas', p. 94; Kupperman, *Facing Off* , p. 203; Alden T. Vaughan, *Transatlantic Encounters: American Indians in Britain, 1500–1776* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 87–90.

<sup>68</sup> Kupperman, *Facing Off* , pp. 199–203; Ransome, 'Pocahontas', pp. 81–94.

<sup>66</sup> Ibid., p. 71.

keen to present itself at home as achieving its goal of establishing religious governance. The company was right to be alarmed when Matoaka's uncle, an influential priest, named Uttamatomakkin, accompanied her to England. Apprehensive about allowing Matoaka to travel to England, Powhatan eventually gave his permission, provided that her father's priest, Uttamatomakkin, accompanied her—an arrangement that made Thomas Dale uneasy.<sup>69</sup> Company officials were wary of allowing Uttamatomakkin to accompany Matoaka, given his influence and what they perceived as distrust of the English. Uttamatomakkin not only presented a risk to the company, but also drew attention to the limitations of its religious mission, and thereby presenting the possibility of unfavourable public scrutiny. When interviewed by Samuel Purchas, he proved to live up to all the company's expectations, refusing to engage with anyone who wished to convert him, leading Purchas to describe him as a man who is 'very zealous in his superstition' noting that despite attempts to convert him he would 'hear no persuasion to the truth'.70 The priest's devotion to his faith was not the only thing that the VC found alarming, Uttamatomakkin's interest in English authority and power also presented them with a future problem as his Atlantic journey provided him with the opportunity to acquire intelligence that would later risk the stability of the company's authority and religious governance.

Returning after the death of Matoaka in 1617 Uttamatomakkin immediately sought to convince Powhatan's successor, Opechancanough, of the dishonesty of the English, using evidence from his time in England to do so.<sup>71</sup> Worried about the effect of this, Argall wrote that 'Tomakin [Uttamatomakkin] rails against England' and the English people.72 Concerned about how the company would receive this news, Argall tried to play down how Uttamatomakkin's reports were received by Powhatan and Opechancanough, writing that by his actions 'Tomakin is disgraced'.<sup>73</sup> Although Samuel Argall's account would suggest that

<sup>70</sup> Purchas, *His Pilgrimes* (1625), IV: pp. 954–955.

<sup>73</sup> Ibid.

<sup>69</sup> Rountree, Pocahontas, Powhatan, Opechancanough, p. 178.

<sup>71</sup> Matoaka died in March 1617 who died from possible pneumonia aboard a ship sailing for Virginia and was buried in St George's Church, Gravesend on March 21, 1617.

<sup>72</sup> Governor Argall, 'A Letter probably to His Majesty's Council for Virginia, June 9, 1617', in *RVC*, III: p. 73.

Uttamatomakkin had not been fruitful in wooing Opechancanough, he had been more successful than Argall thought. By acquiring alarming information on the size of the English population, as well as reporting that, at a reception with King James, he had been treated poorly, in a way that was unbefitting of an ally, Uttamatomakkin provided damning reports of the English, putting the colony's security in jeopardy. Altogether, the priest painted a disparaging picture of a nation that could not be trusted and who were not serious about their alliance.<sup>74</sup> On top of Uttamatomakkin's news was the efforts of Argall and the company to negotiate a treaty in which Thomas, Matoaka's son and Powhatan's grandson, would have usurped Opechancanough's right to the throne. Uttamatomakkin's report about treaty negotiations and the treatment of allies was to be a likely factor in Opechancanough's decision to attack the English in 1622. However, Uttamatomakkin's own motives have received very little attention in the historical discussion.75 By reporting that the company and settlers could not be trusted, Uttamatomakkin was not only serving his nation, but also moving to preserve his own faith from the religious governance of the VC. His position as a priest placed him in a position to influence and inform the decision of Powhatan's successor. In doing so, Uttamatomakkin set in motion events that would lead to the dissolution of the company and end plans to place the Native American peoples under its authority.

Despite the tragic fate of Matoaka, religious education continued to be the focus of the VC's religious governance, the result of which would lead to the company discussing the establishment of colleges to evangelise and train local Algonquins in what they believed to be English civility. One year after the death of Matoaka in 1618, formal provisions for the VC's educational programme were discussed at a meeting in London. At this meeting, VC leaders called for a college to be established for the 'training up of the Children of those infidels in true Religion, moral

<sup>74</sup> As Kupperman points out, Uttamatomakkin's indignation came from the custom that a 'lack of generosity in relationships was despicable'. He compared King James's behaviour in not giving him a gift to the story of Powhatan receiving a white dog from Smith 'which Powhatan fed as himself', concluding that 'our King gave me nothing, and I am better than your white Dog'. See Kupperman, *Facing Off* , p. 214; John Smith, *Generall Histoirie of Virginia New England and the Summer Islands* (London: 1624), p. 123.

<sup>75</sup> Jeffrey Glover, *Paper Sovereigns: Anglo-Native Treaties and the Law of Nations*, *1604– 1664* (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014), p. 115.

virtue, and Civility and for other godly uses'.<sup>76</sup> However, the earliest that a formal dialogue concerning education in the colony can be traced was two years after Jamestown was planted. In a set of instructions sent to Gates, the company's council in England ordered him to not only seize farmland from the Weroance peoples, but also 'those which are young and to succeed in the government'.<sup>77</sup> The hope was that through education, they would come to adopt English 'Manners and Religion', and eventually all 'their people will easily obey you and become in time Civil and Christian'.<sup>78</sup> At the same time, the council also sent more extensive instruction to absentee governor Delaware, explaining to him that they wished him to work towards 'the conversion of the natives and savages to the knowledge and worship of the true god'.<sup>79</sup> They further recommended that Delaware obtain some local Native American children in order for them 'to be brought up in our language and manners'.80 Despite actively instructing Virginia planters to evangelise through education, ten years passed by before the VC made any formal arrangements to establish a college in Virginia. By this time the task was considered so essential that, in England, bishops were requested by the Crown to 'contribute to so good work' and be 'willing to give all assistance and furtherance' in the 'education of the children of those Barbarians'.81 The members of the VC believed their religious governance not only saved Native Americans from eternal damnation, but also converted those deemed 'barbarous' to English civility, thwarting expansion of the Iberian nations in North America.

Whether through offering spiritual guidance or giving financial help for the 'training and bringing up of Infidels children to the true knowledge of God & understanding of righteousness', the established Church

<sup>76</sup> *The Third Virginia Charter* (March 12, 1612); although not a technical charter, the letter sent to George Yeardley is sometimes called 'The Great Charter'; see 'Instructions to George Yeardley, November 18, 1618', in *RVC*, III: p. 102.

<sup>77</sup> Virginia Council 'Instructions order and Constitutions to Sir Thomas Gates Knight Governor of Virginia, May 1609', in *RVC*, III: p. 19.

<sup>78</sup> Ibid.

<sup>79</sup> 'Instructions Orders and Constitutions, 1609/10', in *RVC*, III: p. 27.

<sup>80</sup> Ibid.

<sup>81</sup> The King. Order to Archbishops of Canterbury and York, 1616, in *RVC*, IV: pp. 1– 2.

in England was mobilised to help this mission.<sup>82</sup> The Archbishops of both Canterbury and York were requested to encourage support for the 'propagation of the Gospel amongst Infidels', and they did so.83 That year the company received £300 from the diocese of the Archbishop of Canterbury and by 1618 £1,500 had been raised in parishes throughout England for the mission.84 These funds would have most likely come from areas where high-ranking clergymen were enthusiastic members of the company. These individuals included George Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury; John King, Bishop of London; James Montague, Bishop of Bath and Wells; William James, Bishop of Durham; Henry Parry, Bishop of Worcester; John Bridges, Bishop of Oxford; George Montaigne, Dean of Westminster; and Matthew Sutcliffe, Dean of Exeter, all of whom had taken an active interest in the company, either in its government or its funding.85 Moreover, in Virginia the responsibility for the education and conversion of Native American children was seen as a collective responsibility. In order to continue to encourage further conversion, the company adopted a policy of sanctioned child abduction. In 1621 the VC sent instructions to the governor and council of the colony ordering that each 'Town, City, Borough, and other particular Plantation' was required to 'obtain unto themselves by just means a certain number of the Children of the Natives', who were to be 'educated by them in true Religion and a Civil course of life'.86 Such children 'obtained' by the English settlers were to receive a level of primary education in order to be 'fitted for the College[s]' that were to be established throughout Virginia.87 Between 1618 and 1622, the company initiated moves to establish two centres of

<sup>82</sup> Court held for Virginia May 26, 1619, *RVC*, I: p. 220.

<sup>83</sup> James Axtell, *The Rise and Fall of the Powhatan Empire: Indians in Seventeenth-Century Virginia* (Williamsburg, VA: Colonial Williamsburg Foundations, 1995), p. 33.

<sup>84</sup> Copy of Sir Thomas Smyth's Acquittance to the L. Archbishop of Canterbury for £300 of the money collected for a College in Virginia: Received of the Bishop of London 2 March 1617, FP 71.

<sup>85</sup> *The Second Virginia Company Charter* (1609); *The Third Virginia Company Charter* (1612).

<sup>86</sup> 'Instructions to the Governor for the time being and Counsel of State in Virginia', 24 July 1621, FP 285.

<sup>87</sup> Ibid.

education in Virginia. The first was a college at Henrico and the second was the East Indian School at Charles City.88

At the forefront of the mission was at least one minister in every borough in the colony. Across its existence, the VC sent out 22 ministers to administer to both the Native Americans and English settlers in Virginia.<sup>89</sup> Ministers were required to 'allure the Heathen people to submit themselves to the Sceptre of God's most righteous and blessed Kingdome, and so finally to join with them in the true Christian profession'.90 The invocation of royal imagery through the sceptre, even as a necessary step to conversion, highlights how VC leadership perceived the role of the company in spreading both secular and spiritual authority of the English state. Not only did conversion account for the soul of the individual but it also asserted the company's authority over the converted. Through conversion into the established Protestant church of England, individuals subjected themselves to a body whose head was the monarch. This form of subjecthood through conversion not only reinforced English territorial claims, but also strengthened the company's authority, as the representative body of the English state in Virginia. By firmly establishing an English Church presence in Virginia, leaders on both sides of the Atlantic hoped to weaken indigenous religious power. This was part of a well-established policy by James that aimed at forcing the local indigenous populations to adopt and conform to English authority as enforced by the religious governance of the company.<sup>91</sup> However, just as with many of the other settlers, epidemiological and environmental factors resulted in high mortality amongst the clergy. However, by 1620, the mortality rate lowered, and the number of priests in Virginia rose, so that half of Virginia's eleven boroughs at any one time contained a minister.<sup>92</sup>

<sup>88</sup> William and Mary, despite receiving its charter in 1693, asserts that although it is the second oldest college in the United States, it was originally supposed to be established in 1619, thereby through a claim of ancestral lineage putting it above Harvard, see http:// www.wm.edu/about/history/index.php [accessed May 5, 2015].

<sup>89</sup> Bond, *Damned Souls*, p. 128; A broadside issued by the Virginia Company, and directed to the Governor and council in Virginia, 17 May 1620, FP 173.

<sup>90</sup> A Broadside, May 17, 1620, in *RVC*, III: p. 276.

<sup>91</sup> Alexandra Walsham, *Reformation of the Landscape: Religion, and Memory in Early Modern Britain and Ireland* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), p. 40.

<sup>92</sup> William Stith, *The History of the First Discovery and Settlement of Virginia* (Williamsburg, VA: Williams Parks, 1747), p. 173.

Despite the increase, the number was not as high as the company had hoped, and so it requested that the Bishop of London send more ministers to the colony. Not only did the bishop oblige, but he also contributed significant sums to the establishment of a college to ensure that the VC could train its own ministers, as well as convert and educate Native Americans.93 By maintaining the clergy's presence in Virginia, the VC hoped to solidify its religious governance by providing the spiritual leadership needed to educate and convert.

On top of claims to sovereignty and the soul, advocates of educational evangelism amongst Native Americans continued to suggest that religion was a route not only to spiritual but also commercial profit. An anonymous letter read out by Sir Edwin Sandys at a company meeting in 1620 gave a charitable donation of £500 to the education of Native American children in the Christian faith in the belief that such work would bring 'many casting gifts into the Treasury'.<sup>94</sup> The company also went on to gift substantial amounts of land and manpower to the school and college to be worked on for the school and college to sustain itself.<sup>95</sup> Such actions further highlighted the company's support for the religious policies being enacted in Virginia. Furthermore, it illustrates how the VC's religious governance was being keenly observed and supported back in England, both by members of the company and by non-members.

The gifting of books to the colleges and churches, as well as other items, also became common practice in England, as many people in and outside the company sought to become benefactors to the evangelical project in Virginia. The VC's minute books log several occasions when items were requested to be sent by the company to the churches and colleges in Virginia; from bibles to table cloths, as well as two books— St Augustine's treatises and the works of the Puritan leader William Perkins.96 The choice of sending these two books to one of the colleges

<sup>93</sup> Ibid.

<sup>94</sup> *RVC*, I: pp. 307–308.

<sup>95</sup> Virginia Company, Instructions to George Yeardley, November 18, 1618, in *RVC*, II: p. 102; Virginia Company. 'A Note of the Shipping, Men and Provisions Sent and Provided for Virginia… in the Yeere 1621', in *RVC*, II: p. 640.

<sup>96</sup> For an extensive list of gifts, see 'A Memoriall of Religious Charitie Exercised on Virginia to the Glory of God and Good Example of Men, These Three Last Yeares, 1619. 1620. 1621', in *RVC*, III: pp. 576–577; for notice of books in minutes see 'At A Quarter Courte held for Virginia November 15, 1620', in *RVC*, I: p. 421.

in Virginia is revealing. The presence of St Augustine of Hippo's treatises epitomised the religious mission of the English company seeing themselves as walking in Augustine's footsteps. Just as he had championed education in the process of conversion, so the VC would evangelise and convert Native Americans through education. Similarly, the choice of Perkins offers an insight into the theological, as well as educational, foundations for proselytising in Virginia. Perkins, as a Calvinist, had doctrinal leanings towards supralapsarian evangelism, believing that it was a necessity to secure those whom God had preordained and bring about the day of judgement. In his writings, he argued that those who had 'afflicted conscience' who were not reformed Protestants should be informed of their vices and 'hear the voice of the Gospel' so that their souls could be saved.<sup>97</sup> For Perkins, Puritan theology was 'the science of living blessedly forever', and for him this salvation, although predestined by God, was obtainable by all. He described faith as a mustard seed and argued that even something that small is itself evidence of God's work, and so is the assurance of salvation.98 For the company, education was its way of expounding this 'science', moving the Native Americans' away from what the English settler perceived as irreligious vices. In doing so settlers planted not only Perkins's mustard seed of spiritual salvation, but also the idea that conversion would lead to civil and societal salvation amongst the Native Americans.

Both educational centres at Henrico and Charles City were established through similar fundraising schemes and charitable donations, by way of which both offered 'free' education to children of Native Americans. The latter was the brainchild of Patrick Copland, who, upon returning from Japan, raised funds to establish a school for Native American children in Virginia. Copland, who will be discussed in other chapters, had developed a name for himself during his time in the EIC, becoming a celebrity after his conversion of an Indian boy, who was later named Peter Pope by King James. Obtaining support from both the EIC and the VC, Copland entered the service of the latter, being made a freeman of the company in

<sup>97</sup> William Perkins, *The arte of prophecying, or, A treatise concerning the sacred and onely true manner and methode of preaching*, trans. Thomas Tuke (London: 1607), pp. 121– 122.

<sup>98</sup> Perkins, *A Golden Chaine, in The Whole Works of… M. William Perkins*, 3 vols. (Cambridge: 1636), I:, p. 11; Perkins, *A case of conscience the greatest that ever was, how a man may know, whether he be the son of God or no* (Edinburgh: 1592), p. 53.

1622 and the rector elect of the college at Henrico. He championed from his own experiences the cause of education and evangelism at company meetings. In fact, by 1622, Copland was held in such high esteem by the company that they pleaded with him to go to Virginia as a minister, writing 'Upon the earnest desire of divers Adventurers that Mr Copland would please go to Virginia and apply himself to the Ministry there'.99 Through charitable donations, the company offered practical support for educational programmes, seeing the necessity of the work, writing that the 'eyes of God, Angell, and men were fixed' upon it.100

However, despite moves to formalise the evangelical process in Virginia, company settlers had, for some time, been taking and educating Native American children in the Christian faith. For its part, the company was keen to make it seem as if 'the Indians' were 'very loving, and willing to part with their children', seeing the arrangement as similar to the European practice of warding.101 Yet, the practice did not create a brotherly bond between the Native Americans and the English. Instead, the taking of children, along with the systematic attempts to eradicate local customs and culture through education, did more to cause distance and resentment than foster cultural and religious harmony.

## Enforcement

As the VC entered the 1620s, the same policies that made up its religious governance placed it at risk, with local Native American populations growing increasingly hostile towards the encroaching presence of its religious government, and ministers trying to ensure religious and social unity amongst the English population. One of the minister's key responsibilities in the plantations was to maintain religious unity and thereby social cohesion, acting to prevent any infraction that could escalate into religious or civil unrest. Throughout its existence, the VC's servants, both in America and in England, consistently called for 'worthy Ministers here'.<sup>102</sup> The company was very clear on its ministers' traditional role in

<sup>99</sup> 'At a Virginia Court Held the June 19, 1622', in *RVC*, II: p. 49.

<sup>100</sup> 'A Quarter Court held for Virginia, January 30, 1622', in *RVC*, I: p. 588.

<sup>101</sup> 'Rolfe to Sir Edwin Sandys, June 8, 1617', in *RVC*, I: pp. 70–73.

<sup>102</sup> Council in Virginia, 'Letter to Virginia Company of London, January 1621/22', in *RVC*, III: p. 583.

the religious life of the plantation, just as in England they were to provide 'the service of Almighty God' for 'the spiritual benefit and comfort of the people'.<sup>103</sup> However, ministers in Virginia were also required, to establish or reinforce company governance in environments outside the traditional roles of the English parson. Ministers as well as other church officials were not only required to administer to the spiritual well-being of the planters, but also to act as enforcers and arbiters of the company's law. This was a deliberate move by the leadership of the company to utilise the Church in the colony to firmly entrench both spiritual and temporal law in Virginia. Churchwardens were ordered to police their communities and present anyone who was drunk to the commanders of each plantation, whilst in 1619 John Pory ordered that ministers and churchwardens seek out and expose any 'any ungodly disorders', specifically prostitution.<sup>104</sup> The company further ordered that, just as in England, ministers, particularly Conformist chaplains, were to 'be respected and maintained' according to the laws of the company.<sup>105</sup> To establish civil unity, company leadership dictated that ministers needed to settle the 'usual form and discipline of the Church of England'.<sup>106</sup> By careful religious governance, the company would avoid 'all factious and needless novelties tending only to the disturbance of peace and unity'.<sup>107</sup> As church leaders, ministers were the company's enforcers, employed to preserve religious unity and thereby establish social harmony and God's favour.

Traditional religious punishments were also used to ensure societal cohesion amongst English settlers in Virginia, as VC leadership further engrained religious governance in the company's way of life. Leadership utilised the religious practice of excommunication, turning it into not only a form of spiritual punishment but also a governmental sanction. Ministers from all parishes were required to meet every quarter next to the governor's mansion to list and discuss those who had been suggested for excommunication. Upon agreement, they would recommend a list of

<sup>103</sup> 'Instructions, November 18, 1618', in *RVC*, II: p. 102.

<sup>104</sup> Ibid., p. 583; Manner of Proceeding, July 30, 31, August 2, 3, 4, 1619, in *RVC*, III: p. 172.

<sup>105</sup> Virginia Company, 'Instructions to the Governor and Council of State in Virginia, July 24, 1621', in *RVC*, III: p. 469.

<sup>106</sup> 'Instructions to the Governor and Council of State in Virginia, July 24, 1621', in *RVC*, III: p. 468.

<sup>107</sup> Ibid.

names to the governor, who would then order for them and their property to be seized.108 By not only placing the individual's eternal soul at risk, but also making them social pariahs, excommunication ensured both the spiritual and temporal submission of settlers to the colony's laws. Mavericks would be marked out and left to fend for themselves, not only against the prospect of the Virginian wilderness, but also against an increasingly hostile Native American population.109

The leadership of the company in Virginia pointed out that, in the spiritual teachings and governance of the Church, its ministers were required to plant, encourage and enforce the 'doctrine, rights, religion, and ecclesiastical form of government now professed and established in England'.<sup>110</sup> Religious governance had its foundations in the familiarity and authority of the Church of England. Company officials in Virginia, just like many political and religious leaders in England, sought to create a unified Anglican society abroad. Captain John Bargrave advocated religious homogeneity to encourage societal cohesion and harmony, comparing the effects of doctrinal division between the biblical prophets Moses and Aaron to the religious tension amongst the Virginia planters. He concluded that doctrinal disunity was a leading cause of social discord in the colony. Seeking to preserve the religious unity of its planters, officials commanded that anyone 'who shall profess any doctrine contrary to ours' would not be allowed to 'remain or abide within our said plantations', facing banishment, or worse, excommunication.111 The conformity of ministers was such a pressing issue that even King James I wrote asking about the 'quality of our ministers in Virginia', being particularly concerned that they 'would ever conform themselves to the Church of England'.<sup>112</sup> James even went so far as to specify that the building of churches should also conform to those in England, writing 'our churches

<sup>108</sup> 'Instructions to the Governor, July 24, 1621', in *RVC*, III: p. 468.

<sup>109</sup> For excommunication and spiritual censure in Early Modern England, see Ralph Houlbrooke, *Church Courts and the People During the English Reformation, 1520–1570* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979); David Cressy, *Travesties and Transgression in Tudor and Stuart England* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), particularly chapter 8.

<sup>110</sup> Captain John Bargrave, 'A Form of Policy for Virginia, Before December 7, 1623', in *RVC*, IV: p. 412.

<sup>111</sup> Ibid.

<sup>112</sup> A report of Sir Yeardley going Governor to Virginia, 5 December 1618, FP 93.

should not be built like Theatres or Cockpits, but in a decent form, and in imitation of the churches in England'.113 For James and Bargrave, the effect of this religious disunity not only led to scandal, but also threatened the supremacy of government. Whether in Virginia or England, it was only through religious unity that the interests of the Crown, state and company were ensured. Each body was both independent of, and dependent on, the other for commercial, political and financial support; however, all were, in his opinion, reliant on cohesive and unified religious governance for governmental success. Bargrave further reinforced the ties between the Church and the governance of the company's plantations, claiming that anyone who refused to be 'governed by our ecclesiastical government' should be considered a 'resister of our sovereign power'.<sup>114</sup> Here, religious governance enforced the company's authority through both spiritual and temporal powers. By resisting the religious governance of the company, individuals challenged the sovereign powers of both the Crown and Church, which had vested their jurisdictive authority in the company when abroad.

#### Perceptions of Local Religious Practice

The company's religious governance was based on fear, as much as it was evangelism, since it sought not only to bring Native Americans to Protestant civility and authority by saving their souls, but also to protect the eternal lives of its planters by eradicating certain religious beliefs and practices that they deemed to be devil worship. In a letter back to London, Whitaker drew parallels between the religious practices of Virginia Algonquians or Powhatan, and Catholics, describing festivities involving fire and smoke as 'a thing like a censer'.<sup>115</sup> Furthermore, he also used terms such as 'deformed monster' to describe 'their [Algonquian] god'.116 Some years later, John Smith recalled, in some detail, the times when he witnessed Native American religious customs. He described one occasion when he witnessed a *powwow* and felt that to be amongst the

<sup>113</sup> Ibid.

<sup>114</sup> 'A Form of Policy, December 7, 1623', in *RVC*, IV: p. 413.

<sup>115</sup> Alexander Whitaker to William Crashaw, 9 August 1611, in Edward Wright, ed., *Jamestown Narratives: Eyewitness Accounts of the Virginia Colony, the First Decade: 1607– 1617* (Champlain, VA: Roundhouse, 1998), p. 550; Whitaker, *Good Newes*, sig. G2r. <sup>116</sup> Ibid.

Algonquins during the event was as if being 'near led to hell, Amongst the Devils to dwell'.<sup>117</sup> For the English, local Native American customs were both a spiritual and social threat. They represented moments of social and religious power amongst the Algonquin peoples that challenged English authority in the region.

A mix of wilful ignorance and mistranslation provided the English with a misleading picture of Native American religious practices, serving to legitimise their evangelical mission. The VC developed a justification for evangelism based on the information provided by their own settlers' misguided assumptions about Powhatan religious customs and cultural practices as well as occasional connections with English Protestantism. Rumours of ritual sacrifice were persistently circulated in the early years of the company's settlement. This was mostly through Smith's confused reporting of the Powhatan male rite of passage, the *huskanaw*, in which English settlers reported, 'in some part of the Country they have yearly a sacrifice of children'.118 The events symbolised the death of childhood, in which mothers would publicly grieve for their children, making funeral pyres, whilst their young sons were thrashed with bundles of sticks by the men of the tribe. Following this, the children were taken into the woods by the men and taught the skills required to be adults. English settlers failed to see the symbolism of the death of childhood and rebirth into adulthood, instead reporting having seen children sacrificed and lying lifeless under trees, as women grieved. Smith acknowledged that some of the children did not die, but he painted an imaginative picture of their fate, writing that for those still alive 'Okee or Devil did suck the blood from their left breast, who chanced to be his by lot till they were dead'.119 Smith's colourful account combines fear with ignorance, which, when added to Christian zeal, provoked many in the company to further their attempt to impose the company's religious governance over the Native Americans through evangelism.

Furthermore, to many contemporaries, the practice of the *huskanaw* reinforced the need for the VC's religious governance, as the ritual seemingly perpetuated the cycle of Native American heathenism. In particular, the company was concerned that the custom was also an event that

<sup>117</sup> Smith, *Generall Historie*, p. 48. <sup>118</sup> Ibid., p. 36. <sup>119</sup> Ibid.

involved recruiting priests who, according to Whitaker, were 'a generation of vipers even of Satan's own brood'.<sup>120</sup> Fear of the supernatural power of the Native American priests, especially in effecting changes in the weather, often preoccupied the imaginations of English settlers. Just as Native Americans sought to supplicate the Christian God during times of harsh weather, English settlers sought to blame extreme weather and ecological events on the powers of Native American priests. Witnessing an English attack on the Nansemond Indians, Whitaker wrote of a *powwow* taking place and how, being led by a priest, the Nansemonds were a 'mad crew dancing like Antics, or our Morris dancers', and that his Indian guide, watching this, warned the English that there would be much rain to come.<sup>121</sup> The captain of Jamestown fort, George Percy, who led the attack, described the event vividly and concluded that the Native Americans 'making many diabolical gestures with many nigramantcke [necromantic] spells and incantation[s]' were trying to make it rain in order 'to extinguish and putt out our men's matches, and to wet and spoil their powder'.122 The reason Europeans wrote so extensively on the failure of the *powwows* was 'precisely because they took those powers very seriously', which is why they often fearfully included, in their writings, those moments when the priests had been successful and rivalled the power of the Christians.<sup>123</sup>

The religious and secular leadership of the company were fearful of the Native American priests' spiritual and social powers, against which they would ultimately fall short, and their evangelical mission to establish English religious authority over the Native Americans be considered a failure. Not only did the company's settlers view the deities of the Native American faith as representing aspects of the Devil, but the same label was also often thrown against the spiritual leaders of their faiths. Even after settlers noticed children returning from the *huskanaw* and questioned whether sacrifice was indeed taking place, they continued to be alarmed by the ritual. Perceiving it as a religious occasion when children were further pushed down a path of spiritual savagery, colonists

<sup>120</sup> Whitaker, *Good Newes*, p. 26.

<sup>122</sup> George Percy, *Trewe Relaycon, of Proceedings and Occurences of Moments which have happened in Virginia* (London: 1612), p. 259.

<sup>123</sup> Kupperman, Jamestown, p. 180.

<sup>121</sup> Quoted in Kupperman, *The Jamestown Project* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), p. 179.

also worried that the *huskanaw* created a warrior class within Algonquin society that threatened the existence of the English in Virginia. Seeing the returning children as successfully having been initiated into the Native American priesthood, Smith pointed out that, when they returned, they were destined to become 'priests and conjurers'.<sup>124</sup> However, the reverse can also be said, as Europeans also recalled the failures of Native American religious practices and the supremacy of their own faith. The fear of the indigenous faith encouraged settlers to obediently respect and follow their own faith for protection, whilst epidemiological and environmental events, or 'invisible bullets' that decimated local Indian populations, were seen as divine intervention in support of the settlers' aims.125 The effect of this reinforced the company's religious governance and further encouraged its leaders to zealously oversee the implementation of its religious and political aims.

## Religious Governance and Downfall of the Virginia Company

By 1622, relations between the VC and the local Native American populations had reached boiling point, as the evangelical tenets of the company had continued to fuel resentment amongst the local Algonquin population. Still considered by the VC leadership as 'the first institution and profession of this company', its members had further been ordered to do their utmost for the 'reclaiming of the Barbarous Natives; and bringing them to the true worship of God, civility of life, and virtue'.126 The continuing zeal of company officials to propagate the gospel amongst the Native Americans substantially contributed to the deterioration in relations between the company's English settlers and the Native Americans. The consequences of this breakdown in relations would ultimately lead to the death of one-third of the Europeans on 22 March 1622. Across

<sup>126</sup> 'Orders and Constitution collected by Treasuror, Counseil, and Companie of Virginia, 1619–1620', in *RVC*, III: p. 348.

<sup>124</sup> Smith, *Generall Historie*, p. 36.

<sup>125</sup> Thomas Harriot, *A Brief and True Report of the New Found Land of Virginia* (London: 1590), p. 29; for the subversive role of religion in establishing power in the New World, see Stephen Greenblatt, 'Invisible Bullets', in Michael Payne, ed., *The Greenblatt Reader* (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 121–160.

the colony, settlements were attacked, and it was those commonly associated with the company's religious governance that bore the brunt of the aggression.

Both the settlements of Henrico and Smith's Hundred, which had strong connections with the education of Native American children and adults in the Christian faith, had to be abandoned. Similarly, when the attack reached Wolstenholme Towne, the church was the focus of the Native Americans' aggression and only a part of it was left standing. Despite a lack of written sources concerning the motivations of Native Americans involved in the attack on the English colony, it can be inferred from the focus of destruction that, at least in part, the uprising was in response to the religious agenda of the company. As the company's principal spokesperson for its colonists, Edward Waterhouse believed that the VC's proselytising was the principle cause of the massacre.127 In a publication five months later, Waterhouse declared that although there was still 'great work to do', the 'desire to draw those people to Religion by the careless neglect of their own safeties, seems to have been the greatest cause of their own destruction'.128 As for the company's religious mission, its only consolation was that Jamestown had been spared due to a warning from a Native American convert named Chanco. In a declaration of the state of the colony in 1622, the company specifically mentioned this incident, thanking God for 'the good fruit of an Infidel converted to Christianity', without whom, they suggested, they would have lost many more lives.129 Despite attempts by the company to re-establish religious governance through an education programme, even offering 'good and careful education' as a form of recompense to those Native Americans who warned and supported them during the attack, the company's evangelical hopes were at an end.<sup>130</sup> Just two years later, with

<sup>127</sup> Edward Waterhouse, *A Declaration of the State of the Colony and Affaires in Virginia* (London: 1622); or more on evangelism before and after the 1622 massacre, see Beth Quitslund, 'The Virginia Company, 1606–1624: Anglicanism's Millennial Adventure', in Richard Connors and Andrew Colin Gow, eds., *Anglo-American Millennialism from Milton to the Millerites* (Leiden: Brill, 2004), pp. 90–92.

<sup>128</sup> Waterhouse, State *of the Colony*, p. 18.

<sup>129</sup> Ibid., p. 20.

<sup>130</sup> Treasurer and Council for Virginia, 'Letter to Governor and Council in Virginia, August 1, 1622', in *RVC*, III: p. 673.

the scars of 1622 still unhealed, the company lost its charter and James seized the company's lands in Virginia, turning it into a royal colony.

Ultimately, the outcome of the massacre was the revocation of the company's charter in 1624. However, despite its fate, the VC served to provide a foundational example for ideas surrounding government, religious governance and Anglo-indigenous relations for future English overseas corporations. The VC and its methods of governance became the Anglo-corporate templates from which subsequent English overseas companies drew. Six years after the events of 1622, John Winthrop remembered Virginia's fate when advocating the settlement of New England. He wrote in the *Reasons for the Plantation of New England* that there were three 'great and fundamental errors' why the VC had failed. They were interlinked, each one affecting the other, offering a warning to those who wished to settle in New England.<sup>131</sup> For Winthrop, the VC had abandoned its religious mission and populated its lands with a 'multitude of rude and misgoverned people', meaning that the company had been unable to 'establish a right form of government'.<sup>132</sup> The 'right form of government', according to Winthrop and those who joined him as leaders of the MBC, would be one in opposition to the VC's model, placing what they believed to be the true religion and the establishment of a godly population first. Whether those involved in England's future overseas companies ignored or learnt from them, the experiences in Chesapeake Bay would influence their plans and actions concerning religious governance.

## Conclusion

As the first company to have direct control over territory outside of England, the VC made some of the first attempts to establish English authority overseas, marking a foundational moment in English global expansion in the seventeenth century. At the heart of this organisation was the central mission to establish its authority over its territories in order to effectively regulate the behaviour of peoples and personnel who fell under its authority. This involved the first attempts by an overseas company to govern an English population in foreign environments, as well as peoples

<sup>131</sup> John Winthrop, *Reasons for the Plantation in New England* (London: 1628). <sup>132</sup> Ibid.

who were outside the English cultural, religious and political milieu. The Protestant religion of England was utilised as a tool to draw people into English ecclesiastical and governmental jurisdiction. The establishment of corporate religious governance in Virginia by 1624 can be seen as a pyrrhic victory. It had been successfully planted in both jurisdictions; however, the cost of doing so would be hefty for the corporation. In the case of the VC, it ended with the loss of its charter.

The decades that followed the dissolution of the VC saw the refinement of religious governance into specific models capable of monitoring the religious, political and social behaviour of a variety of peoples and cultures. The VC advanced and established English authority in the Atlantic in the first two decades of the seventeenth century through experimentation, following which religious governance would be taken and adapted across the Americas, the Middle East and India during the seventeenth century, shaping the governmental character of English expansion across the globe.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## The Plymouth Company and Massachusetts Bay Company (1622–1639): Establishing Theocratic Corporate Governance

Two years after the massacre of 1622, James I revoked the VC's charter and Virginia was placed under direct Crown rule. The demise of the VC served as an example to future companies of the perils of establishing an ineffective form of religious governance. As John Winthrop wrote in 1629, 'those plantations, which have been formerly made, succeeded ill', as they had made 'great and fundamental errors' and consequently did 'not establish the right form of government'.1 For those who became leaders in the MBC, the VC provided a potent memory of the dangers of establishing the wrong form of religious governance overseas. Seen as 'unfit instruments' their failure to regulate the social, commercial and, importantly, religious behaviour of English and indigenous people in America was at the forefront of the minds of many of those who would be involved in the MBC.<sup>2</sup> Virginia and the experiences of the VC cemented the place of religious governance as a mechanism of behavioural regulation in companies. However, other than providing the foundations for religious governance, the VC did not define the model or character of religious governance that companies such as the MBC and EIC chose to establish and adapt.

© The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_3

71

<sup>1</sup> 'General Observation for the Plantation of New England' (1629) in *Winthrop Papers*, 5 vols. (Boston, MA Historical Society, 1929–1947), II: pp. 117, 114.

<sup>2</sup> Ibid, p. 114; Kupperman, *Jamestown*, pp. 326–327.

Established five years after the dissolution of the VC, the MBC took its charter and government to New England, and unlike its southern predecessor established a form of government almost entirely autonomous from England. Uniformly made up of Nonconformist communities who had either fled from or were currently being subjected to the growing calls for uniformity in the established Church, the company developed a form of religious governance that mirrored their beliefs.3 Through their corporate charter, the MBC's members obtained the structural framework to legitimise and establish a form of theocratic governance that policed the religious behaviour of its personnel, securing the godly society that they had been unable to attain in England.

The company's first governor in New England described the MBC's mission to be a 'city upon a hill' wherein the eyes of the world would watch them establish their godly government.<sup>4</sup> As the MBC settled itself in New England, the purpose of its religious governance, unlike the VC, was to establish a form of godly theocratic governance, based on the Congregationalist principles of its members. Their theocratic model of governance was an example of the 'purity they [the English] could achieve in America' and would be an example not only to Native American communities in New England, but also to those they had left behind in England, of godly governance.5 Furthermore, although the company and its members physically separated themselves from England geographically, their association with Congregationalism provided it with a support network within Nonconformist communities in England. Unlike the VC and its sermons, the presence of a financially and vocally supportive religious community in England obviated the need to cultivate support for their model of religious governance; rather, it already existed. This chapter examines the formation of theocratic governance in the MBC, assessing how the corporate charter both provided and legitimised its

<sup>3</sup> Francis Rose-Troup, *The Massachusetts Bay Company and its Predecessors* (New York, NY: Grafton Press, 1930); Alexander Young, ed., *Chronicles of the First Planters of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, –1636* (Boston, MA: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846); Thomas Hutchinson, ed., *The History of Massachusetts: From the Settlement Thereof in 1628 Until the Year 1750,* 2 vols. (Salem, 1795); N. B. Shurtleff, ed., *Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay New England*, 5 vols. (Boston, MA: W. White, 1853–1854).

<sup>4</sup> John Winthrop, *A Model of Christian Charity* (1630), in *Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society* (Boston, 1833), VII, 3rd series: p. 47 (hereafter *MHSC*).

<sup>5</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 45–50.

authority. Moreover, it traces how both these governmental elements of the company worked in conjunction to regulate the behaviour of the colony's English population.

Focusing on the Atlantic world in the years following the demise of the VC, this chapter investigates England's New England companies and their members' development of models of religious governance based on their theological beliefs. Recent work has laid the foundations to gain a 'reliable handle on the explanations that actors gave for their behaviour'; however, this chapter develops our understanding of the corporate framework and model of religious governance that regulated those actors' behaviour.<sup>6</sup> The focus of this investigation is the corporate foundations and the charters of the PC and the MBC and how they provided the structural base for a community to develop a model of governance around the companies' theocratic Congregationalist principles. In establishing this structural base, those in the government that was settled in Massachusetts were perceived by many in England to have 'turned their backs on the Church of England', establishing a uniquely 'New English' form of religious governance.<sup>7</sup> Furthermore, this chapter highlights the impact England's denominational variation had on the character of religious governance abroad, in comparison with the EIC. It does so by investigating the development of corporate government in New England through the formation of the theocratic model of governance that marked the transition between 'godly ecclesiastical republicanism' and 'godly civic republicanism' in the seventeenth century.<sup>8</sup> The chapter studies the manner in which corporations offered the opportunity for religious communities to congregate or covenant together to secure their authority and regulate behaviour through uniformity.

Once established in the New England wilderness 3,300 miles from authorities in England, the membership of the MBC was quick to get to work establishing their model of theocratic governance. Incited by growing religious and political intolerance in England, those who ventured to Massachusetts formally established a society based on Presbyterian and Congregational republicanism that had developed in England

<sup>6</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*, p. 11.

<sup>7</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, p. 7.

<sup>8</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*, p. 10.

since the late sixteenth century.9 In her work on migration to and from Massachusetts, Susan Hardman Moore has highlighted how North East America became a centre for such heterogeneity, dispute and experimentation, as Nonconformist groups of various theological backgrounds fled from England and were able 'to co-exist in the Bay Colony'.<sup>10</sup> Despite some exceptions, the vast majority of those who migrated to Massachusetts from 1630 onwards did so in order to escape the 'reach of Archbishop William Laud long arm' in order to establish a godly polity that would be governed by broadly agreed upon Nonconformist, Congregational principles.11

In addition, despite the MBC government's open policing of trade, the focus has often been on its religious settlement, so that historians have often dismissed the MBC's 'corporate' credentials in favour of defining it as a colonial enterprise.12 The MBC corporate charter not only provided its leadership with a mechanism of English governance but also a legal constitutional connection, beyond the migrants' English birth, to the government within Old England.13 Similar to the 'financial ties and legal obligations' which connected families in New and Old England, the charter was a constitutional and legal apparatus of English governance

<sup>9</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*; Winship, 'Godly Republicanism', pp. 427–462; Maloy, *Colonial American Origins*; Robert F. Scholz, 'Clerical Consociation in Massachusetts Bay: Reassessing the New England Way and Its Origins', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 29, No. 3 (1972); Stephen Foster, *The Long Argument: English Puritanism and the Shaping of New England Culture, 1500–1700* (Chapel Hill, NC: University North Carolina Press, 1991); J. T. Peacey, 'Seasonable Treatises: A Godly Project of the 1630s', *English Historical Review*, Vol. 113, No. 452 (1998), pp. 667–679.

<sup>10</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 6–7.

<sup>11</sup> Peter J. Thuesen, *Predestination: The American Career of a Contentious Doctrine* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), p. 47.

<sup>12</sup> John Fredrick Martin, *Profits in the Wilderness: Entrepreneurship and the Founding of New England Towns in the Seventeenth Century* (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2014); Bernard Bailyn, *The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955); Ruth A. McIntyre, *Debts Hopeful and Desperate: Financing the Plymouth Colony* (Plymouth, MA: Plimoth Plantation, 1963).

<sup>13</sup> David Grayson Allen, *In English Ways: The Movement of Societies and Transferal of English Local Law and Customs to Massachusetts in the Seventeenth Century* (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1981); James McWilliams, *Building the Bay Colony: Local Economy and Culture in Early Massachusetts* (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2007).

that connected both legislative bodies across the Atlantic.14 Furthermore, despite relocating themselves geographically and politically across the ocean, the emigrants, through familial, legal and cultural ties, 'maintained a strong sense of their identity as Englishmen'.15 Although not traditional exiles, the men and women of the MBC saw themselves as English expatriates whose religious beliefs had caused them to set out and establish their own autonomous governance. However, they were constantly aware that the autonomy they had obtained was a privilege granted to them by the English government through the company's charter and as such could be taken away at any point by that very government.

The MBC, once seen as a stopgap for a 'far more promising Caribbean location', is seen as a success story of English expansion and the planting of strong religious corporate governance in the Americas' north-east.16 This chapter explains how the flexibility granted to participants and members of the company through their corporate charter allowed them space to achieve autonomy and fuse their religious beliefs to the corporate governance of the company. Puritan or not, whether English, European or Native American, all who fell within their geographic jurisdictions were to be governed, and judged, under the authority of the MBC.

## The Plymouth Company and the Foundations of Theocratic Governance

The north-east coastline of North America had for some years prior to the chartering of the MBC been the focus and scene of English religious Nonconformists experimenting and planting their ideas of religious governance. The MBC followed in the footsteps of the renowned Plymouth Colony, whose Puritan founders would share an intimate relationship with the MBC.<sup>17</sup> To understand the political space of the commercial world

<sup>14</sup> David Cressey, *Coming Over: Migration and Communication Between England and New England in the Seventeenth Century* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 190; Tomlins, 'Legal Cartography', pp. 315–372.

<sup>15</sup> Christopher D'Addario, *Exile and Journey in Seventeenth-Century Literature* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), p. 94.

<sup>16</sup> Kupperman, *Providence Island, 1630–1641: The Other Puritan Colony* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 1.

<sup>17</sup> Rose-Troup, *The Massachusetts Bay Company*, especially chapters 1, 2 and 3.

the MBC entered, as well as the godly New England its members wished to create, it is necessary to briefly discuss this Plymouth Company.

The Plymouth Colony was established in 1620, when the Nonconformists aboard the *Mayflower* landed in New England. That immortalised band of men and women who established Plymouth, glorified in the American imagination as the 'Pilgrim Fathers', have long been associated with fleeing religious persecution and governance in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. To understand the development of Puritan religious governance in New England, it is important to assess religious governance in England in the early years of James I's reign. At the same time, the evolution of religious governance and jointstock companies needs to be discussed when looking at the early years of the Plymouth Colony's existence. Furthermore, drawing attention to the period between 1620 and 1629 highlights the influence the Plymouth colonists exerted in foundation of the religious government of the MBC.

The accession of James VI and I to the throne of England was greeted by many reformers with the hope of further reformation in the Church, but they soon began to realise this was unlikely. James I quickly made it clear to Puritans, Presbyterians and other Nonconformists that he did not support their religious reform agenda, and that he actually hoped to bring them together. In doing so, James's actions set off a chain of events that laid the foundations for the ideas of religious governance that would be established in Plymouth and Massachusetts. In 1604 James I's comprehensive reassessment of Church law, canons and episcopal appointments, was perceived to be anti-reform by Puritans and Nonconformists, leading many Puritans to question the King's agenda and turn to migration from England as a means to escape the religious reforms of the monarch.18

The future governor of Plymouth and its first historian, William Bradford, had been an active member of the Gainsborough and Scrooby congregations, both of whom had come under religious scrutiny since 1602.<sup>19</sup> Around the same time as prosecution of the Scrooby and Gainsborough churches, the future founder of Congregationalism and the

<sup>18</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*, p. 69; for complexities relating to achieving an alternative scholarly figure, see Foster, *The Long Argument,* pp. 99–101.

<sup>19</sup> For his history of the Plymouth Plantation, which ends with a 1651 list of the Mayflower Pilgrims and their descendants, see William Bradford, *Bradford's History of the Plymouth Plantation 1606–1646*, ed., William T. Davis (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1908) (hereafter Bradford, *History*).

MBC religious model of governance, John Robinson, made contact with both congregations, calling them a 'hundred voluntary professors'.20 By 1607, the two congregations at Gainsborough and Scrooby had come together in a joint enterprise. Bradford later fondly recalled the joining of the two churches, writing, 'they shook off this yoke of antichristian bondage, and as the Lord's free people, joined themselves (by a covenant of the Lord) into a church estate'.21 Between 1607 and 1608, the events surrounding the visitations and the congregations became public knowledge across the country. Although the minister Edward James called them 'his dear friends' he was dismayed to write that the members of the two congregations had 'severed yourselves from our assemblies', and appealed to them to re-join the national Church, comparing the fate of those outside the established Church to those who had not entered Noah's Ark.<sup>22</sup> Meanwhile, the Lincolnshire native and Nonconformist Henoch Clapham applauded their actions writing from London that 'in farthest parts of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire' many had 'flatly already separated', establishing their own Church and religious governance.<sup>23</sup> It was in this atmosphere of mounting pressure that the two congregations decided to emigrate to the safety of the Netherlands, escaping English religious and secular authorities, and taking their firsts steps towards New England.

After spending over a decade in the Netherlands, the congregation of covenanted Englishmen and women decided to remove themselves once again, setting to work at planting a truly godly government in America. Bradford gave four reasons for the group moving to America, each in some way related to the establishment, development and propagation of

<sup>20</sup> John Robinson, *A Justification of Separation from the Church of England Against Mr. Richard Bernard, his invective entitled; The Separatist Schism* (Amsterdam: 1610), p. 94.

<sup>21</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 31.

<sup>22</sup> 'None could be delivered from the deluge, but such as were contained in *Noahs* Ark: so can none be saved from eternal death, but only those who keep themselves within the Church of God', Edward James, *A Retrayt sounded to certain brethren lately seduced by the schimaticall Brownists to forsake the Church* (London: 1607), pp. 1, 5; for more on Edward James and a discussion surrounding a dialogue between Nonconformists and Anglicans in 1607, see Suellen Mutchow Towers, *Control of Religious Printing in Early Stuart England* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell & Brewer, 2003), especially chapter 3.

<sup>23</sup> Henoch Clapham, *Errour on the Right Hand, through a Preposterous Zeal Acted by Way of a Dialogue* (London: 1608), p. 14.

godly governance and the gospel.24 However, to achieve this mission, its partakers needed to ensure some form of financial support from the godly in England. Their primary concern was to acquire a 'patent from one of the chartered trading companies' that had been established by the Crown to trade and govern over the new American territories.25 The Virginia Company of London had started offering patents to plantations that would pay tax to Jamestown to secure financial support for the faltering colony. In February 1619, after some negotiation, the VC granted the Pilgrims a patent to settle within its jurisdiction in the 'Northern parts of Virginia'.<sup>26</sup> However, things were not to prove that simple; after the *Mayflower* returned to England in April 1621, it reported the news that the Pilgrims had landed and settled north of the VC lands, in the Jurisdiction of the Council of New England (CNE). Formerly the Virginia Company of Plymouth, the CNE in 1620 had been reformed and re-chartered under the new name, with the purpose of doing what the former company had failed to do, successfully establishing a permanent settlement and the 'Civil Society and Christian Religion' of English governance in New England.<sup>27</sup> The Pilgrims sent back a request for the corporation to provide them with a patent to remain where they had settled, which was granted that same year. Known as the 'Second Pierce Patent', this was a temporary patent, and ensured that if a permanent settlement were not established, all the rights given would be reverted to the corporation. Despite the seven-year clause of the Pierce Patent, it provided the colonists with the constitutional apparatus they needed to establish themselves and their religious government legally in America.

Both this and future patents for the colony not only provided the legal validity for its existence, they provided the Plymouth colonists with the ability to establish their godly government. The Second Pierce Patent granted the Pilgrims the powers to govern over themselves and to make all 'laws Ordinances and Constitutions for the rule government' needed

<sup>24</sup> Ibid, pp. 46–47.

<sup>26</sup> The Patent no longer survives but is known as the 'First Pierce Patent'; Bradford, *History*, p. 107.

<sup>27</sup> *Charter of New England*, (1620).

<sup>25</sup> Although primarily concerned with the cultural and family aspect of the colony, John Demos does offer a brief, if not fleeting, mention of the founding of a company in *A Little Commonwealth: Family Life in Plymouth Colony* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 4–5.

to ensure the colonist could 'live together in the Fear and true Worship of Almighty God, Christian Peace, and civil Quietness', or in other words, godly government.<sup>28</sup> The second patent contained remarkably little on how the colony should be governed, or on what direction the Council should develop its religious governance. On the subject of religion, the patent mentioned only that colonists were to 'build Churches, Schools, [and] Hospitals'.29 The religious governance of the colony had been defined a year earlier in the signing of the Mayflower Compact on 11 November 1620. The compact was designed by the initial migrants to supersede the original patent and to separate themselves further from English governance. Signed by 41 of the men aboard the *Mayflower*, the compact not only acknowledged that they had undertaken the project 'for ye glory of God, and advancement of ye Christian faith' but also set out how to establish this faith in their government.<sup>30</sup> Through this formal act the signers sought to bring themselves 'together into a civil body politick'.<sup>31</sup> This civil body politic mirrored a Church covenant that bound the settlers' religious and political aims together to establish godly governance in America. In doing so they believed they could establish order in the colony and 'enact, constitute, and frame' godly 'equal laws, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices'.32 Although the second patent legally superseded the compact, its wording gave authority to the Mayflower Compact in all matters concerning governance of the colony.33 The Plymouth colonists combined the apparatus that provided the legal and constitutional foundations needed to establish governmental authority with their ideas and plans to establish their own godly government.

The structural organisation of the colony's government was also linked to its financial arrangements, as once they had secured their patent the

<sup>28</sup> 'Second Pierce Patent' (1621), Pilgrim Hall Museum.

<sup>29</sup> Ibid.

<sup>30</sup> *Mayflower Compact* (1620).

<sup>33</sup> Eugene Stratton, *Plymouth Colony: Its History & People, 1620–1691* (Salt Lake City, UT: Ancestry Publishing, 1986), pp. 142, 152.

<sup>31</sup> Ibid.

<sup>32</sup> Ibid.

Pilgrims established a joint-stock company.<sup>34</sup> Ruth McIntyre has convincingly argued that the Pilgrims organised themselves into something that was not dissimilar from the Virginia and Bermuda joint-stock companies. The colony's chief governing body was its court, which like many other seventeenth-century corporations was made up entirely of its stockholders. This was then broken into two bodies, the General Court made up of the freemen and a Court of Assistants that was an executive body made up of assistants along with the governor. Like the VC, EIC and later the MBC, the PC shared a similar governmental structure based around the joint-stock corporate model. This combination of corporate governance with the planting of godly governance may not have been as explicit as it was with the MBC; however, like the VC, the Plymouth colonists established the experimental corporate foundations for the MBC government.

As to the financial structure of the Plymouth enterprise, 'the entire capital, including lands[,] was to be a joint stock fund, divided into shares'.<sup>35</sup> All those over the age of sixteen who went to the colony were considered shareholders and every share was worth £10.<sup>36</sup> Investors could remain in England, and everyone who went to the colony and was a shareholder would continue in the joint stock for seven years. Over these seven years, all profits from several different industries, including trading and fishing, would remain in the common stock, in order to help furnish and supply the colony. After seven years, the profits and capital would be divided equally amongst the shareholders. However, the Pilgrims had incurred substantial debt to transport themselves to America, having borrowed from the Merchant Adventurers in London, who were repeatedly disappointed by the lack of profits from the colony.<sup>37</sup> Attempts by the colonists in 1621 and 1625 to send back furs and pelts to their investors in London to pay off their debt were beset with bad luck. In 1621, the French boarded the ship and seized its cargo amounting to

<sup>36</sup> William Scott, *The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish and Irish Joint Stock Companies to 1720*, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1910), II: pp. 3078.

<sup>37</sup> Bradford, *History*, pp. 272–273.

<sup>34</sup> For a brief but in-depth analysis of the financial organisation of the Plymouth Colony, see McIntyre, *Debts Hopeful and Desperate*.

<sup>35</sup> Ibid, p. 17.

£500, whilst in 1625 the ship was accosted by Barbary pirates in the Channel.<sup>38</sup>

Only a year before the pirates captured the ship, its captain, Emmanuel Altham, while trying to advertise the Plymouth Colony as an investment opportunity, argued that its colonists 'will flourish' if people were willing to invest.<sup>39</sup> Altham drew attention to the religious morality and ethics of the colonists as a means of safeguard investment, linking the Plymouth brethren's religious governance to commerce. According to Altham, the 'New Plymouth will quickly return your money again. For on the most part they are honest and careful men'.<sup>40</sup> However, the Merchant Adventurers in London did not agree with Altham's suggestion that the Plymouth Colony was a sound investment and that success had been 'God grant[ed]', gradually withdrawing their financial and material support. Bradford recalled the reluctance of the Adventurers, who gradually sent fewer migrants and increased interest rates, leaving the colony in a difficult situation. Bradford complained that the colonists were left 'deeply engaged' in trying to secure the financial help to alleviate their economic situation.41 With some bitterness he wrote, 'the Company of Adventurers broke in pieces… and the greatest parte wholly deserted the colony'.<sup>42</sup> An agreement was reached in late 1626 between the then Assistant Governor Isaac Allerton and the Adventurers, in which the company bought its debt for £1,800 out of the £7,000, allowing those families resident in Plymouth advantageous land granting privileges.43

The following year, eight men in Plymouth, of which Mayflower migrants William Brewster, Bradford and Allerton are listed, and four

<sup>38</sup> Nick Bunker, *Making Haste From Babylon: The Mayflower Pilgrims and Their World: A New History*, (London, Random House, 2010), pp. 307–308, 349; Bradford, *History*, p. 123.

<sup>39</sup> Emmanuel Altham to James Shirley, May 1624, in Sydney V James ed., *Three Visitors to Early Plymouth*, ed., Sydney V. James, Jr. (Plymouth, MA: Plimoth Plantation, 2002), p. 49.

<sup>40</sup> Ibid.

<sup>41</sup> William Bradford, *Governor Bradford's Letter Book*, ed., John C. Kemp, (Plymouth, MA: Plimoth Plantation, 2002), p. 38.

<sup>42</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 201.

<sup>43</sup> For a succinct discussion of the issues of the Plymouth Colony debt, see K. B. Patten, *Isaac Allerton: First Assistant of the Plymouth Company* (Minneapolis, 1908), p. 3; Bradford, *History*, pp. 271–274.

in England sought to buy the rest of the debt from the Adventurers, and in turn, they were granted trading monopolies on fur by the other colonists.44 Those who remained in England and supported the Plymouth settlers were to be known as the 'Undertakers', who according to Bradford agreed to take upon themselves the debt of the whole colony. In the governors' opinion, this action had distanced the colony from the financial and governmental scrutiny of England, describing it as 'sett[ing] them free' and allowing its members to freely establish the religious government they wished.<sup>45</sup> However, to ensure some financial return as well as secure their newly acquired trading monopolies, the 'Undertakers' also set about acquiring a new patent granting them access to areas known or suspected to be 'good trading places'.46 Yet even into the 1640s, the town of Plymouth itself would continue to use the Plymouth Company covenant for land distribution, where the distribution of capital assets was based on shares in the company.47

The penultimate step to full governmental autonomy was taken in 1629, the same year that the MBC received its charter, when the CNE finally granted the Plymouth colonists a third patent. The patent provided all the colonists and their 'heir and associates' permanent and more extensive rights to the lands in not only Plymouth but also Kennebec, Maine.48 Six years later in 1635, the CNE had its charter dissolved, yet despite this, the Plymouth Colony continued on in splendid isolation, as its patents along with its joint stock model of governance provided its colonists with the independence needed to successfully establish, maintain and develop their Nonconformist form of religious governance.

The constitutional and commercial apparatus that the Plymouth colonists had utilised along with their own brand of Puritanism provided a distinct Congregational form to the governance of the colony, which would later be adapted by the MBC.<sup>49</sup> The religion of the Plymouth

<sup>44</sup> For a list of the undertakers in both Plymouth and London, see the *Articles for* Agreement in Bradford, *Letters*, p. 40.

<sup>45</sup> Ibid, p. 38; Bradford, *History*, pp. 226–228.

<sup>46</sup> Bradford, *Letters*, p. 39.

<sup>47</sup> William T. Davis, *Records of the Town of Plymouth*, vols. 3 (Plymouth, MA: Avery and Doten, 1889), I: pp. 4–6, 36–37, 62–70; Martin, *Profits in the Wilderness*, p. 137.

<sup>48</sup> Warwick/Bradford Patent (1629), Pilgrims Hall Museum; Stratton, *Plymouth,* p. 141.

<sup>49</sup> For more on the connection of the Plymouth and MBC and the New England way of religious governance see Maloy, *Colonial American Origins*, pp. 104–106.

colonists permeated all aspects of their lives, including the government of the colony. Founding their civil government through the structure of the joint stock corporation, the Plymouth colonists quickly knitted the secular governance of the corporation to their faith. As early as 1622, both Bradford and Edward Winslow offered advice on how this could be implemented in the selection of government officials to be elected by the colonists. For both the elected and electors, those who were to govern were required to have fused together a desire for civil good with godliness of character. The people of Plymouth when electing their governing officials were reminded also not to be blinded by the cult of personality and not to be 'like unto the foolish multitude, who more honour the gay coat, than either the virtuous mind of the man' or most importantly 'the glorious ordinance of the Lord'.50 For the Plymouth colonists and those who would follow in the MBC, the success of their mission was often associated with the selection of godly leaders. Unlike in England, where the people were suppressed under the government of unelected and ungodly 'tyrannous Bishops', governance in Plymouth and Massachusetts would be firstly chosen by individuals who had the 'wisdom and godliness' to select those who recognised 'God's ordinance for your good'.51 By this means, the leadership of Plymouth sought to ensure not only the successful establishment of its religious governance but also that it could select who would lead the colonists in their mission.

During the first decade of the Plymouth Colony's existence, the leadership of the Congregational Church in the colony underwent a leadership crisis.52 This was magnified after the death of John Robinson, which one commentator described as leaving the colony's congregation as being left 'to feel the want of his help, and saw (by woeful experience) what a treasure they had lost'.<sup>53</sup> Cracks in the unity of the colony began to form as ministers became scarcer and were unable to perform sacraments, particularly the two most important to Congregationalists: baptism and communion. In 1623, the situation was so dire that a senior member

<sup>50</sup> Winslow and Bradford, *Mourt's Relation or Journal of the Plantation of Plymouth* (London: 1622), pp. xlv–xlvi.

<sup>51</sup> Bradford, *A Late Observation as it Were, by the Way, Worthy to be Noted* (1646); ibid, pp. xlv–xlvi.

<sup>52</sup> Mark A. Peterson, 'The Plymouth Church and the Evolution of Puritan Religious Culture', *New England Quarterly*, Vol. 66. No. 4 (1993), pp. 570–593.

<sup>53</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 41.

of the colony's elite, William Brewster, although unqualified, would lead his congregation in sermon and prayer.54 By 1630, the lack of ministers able to perform the sacraments was a cause of deep concern for leaders in Plymouth, as people such as Samuel Hicks and John Cooke questioned the existence of 'a visible Church and ordinances without a ministry'.<sup>55</sup> Both then demonstrated what the Plymouth leadership feared most, 'dissension in our Church', as the former became a Quaker and the latter was described as a 'Shallow man and Cause of trouble', an Anabaptist.<sup>56</sup> The reaction of the Church was to cast them out of their society to ensure that their church congregation remained under the influence of the godly. Both the virtue and glorious ordinance they discussed could only be found amongst the godly members of their congregations. The government and those who governed the colony were then in an unbreakable covenant with the Pilgrims' Puritan Church, as members of both the Church and the government.

Excessively protective of their Puritan faith and Church, the Plymouth colonists became equally protective of their government by fusing Congregationalism to it. This protectiveness was not helped by a culture of religious and political paranoia. Scholars have studied what has been coined 'godly paranoia' in relation to the witch-hunts of the seventeenth century; however, very little has been said of the institutionalised paranoia of Puritan corporate religious governance in New England.57 Although paranoia is often associated with an individual, work by sociologists looking at millennialism in the modern age has produced a body of research based on game theory that suggests certain forms of paranoia

<sup>54</sup> Although years later Bradford would claim that Brewster by experience 'was qualified above many' Bradford, *History*, p. 379; *Plymouth Church Records 1620*–*1859* (Boston, MA: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1920), I: pp. 79–81.

<sup>55</sup> *Plymouth Church Records*, pp. 92–93.

<sup>56</sup> Peterson, 'Plymouth Church', p. 576.

<sup>57</sup> Coffey and Lim, *Companion to Puritanism*, p. 9; for a brief discussion of paranoia, see Keith Thomas, *Religion and the Decline of Magic: Studies in Popular Beliefs in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century England* (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1971), pp. 651– 652; for parallels between paranoia surrounding witch-hunts in seventeenth-century New England and the political paranoia of McCarthyism and the communist-hunts in 1950s America, see Robert S Robins & Jerrold M. Post, *Political Paranoia: The Psychopolitics of Hatred* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), in particular chapter 8.

can be termed social paranoia.<sup>58</sup> Social paranoia is derived from social interaction where paranoid individuals, or a community, feel that they are being conspired against by others and as such 'are more aware of social realities, more alive to contingences and nuances, more strategic in their response'.59 This heightened awareness of the social realities of establishing a godly society in a hostile environment, along with the deep-rooted effects of religious and political life in England, left the Plymouth colonists deeply suspicious of the 'religious others', whether English, Native American or European. Gradually through the 1620s, as the Plymouth colonists established a government in New England that encapsulated both its corporate origins and its people's religious ethos, they also absorbed the religious and political paranoia that surrounded them. The effect of this was that the corporate religious government of the Plymouth colonists became increasingly hostile to those who did not share their doctrinal beliefs.

The cavalier Thomas Morton, the author of the *New English Canaan*, lawyer, colonist and scholar of Native American culture, faced the fury of Plymouth's leaders for his contrasting views and lifestyle.<sup>60</sup> Described as 'an Elizabethan dandy, a man of the Renaissance, with a smattering of high culture and a hankering for low adventure', Morton stood as an antithesis to the Plymouth colonists.61 Bedford later remembered him as an 'instrument of mischief' and a 'man of more craft then honesty', whilst according to Bradford's colleague Edward Winslow, he was an 'arrant knave' and a 'serpent'.<sup>62</sup> After a brief trip in 1622 to Plymouth, Morton settled in New England in 1624. He was part of a group of adventurers who established the settlement of Mount Wollaston, later named Merrymount. The establishment of the Merrymount trading post

<sup>58</sup> John R. Hall, Philip D. Schuyler and Sylvanie Trinh, *Apocalypse Observed: Religious Movements and Violence in North America, Europe and Japan* (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 189–216.

<sup>59</sup> Stanford Lyman and Marvin B. Scott, *A Sociology of the Absurd* (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1989), p. 105.

<sup>60</sup> For more on the life of Thomas Morton, see William Heath, 'Thomas Morton: From Merry Old England to New England', *Journal of American Studies*, Vol. 41, No. 1 (2007), pp. 135–168; Thomas Morton, *New English Canaan; or New Canaan* (London: 1632) (hereafter *New Canaan*).

<sup>61</sup> Heath, 'Thomas Morton', p. 136.

<sup>62</sup> Bradford, *History*, pp. 250–251, 238; Winslow, in *Winthrop Papers*, 5 vols, (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1944), IV: p. 428.

upset the colonists in Plymouth; however, Morton very quickly 'raised their ire more'.63 This animosity towards Morton was rooted in religion and relations with the local Native Americans. Relations between the Plymouth colonists and Native Americans in the area, particularly the local Massachusetts, had been tense since the death of Squanto and Plymouth's attack on Wessagusset in 1623.64 In a move away from the traditional narrative of pilgrim apologists, Heath argues that their Native American policy was not as has been previously suggested 'humane and equitable' and that Wessagusset was not part of a plan by the Pilgrims to preserve 'interracial harmony', but it might be more accurate to suggest that they 'created a desert and called it peace'.<sup>65</sup> It was in this environment of animosity between Plymouth colonists and Native Americans that Morton found himself increasingly on the side of the Native Americans. Writing some years later, he recalled how when he arrived in New England he 'found two sorts of people, the one Christians, the other Infidels; these I found most full of humanity, and more friendly than the other'.66 He would also recall how in his commercial dealings with the local Native Americans, establishing a moderately successful fur trade where the Plymouth colonists failed. Morton recalled how in his dealings with local Native Americans 'the more Savages the better quarter' he had leading to better trade and relations, however in opposition to this he scathingly wrote concerning the Plymouth colonists 'the more Christians the worse quarter I found'.67 It could be assumed that being English he would have found a great deal in common with the Plymouth colonists;

<sup>63</sup> Mancall, *The Trials of Thomas Morton: An Anglican Lawyer, His Puritan Foes, and the Battle for a New England* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), p. 13.

<sup>64</sup> Squanto died in November 1622. For more on the Wampanoag Indian who helped the Plymouth colonists establish the colony, see Neil Salisbury, 'Squanto: Last of the Patuxets' in David G. Sweet and Gary B. Nash, eds., *Struggle and Survival in Colonial America* (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 228–246; Anna Brickhouse, *The Unsettlement of America: Translation, Interpretation, and the story of Don Luis Velasco, 1560–1945* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 37–45; For the attack on Wessagusset, see Heath, 'Thomas Morton', pp. 143–148.

<sup>65</sup> Heath, 'Thomas Morton', pp. 143–144; Alden T. Vaughan, *New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians, –1775* (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1965), pp. xiii, 88.

<sup>66</sup> Morton, *New Canaan*, p. 15.

<sup>67</sup> Ibid, p. 77.

however, beyond the country of origin, there was not much in common between the two.

The strict Congregationalism of Plymouth was abstract to Morton, so much so that he saw more in common between England—or rather the hedonistic life—he had left and the Powhatan culture of festivity. Even the local Native Americans would 'exercise themselves in gaming, and playing of juggling tricks, and all manner of Revels, which they are delighted in'.<sup>68</sup> Since Sir Humphrey Gilbert's voyages, traders had been aware that there was to be expected some form of entertainment accompanying commercial deals with Native Americans.<sup>69</sup> Morton would have been fully aware that because of the obligation to provide entertainment upon the completion of a business transaction, he would fall under the heavy hand of the religious governance and envious Plymouth leadership. In May of 1627, in preparation for the completion of a business transaction, Morton ordered a maypole erected from an 80 ft pine tree and made sure that they had 'brewed a barrel of excellent beer' for all those who came.<sup>70</sup> Indeed, there was nothing out of the ordinary about such a festival, as they took place in his native England and in 1622 a precedent had been set when English fishermen in Maine had set up a maypole.<sup>71</sup> Despite this, what was seen as 'harmless mirth' by Morton was perceived to be idolatrous and described as erecting a 'Calf of Horeb' by the 'precise Separatists' and as such worthy of godly punishment.72 Jealous of Morton and his men's trading success, Bradford scornfully wrote how he 'got much by trading with the Indians' and that they 'spent it as vainly, in quaffing and drinking both wine and strong waters in great excess'.73Yet Morton evoked more than jealousy in the Plymouth leadership; his presence fuelled their social paranoia, as he seemed to have embodied not

<sup>68</sup> Ibid, p. 20.

<sup>69</sup> Edward Haies, 'A Report of the Voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Knight, 1583', in Henry Burrage, ed., *Early English and French Voyages, 1534–1608* (New York: Charles Scriber's Sons, 1932), p. 192; Heath, 'Thomas Morton', p. 150.

<sup>70</sup> Morton, *New Canaan*, p. 90.

<sup>71</sup> Phineas Pratt, 'A Declaration of the Affairs of the English People that First inhabited New England', *Collection of the Massachusetts Historical Society*, 4th Series, Vol. 4 (Boston, MA: 1856), p. 478.

<sup>72</sup> Morton, *New Canaan*, p. 90.

<sup>73</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 238.

only all the reasons why they had left England but also what they worked so hard to establish a religious government against.

For the Plymouth leadership, Morton was irreligious, setting him immediately at odds with the deeply suspicious Congregational colonists, being accused of directing a 'school of Atheism'.74 This was likely a disparaging remark regarding Morton's Anglican faith that Plymouth leadership further imbued with irreligious connotations by suggesting it was centred around the 'idle or idol May-poll'.<sup>75</sup> Bradford's conjunction drew together Puritan religious ideas surrounding idolatry and idleness. Morton's celebration according to Bradford was an expression of idleness, which was considered a cardinal sin. As one of Bradford's contemporaries pointed out, the 'industrious man hath no leisure to sin: the idle man hath not leisure to avoid sin'.76 In conjunction with idleness, Morton, by erecting the maypole, had also committed idolatry. Amongst Puritan circles, the maypole had long been considered a symbol of idolatry and was often the cause of conflict. In 1641, Puritan students in Oxford attacked a local maypole, whilst during the Interregnum, Parliament passed an order that all maypoles be taken down as they were considered 'a Heathenist vanity, generally abused to superstition and wickedness'.<sup>77</sup> On top of these accusations, Morton was further charged with organised a bacchanalian orgy, to which were invited 'Indian women, for their consort, dancing and frisking together'.<sup>78</sup> Although it is highly likely that Bradford exaggerated the accusations levelled at Morton, it is very clear that he was considered a threat. To Bradford and the other Plymouth

<sup>74</sup> Ibid.

<sup>75</sup> Ibid.

<sup>76</sup> Ralph Venning, *Milke and Honey, or a Miscellaneous Collation of Many Christian Experiences, Sayings, Sentences, and Several Places of Scripture Improved* (London: 1653), p. 25.

<sup>77</sup> Oxford Record Office PAR/207/4/F1/1; C.H. Firth and R. S. Rait, *Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642–60*, 3 vols. (London: His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1911), II: p. 1163.

<sup>78</sup> Mancall, *Trials of Thomas Morton*, p. 13.

colonists, Morton, embodied England of Anglicanism, with its folk traditions that many Puritans had left behind, and so was an unwanted reminder of an old home.79

Morton's friendly trading relations with the Native Americans played upon the Plymouth colonists' fears of their indigenous neighbours, whom they perceived to be a 'cruel, barbarous & most treacherous' people were not to be trusted.80 This was at a time when Wessagusset was still in the public's memory and the Plymouth Colony was still under the belief that colonists were being killed by Native Americans daily. Playing upon Plymouth colonists' fear, Morton was accused of trading and supplying the Indians with guns and shot.<sup>81</sup> Not only this, but Bradford went further to suggest that if Morton and his men 'could attain to make saltpetre' they would have taught how to make gunpowder, 'O, the horribleness of this villainy!'82 Although the fear of armed Indians may not have been totally unwarranted, it was totally exaggerated, highlighting the Plymouth colonists' paranoia towards the Native Americans.83 Morton was arrested and tried by the Plymouth colonists in what has been described as a 'Kangaroo court' and sentenced to be 'sent back to England as a prisoner'.84 In a bizarre logic Plymouth's leadership brought two accusations against Morton that on one hand reinforced the colonies connection to the crown, while also illustrating the growing religiopolitical divide between the colony and England. The first was that he was accused of supplying arms to local Native Americans, which the Plymouth colonists argued was prohibited by a royal prohibition of King James. Secondly was also accused of trying 'to advance the dignity of Church of

<sup>79</sup> For an argument that Puritans neither disavowed nor encouraged arts and music, see Percy Scholes, *The Puritans and Music in England and New England: A Contribution to the Cultural History of Two Nations* (New York, Russell & Russell, 1962).

<sup>80</sup> Ibid, p. 47.

<sup>81</sup> Ibid, pp. 239–240; Nathaniel Morton, *New England's Memorial* (Cambridge, MA: 1669), p. 92; Mancall, *Trials of Thomas Morton* p. 107.

<sup>82</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 240.

<sup>83</sup> Nathaniel Morton, of no relation to Thomas Morton, illustrates this paranoia further by alluding to the fact that if the Indians did attack in the future, Morton would 'bear a greater part of the blame and guilt of it to future generations'; see Morton, *Memorial*, p. 92.

<sup>84</sup> Heath, 'Thomas Morton', p. 156.

England' within the jurisdiction of the colony.85 Morton and the events that surrounded his punishment were seen as a triumph for the religious governance and independence of New England and were embedded into the collective memory of the Congregational population. The heavyhanded approach of the Plymouth colonists and their leadership towards Morton not only illustrates the paranoia of the Congregational population but also how this paranoia became institutionalised in the religious governance of the colony.

## Chartering and Charter Rights

The case of Morton was merely the foundation for what became an increasingly hostile, suspicious and closed form of corporate religious governance in New England. Between 1620 and 1629, the Plymouth colonists laid the foundations for the MBC; their corporate religious governance along with their increasingly closed off society based on Congregationalist theology would become a building block for the newly formed trading company. Placing the MBC's charter in the religious and political context of the 1620s accentuates the nuances of the company's foundations, and with further scrutiny adds to the initial story of the MBC's charter, helping to illuminate the debates and reasons that led to transferal of the company's government abroad.

For corporations, their charters were the source of their power. As vestiges of a medieval civic tradition, charters were defined broadly, giving companies and corporations a wide variety of powers to protect, govern and legislate over the lands and people who lived in their territories.<sup>86</sup> The level of the powers provided to companies by the charters were in themselves extraordinary when considered against the fact that over the seventeenth century those granting these powers were often considered arbitrary rulers. Furthermore, this is even more curious in the case of the MBC, especially when you consider that vocal communities of Puritans were granted these powers by Charles I, whom Puritan- and Presbyterian-inclined MPs within Parliament would accuse twenty years

<sup>85</sup> Bradford, *History*, p. 241; Morton, *New Canaan*, p. 98.

<sup>86</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, p. 10; Phil Withington, 'Citizens, Community and Political Culture in Restoration England', in Alexandra Shepard and Phil Withington, eds., *Communities in Early Modern England* (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000), p. 138.

later of trying to 'introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government'.<sup>87</sup> Indeed, the traditional historiography has been based on the age-old tale of the Puritans fleeing religious persecution in England during a time when 'Parliament, liberty, property, and religion all appeared under attack from a sinister Catholic conspiracy against England with the King a co-conspirator, albeit perhaps unwittingly'.<sup>88</sup> Jason Peacey has discussed Puritan ties that cemented links within the MBC during the 1630s being able to ensure that the company's fundraising efforts within England would be carried out in political and religious opposition to Charles I's personal rule.<sup>89</sup> However, this traditional explanation for the founding of the MBC and its subsequent transferal across the Atlantic provides little justification for the chartering of the company by Charles, or for the convenient absence from the charter of clauses establishing where the company government should be held.

One hypothesis that attempts to answer these objections is that the events surrounding the chartering of the company and those leading to the transferal of its government abroad involved more cooperation between the Crown and the company's Puritan founders than previously presumed. The act of granting overseas company charters by Charles to Puritan groups whose supporters such as John Pym and Robert Rich, Earl of Warwick, opposed his religious and political policies suggests that Charles had his own agenda.<sup>90</sup> Charles's creation of companies such as the MBC and Providence Island Company highlighted the double-edged nature of the Stuart monarchs' expansionist policy, which encompassed the King's religious, commercial and territorial aims in the Atlantic. Granted by the King, corporate charters legally formalised non-English spaces abroad according to English legal tradition, allowing Charles to dispose of pesky religious communities, whilst also advancing the financial and territorial aims of the King and country. Unlike the previous charters which established companies such as the VC, EIC and LC, the MBC's charter specifically left out any mention of where the company's government should be held. The 1606 Virginia charter stipulated that

<sup>90</sup> See BL, Add. Ms 11,692, Mss Letters 1634–1689, fo.1 John Pym to Alexander Pym November 21, 1634; John Wallis, *Truth Tried: or Animadversions on a Treatise published by the Right Honourable Robert Lord Brooke, Entitled the Nature of Truth* (London: 1642).

<sup>87</sup> An Act Erecting a High Court of Justice for the Trial of Charles I (1650).

<sup>88</sup> Winship, 'Godly Republicanism', p. 439.

<sup>89</sup> Peacey, 'Seasonable Treatises', pp. 667–679.

'there shall be a Council, established here in England', whilst in 1620 the New England Company maintained a presence in England through its council in Plymouth.<sup>91</sup> The omission of the clause stipulating that the company remain in England allowed the MBC to take full advantage of its charter and raise the possibility of moving the corporation and its charter out of the country. Considering that this omission allowed for a collection of people whom Charles would have considered to be a thorn in his side to move 3,000 miles away, it then does not seem too much of a leap to suggest that the ambiguity was deliberate on the part of the Crown and the company's Puritan officials. This effectively provided Charles with an outlet for future Puritan opposition groups in 1629. Although we now know this was not to be enough, at this point four years into Charles's reign the animosity between factions over religious persecution had not reached the levels it would in the 1630s and 1640s.

The complex relationship between Charles and the community and individuals of the MBC reached new heights of complexity in the leadup to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. The Taunton Minister William Hooke, who had fled the religious policies of Charles in England and settled in Massachusetts, highlighted this complicated relationship. In 1640, he emotionally appealed to the members of the MBC to recognise the developing conflict in England whilst also emphasising the religious autonomy and separation from this conflict that the people of Massachusetts enjoyed. Although according to Hooke there was 'no Potentate breathing, that we call our dread Sovereign, but King CHARLES' and as such no 'Lawes of any Land have civilized us, but England's', he also believed the conflict in England to be an act of apocalyptic judgement against English religious governance or 'old England sins' and the monarch, which they had fled.92 Despite Hooke's affirmation of the monarch's position as 'dread Sovereign', he clearly believed that the MBC had obtained a level of autonomy that went beyond the geographical, and could be associated with its charter. This, however, did not mean that they stood in isolation. Hooke reminded his congregation not to forget the godly in Old England, who should never be 'forsaken

<sup>92</sup> William Hooke, *New Englands Tears, for old Englands Fears. Preached in a sermon on July 23 1640, being a day of publike Humiliation, Appointed by the Churches in Behalf of Our Native Country in time of Feared Dangers* (London: 1641), pp. 16–17, 23.

<sup>91</sup> *The Charter of New England*, 1620.

in our affections'.<sup>93</sup> Hooke's sermon alludes to the early foundations of the concept of dual sovereignty between the King and the charter that protected the colony and company under the laws of England, ideas that later came to define a series of political debates in the colony during the 1660s. Just as company officials were vigilant of the power of the monarch in the later years of the MBC's 57-year existence, so were its founders.

Further discussion of the possible cooperation between the company and the monarch can be expanded when the role of religious persecution within England under Charles and the established Church is questioned as a motivating reason in the choice to migrate to New England. The period of religious persecution under Charles's personal rule is often attributed to the rise of William Laud to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury in 1633 after the death of the Calvinist George Abbot. The period under Laud, often known as the 'Great Migration', saw substantial numbers of Puritans flee from religious persecution from Nonconformist strongholds in Yorkshire, the West Country and East Anglia as sympathetic bishops were replaced.94 Following the appointment of Laud, there was a swift change in pace in the religious governance of England. Archbishops and bishops sought to unify the ministry and theology of the Church into a body where there was little room for difference. From 1633 onwards, some religious communities across England felt that the Church under Laud and other bishops were pressuring, even persecuting, them into conformity. Faced with this threat, people in increasing numbers chose to migrate to New England. Across the decade, twenty ministers fled from London, seventeen from Norwich and eleven from the diocese of York and Chester.95 The scale of clerical migration was so high that even Richard Neil, Archbishop of York, complained to Charles in 1639 that 'too many of your Majesty's subjects inhabiting in these east parts of Yorkshire are gone into New England'.96

Although the actions of Laud and his followers in the 1630s provide answers for the reasons for the role of English religious persecution in that decade, they do not account for the MBC's decision to transfer to New England in a period of comparative religious calm in England

<sup>93</sup> Ibid, p. 23.

<sup>94</sup> Allen, *In English Ways*.

<sup>95</sup> Hardman Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 24, 186–187, 191–197.

<sup>96</sup> Quoted in ibid, p. 24.

between 1629 and 1632. Indeed, in a pamphlet written upon the eve of his departure to Massachusetts, the governor of the MBC John Winthrop went so far as to suggest that the Congregational Church that he was leaving to join saw it as an 'honour, to call the Church of England, from whence wee rise, our dear Mother'.<sup>97</sup> He went on further to suggest that the MBC could only succeed if those in the established Church 'consider us as your Brethren, standing in very great need of your help, and earnestly imploring it'.98 Similarly,Winthrop in his *General Observations* does not discuss the current state of English religious affairs but turns to Europe for his reason to leave, seeing the events in the Palatinate (1619) and La Rochelle (1627–1628) as signs 'to avoid the plague' that was sweeping over the continent.99For Winthrop and his fellows, the jointstock company offered the best opportunity to avoid this plague, whilst also providing them with not only geographical space but the corporate and political arena to establish their theocratic government.

MBC directors were quick to call upon the need for theocratic governance in order for the company to be a success; they believed merging the company's trading aims with both evangelism and godly governance would provide them with the tools to succeed where others had failed. From the early stages of its existence, company officials were acutely aware of the failure of other English corporations, especially the VC claiming that the governors and government of the corporations involved in America had been 'unfit instruments'.<sup>100</sup> The fundamental reason for their inadequacy was that 'their main end which was proposed was carnal and not religious' and that 'they aimed chiefly at profit and not the propagation of religion'.101 From this position, the MBC's investors and officials sought to avoid what they saw as the mistakes of previous companies by placing religion at the heart of the company's governance. They argued that the company would evangelise and propagate the gospel by

<sup>97</sup> John Winthrop, '*The Humble Request of His Majesties Loyal Subject, the Governor and the Company late gone for New England; To the rest of their Brethren, in and of the Church of England. For the obtaining of their Prayers, and the removal of suspicions, and misconstructions of their intentions*' (Boston, MA: 1630), p. 3.

<sup>99</sup> *Winthrop Papers*, II: p. 113.

<sup>100</sup> John Winthrop, 'General Observations for the Plantation of New England', in *Winthrop Papers*, II: p. 114.

<sup>101</sup> Ibid.

<sup>98</sup> Ibid*,* pp. 2–3.

example, as its organisation mirrored the very specific Protestant values of those involved, not only effectively guaranteeing the company's religious success but also its financial prosperity.

Fusing together religion and trade in the first years of the company's existence, the MBC leadership considered them as founding pillars of their corporate structure, providing them with the freedom to achieve their specific aims and attain their goal of autonomous theocratic governance. Much akin to many contemporaries such as the Nonconformist cleric Henry Wilkinson, many MBC officials knitted together trade and religion, forming a standard seventeenth-century link.<sup>102</sup> One official was to write that God had divinely knitted together the need for Protestants to spread 'the Gospel to all Nations' and the 'intercourse of Trade having opened up a passage, and made a way for commerce with the East and West Indies', thereby providing a spiritual and financial counter to Catholic expansion.103 Using religion, trade and evangelism to influence and gather the support of particular groups who had very different motives, the most important of these groups was the Crown. Thus, the company received the protection and freedom it needed to create a unique commonwealth in New England, eventually allowing the MBC to politically entrench a set of Puritan ideologies and practices in America that stood against everything the Anglican establishment considered 'English'. Yet, in the first year of the company's existence, a dialogue on its future governance looked very different to the Puritan zeal and financial redundancy that has come to define the MBC's theocratic rule of the colony; instead, it focused on religiously liberal and commercially viable options for the colony.

The rapid development of the MBC over the first decade of its existence from a trading company to a quasi-independent religious government has led to the mistaken presumption that trade was initially incompatible with the religious sentiments of the company's founders. However, the developments that saw the move from its role as primarily a trading company were never inevitable, and in fact, through the early years of its existence, the company continued the façade that it would trade. For those involved in the leadership of the MBC, trade provided

<sup>102</sup> Henry Wilkinson, *The Debt Book: Or, a Treatise upon Romans 13 ver. 8. Wherein is Handled: The Civil Debt of Money or Goods, and Under it the Mixt Debt, as Occasion is Offered. Also, The Sacred Debt of Love* (London: 1625).

<sup>103</sup> 'Sir John Eliot's Copy of the New England Tracts', in *Winthrop Papers*, p. 145.

a reasoning to firstly obtain their charter and secondly to establish a foothold abroad and eventually lay the foundations of their religious government. Whether a possibility existed of financial returns or not, national prestige and a buffer on Catholic advancement in North America were incentives enough for Charles to offer a group of radical Puritans a corporate charter.

## Massachusetts Bay Company as Trading Corporation

As is evident from the company's charter, the Crown expected to receive some financial return, mainly in the form of one-fifth of all gold and silver ore mining in the region. In addition, Charles and the MBC's leadership initially hoped that the company and the colony would obtain a foothold in the lucrative fur market, granting the company 50% of the beaver trade as well as encouraging growth in the North Atlantic fishing industry.<sup>104</sup> In the years that followed it was the fur trade, governed by the MBC, that continued to attract a private group of investors such as John Oldham and Matthew Craddock.<sup>105</sup> As Moore has pointed out, London 'supplied the colonies, with Boston merchants as smaller stakeholders in the enterprise'.106 Many of those who chose to migrate to the jurisdiction of the MBC did so 'with an eye for new opportunities in Atlantic trade', adding fur, timber and the North Atlantic fishing grounds to their mercantile connections in the Caribbean and the East.107 Even after the joint stock was dissolved, the business functions of the MBC did not cease. As late as the 1650s, the General Court still used land as a dividend to adventurers for those who had stock subscriptions, offering 200 acres for a £50 subscription.108 The granting of 'land as dividend to shareholders' highlights how MBC officials, almost a generation after 1629, continued to merge 'colony and company business' suggesting that the MBC was

<sup>104</sup> *RCM*, I: pp. 4, 6, 11; *The Charter of Massachusetts Bay* (1629).

<sup>105</sup> Bailyn, *New England Merchants*, pp. 27–28; *Winthrop Papers*, III: p. 379; IV: pp. 91–92.

<sup>106</sup> Hardman Moore, Pilgrims, p. 105.

<sup>107</sup> Ibid, pp. 4, 104–109.

<sup>108</sup> Martin, *Profits in the Wilderness*, p. 136.

than just a plantation corporation.109 Through the merging of colony and company's business, the MBC ably transitioned from a commercial joint stock venture to a politically religious corporation that assured its settlers it would ensure both the religious and commercial aims of its original inception.

Very quickly, the MBC transformed from a corporate organisation that governed over trade to a political structure that guaranteed the right to trade freely in the Atlantic world to those who fell under its theocratic governance. The MBC's leadership ensured this through several means including lobbying Westminster and actively expanding the colony's European and Caribbean markets. During and following the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Parliament offered through the Navigation Act, along with other legislation, 'beneficial ordinance' and trading incentives to the MBC, such as trade without paying duties, which made MBC the envy of other colonies.<sup>110</sup> During the conflict, the MBC's leadership tried to maintain its trading superiority by asking Parliament to ensure that Boston harbour remained a conflict-free zone.<sup>111</sup> The MBC took advantage of conflict to increase its trade, becoming the 'very mart of the Land', exporting timber, farm produce, livestock and fish to numerous European countries and colonists in America, who according to Edward Johnson, member of the General Court, came to Boston 'for Traffic'.<sup>112</sup> Johnson not only argued that Spain, Portugal, France and Holland 'hath all had a mouthful of bread and fish from us', but also that Massachusetts commodities had maintained England's Atlantic colonies, as well as the 'Grandmother of us all', England itself.113John Winthrop some years earlier had noted that the success of Massachusetts trade and ship-building

<sup>109</sup> Ibid, p. 136; Scott, *Constitutions of Joint Stock Companies*, II: pp. 312–315.

<sup>110</sup> *RCM*, II: p. 34; *Mercurius Britanicus*, 60 (London: 2–9 December 1655), pp. 476– 477.

<sup>111</sup> *Massachusetts Records*, III: pp. 31–32.

<sup>112</sup> Edward Johnson, *A History of New-England* (London: 1654), p. 43; for the connection between the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the development of ideas concerning free trade in the Atlantic, see Carla Gardina Pestana, *The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640–1661* (Cambridge; MA: Harvard University Press, 2004), chapter V; John J. McCusker, 'British Mercantilist Policies and the American Colonies' in Stanley L. Engerman and Robert E. Gallman, eds., *The Cambridge Economic History of the United States Volume 1: The Colonial Era* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 337–362.

<sup>113</sup> Johnson, *History of New-England*, p. 208.

was flourishing; a convoy of five ships had left the harbour for England, three of which had been built in Massachusetts.114 Unlike the EIC, from an early stage, the original commercial mission of the MBC did not remain the main focus of the company's members; this did not, however, mean that commerce did not play an important part in the decisions and religious aims of the MBC's theocratic governance.

For those initial investors, both religion and commercial gain were motivation enough to form and subscribe to the company. Robert Brenner has suggested this, pointing out that the MBC attracted substantial interest from London-based merchants 'with serious commercial as well as religious intentions'.115 These merchants had commercial interests across the globe. The MBC's first governor, Matthew Craddock, was an EIC merchant along with Samuel Vassell, whilst Nathan Wright had been involved in the Levant Company as well as arrested for interloping in the Greenland Company's trade. For these men, all of whom were Nonconformists, the MBC offered the possibility of a lucrative commercial venture and stock in a grander religious undertaking. Although neither Craddock nor Wright relocated with the company to Massachusetts, they maintained the company's interests in London and 'played a significant part in the colony's trade throughout the 1630s'.116 During the decade that followed the creation of the company, its officials insisted that the commercial role of the company should be managed, whether through the migration of specialist artisans and workers or through the raising of stock.<sup>117</sup> Specialist migration was a cornerstone of the MBC commercial plan, as they were able to pull talent from specialist Puritan demographics due to the areas mostly being populated by Nonconformists suffering from almost twenty years of financial hardship.118 For those who were

<sup>114</sup> James K. Hosmer, ed., *Winthrop's Journal: History of New England, 1630–1649*, 2 vols. (New York: Scribners, 1908), II: p. 490; for more on the flourishing Massachusetts trade and the development of the merchant community in New England, see William H. Whitmore and Walter K. Watkins, *A Volume Relating to the Early History of Boston Containing the Aspinwall Notarial Records from 1644 to 1651* (Boston: Municipal Printing Office, 1903), V: pp. 19, 24, 94, 101, 143, 152–154, 172, 229, 294, 301, 318, 356.


<sup>115</sup> Robert Brenner, *Merchants and Revolution*, pp. 149–150.

<sup>116</sup> Brenner, *Merchants and Revolution*, p. 151.

involved in the company, whether in its leadership or through migration, the majority 'were puritans from a highly puritanized culture', thereby strengthening the religious aim of the company to establish a godly society.<sup>119</sup> However, alongside the religious aims of the company were pressing financial concerns for its establishment, and these financial concerns, although not necessarily religious in origin, were ultimately used to ensure that the company could secure its goal of establishing theocratic governance.

The joint stock corporate model provided the company directors with the political and religious autonomy needed to establish its form of theocratic republicanism. Moreover, the corporate model mirrored the Congregational churches, and as such was an obvious choice for MBC officials. Historians of the MBC such as Michael Winship have tended to focus on the 'narrow band' taken up by the Congregationalist migrants from the broad religious spectrum of early modern England, providing an insight into the religious foundations of the colony government.120 Those who have wished to construct a progressive history of American republicanism have repeatedly turned to the 'democratic' make-up of the Congregational Church, and its covenants, which provided the primary model for republican governance in Massachusetts. For the Congregationalists that relocated to Massachusetts, the lines between civil and ecclesiastical governance were blurred, driving the Church to the centre of all civic life, breaking from the traditional Presbyterian ideology, which saw Church and state as separate spheres.<sup>121</sup>

## The Corporate Congregation and Foundations of Theocratic Governance

For the founders of the MBC, it is then not illogical to suggest that they chose the joint stock corporate structure as a secular base for their 'godly project' since it mirrored the same collectivism of their Church. A founding father of the Congregationalism and pastor to the 'Pilgrim

<sup>119</sup> Ibid, p. 163.

<sup>120</sup> Phil Withington, 'Public Discourse, Corporate Citizenship, and State Formation in Early Modern England', *The American Historical Review*, Vol. 112, No. 4 (2007), p. 1026.

<sup>121</sup> Winship, 'Godly Republicanism', pp. 450–455.

Fathers', John Robinson, before the Pilgrims left on the *Mayflower*, argued that the Church polity was 'the perfection of all polities' and as such provided the example for 'all other bodies political'.<sup>122</sup> As such, the MBC adopted the structure of the Congregational Church, which emphasised a revaluation of traditional ideas of mixed government into a theocratic system. Explaining this, Robinson wrote that 'all these three forms have their places in the Church of Christ. In respect of him the head, it is a monarchy, in respect of the Eldership an Aristocracy, in respect of the body, a popular state'.123 For the members of the MBC, the implementation of this religious structure in which society would be ordered accordingly as God, the Church elders and Church members was the best way to ensure the establishment of a godly commonwealth. It is also worth noting that by 'popular state' Robinson did not mean a society that was democratic, but one entirely restricted to Church membership. The fellow Puritan cleric and associate of Robinson, Henry Jacob argued that societies organised like a Church which were 'formed, directed, and guided by the Pastor chiefly, and by the grave assistant Elders', were secure from the prospect of despotism as those leaders were elected and could be censured by Church members.124 This Church structure provided the base for the MBC's theocratic government, which was to be far from democratic. Dorchester preacher Richard Mather explained the transition from ecclesiastical governance to civic, writing in 1640 that it was a contradiction of liberty that 'free-men should take upon them authorities or power over free men without their free consent, and voluntary and mutual Covenant or Engagement'.125 Mather's argument draws attention to the idea that the civic governance of the MBC should be collective, wherein the popular state held the elective power over its officials; although this directly refers to the Church, joint stock corporations similarly shared in ideas of collectivism.

Both the Congregationalist Church and the joint-stock company shared similar underlying principles of democratic collectivism that were policed through the involvement of selective membership. As Purchas

<sup>125</sup> Richard Mather, *An Apologie of Churches in New-England for Church-Covenant* (London, 1643), p. 9.

<sup>122</sup> Robinson, *A Justification*, p. 132.

<sup>123</sup> Ibid, p. 133.

<sup>124</sup> Henry Jacob, *The Devine Beginning and Institution of Christs true Visible or Ministeriall Church* (Leyden: 1610), sig. A3*v*.

wrote about earlier attempts to settle New England, the joint stock corporation provided the structure for 'affecting the public good, or a regular proceeding in the businesses of Trade, to embrace an uniformity, and to join a community or joint stock together'.<sup>126</sup> The unifying features of a joint stock corporation and the process of entering a collective were concepts that over the seventeenth century were becoming closely linked to religion, and were not only associated with Nonconformists. Even Charles I was to use joint stock as an analogy for the Church of England, describing how Nonconformists had tried to leave the 'joint stock of uniform religion', just as the MBC saw Quakers, Anabaptists and Anglicans as breaking away from the joint stock of their Church.127 Whether it was through stock holding or Church membership, electoral power was invested in the hands of a select group who under the uniformity of their shared interests could choose their leadership. The corporate joint stock structure provided the Congregationalist founders of the MBC with a foundation closely mirroring that of their Church, and as such equipped them with the secular and civic pillars upon which they could build their godly republic.

For those early settlers, the Congregationalist model of governance benefited both the Church and state, as it prevented the corruption of its government, since elections were kept within a godly franchise as those elected were members of the godly community. As Winship has pointed out, according to the MBC, the only 'source of civic virtue in rulers and ruled alike was godliness', and the only 'reliable sign of godliness was membership in a church that took policing itself seriously'.128 For contemporaries such as John Cotton, government and governance were born out of the responsibility and right of a godly people to supervise their leaders from abusing their power, and in the eyes of God, only the saints were true people, so that a Christian government could only be considered righteous by its relationship with God's chosen saints.129 Although the concept of striving towards godliness was a common refrain

<sup>126</sup> Samuel Purchas, *Purchas his Pilgrimes* (1625), X: p. 1831.

<sup>127</sup> Charles I, *Eikon Basilike* (London: 1648), p. 237.

<sup>128</sup> Winship, *Godly Republicanism*, p. 198.

<sup>129</sup> John Cotton, *An Exposition Upon the Thirteenth Chapter of the Revelation* (London: 1656), pp. 108–112.

amongst Christian groups in the seventeenth century, the Congregationalists of the MBC sought to use the concept to prevent any form of abuse by confining the control of the government to the godly. Building upon Congregationalist principles established by Robinson, the MBC believed that their leadership 'ought to submit themselves' entirely to God and the Church, the process of which would lead to a godly leadership obtaining greater authority both ecclesiastical and civic to 'advance his sceptre over themselves, & their people by all good means'.130 The advancement of godly governance or 'Christ's sceptre' was then to be measured by the number of people that became enfranchised members of the Congregational Church and were able to have a say in the religious governance of the company. However, the existence of those within the company's jurisdiction who did not religiously conform encouraged the MBC from its inception to see godliness in evangelism and the spreading of its form of Protestant religious governance.

## Policing Religious Behaviour: The Antinomian Controversy and Early Attempts to Curtail MBC's Theocratic Governance

For the leadership of the MBC, the aim of the company's theocratic governance was to regulate the communal behaviour of those who fell under the company's jurisdiction, by attempting to enforce denominational uniformity. However, despite the vigour with which the leaders of the MBC tried to establish a uniform society, they, like their corporate brethren in the EIC and LC, at times struggled to come to terms with the diversity of Protestant theology in its communities. Prior to 1640, reports of the MBC's heavy-handed theocratic governance had already been filtering back into England for some time. From 1636 onwards, information slowly began drifting across the Atlantic that 'Massachusetts was torn apart' by religious division surrounding the Antinomian controversy.131 Following the arrival of Anne Hutchinson and her husband, William Hutchinson, in Boston in 1634, both quickly became involved in the religious community of the town, her husband being elected to positions of authority in the church and local government, whilst Anne was

<sup>130</sup> Robinson, *Justification*, p. 38.

<sup>131</sup> Hardman Moore, *Pilgrims*, p. 6.

respected for her ability to lead people to conversion. However, through her theological beliefs, Anne quickly became part of a controversy that shook the MBC to its core, eliciting a governmental response from leaders of the company that would solidify its theocratic governance and damage its reputation in England in the years before, during and after the Interregnum.132 Building upon the teachings of her spiritual mentor, John Cotton, Anne's preaching centred on ideas of 'free grace', which theologically placed her in opposition to MBC authorities. Open criticism of the MBC's 'sanctification' of godly behaviour over the inner seal of the Holy Spirit as a sign of true conversion deeply troubled the company's authority. Hutchinson's belief stemmed from Cotton's assertion that true faith was to be achieved by 'the spirit of God'.<sup>133</sup> Under this belief, the individual's 'own salvation' and the 'salvation of the Church' or community could only be achieved by the 'Holy Ghost that dwelleth in us', as salvation could not be achieved through 'works in our justification' alone.<sup>134</sup> Like Cotton's beliefs, however, Hutchinson placed less emphasis on judgement and consequently on the law of God. It was this that deeply troubled the leadership of the company, as it threatened the authority of its theocratic governance.135 Just as Broadgate threatened the weak religious cohesion of the corporate community in the LC, Hutchinson and her followers were a hazard to the religious uniformity and godly mission of the company, and so like Broadgate had to be cast out of the corporate community.

Antinomian meant 'against or opposed to the law', and thus Hutchinson's preaching questioned the legalistic ministry endorsed by the MBC leadership. It was their religious belief that salvation could only be achieved through a strict adherence to the Mosaic commandments.136 Furthermore, the government of the MBC was sensitive to possible

<sup>136</sup> Hall, The Antinomian Controversy*,* pp. 154–156.

<sup>132</sup> Emery Battis, *Saints and Sectaries: Anne Hutchinson and the Antinomian Controversy in the Massachusetts Bay Colony* (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1962), p. 6.

<sup>133</sup> Cotton, *A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, as it is Dispensed to the Elect Seed, Effectually unto Salvation. Being the Substance of Divers Sermons Preached upon Act. 7.* 8 (London: 1659), p. 175.

<sup>134</sup> Ibid, p. 201.

<sup>135</sup> David D. Hall, *The Antinomian Controversy, 1636–1638: A Documentary History* (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1990), p. 149.

threats to its theocratic governance, which was heightened by rumours that Charles I was planning to revoke the company's charter.137 The arrival of Henry Vane in 1635 and his election as governor granted Hutchinson some political support. Vane was an open supporter of Anne's ministry and encouraged her to set up well-attended meetings.<sup>138</sup> However, by the autumn of 1637, the MBC's leadership mounted an attack against Hutchinson and her supporters, after which the Antinomians lost key supporters in government. Furthermore, company leaders gained a valuable ally, namely Anne's mentor, John Cotton. Writing several years after the controversy, Cotton clarified his stance, proclaiming 'if any therefore shall accuse the doctrine of the covenant of free grace of Antinomianism say, it teacheth men freedom from the law of Moses…. we see how false any such aspersion would be'.<sup>139</sup> Cotton's belief was shared by many of the MBC leaders, who saw any attempt to erode the pre-eminence of biblical law as dangerous to the fabric of their society and governance. Winthrop, once elected, immediately reacted to such concerns, sparking a conflict between himself and Vane on the direction of religious governance in the company. The former's victory would ensure and strengthen the MBC's theocratic governance and lead to the latter's migration back to England.

Upon his electoral victory, Winthrop imposed strict laws preventing the migration or admittance into MBC society of anyone who did not adhere to the theocratic governance of the company. These laws granted sweeping powers to magistrates to effectively constrict the religious makeup of MBC society. According to Winthrop, 'none should be received to inhabit with this Jurisdiction but such as should be allowed by some Magistrates', thereby preventing those deemed dangerous to the religious governance of the company from entering MBC society.140 Simply put, the 'intent of the law is to preserve the welfare of the body' and, in this situation, Winthrop believed the law was 'to have none received

<sup>140</sup> Winthrop, *Journal*, I: p. 224.

<sup>137</sup> Jenny Hale Pulsipher, *Subjects unto the Same King: Indian, English, and the Contest for Authority in Colonial New England* (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005), p. 29.

<sup>138</sup> Michael Winship, *Making Heretics: Militant Protestantism and Free Grace in Massachusetts, 1636–1641* (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), pp. 7, 30.

<sup>139</sup> Cotton, *The Covenant of Grace Discovering the Great Work of a Sinners Reconciliation to God* (London: 1655), p. 134.

into any fellowship with it who are likely to disturb the same'.<sup>141</sup> Vane, a keen supporter of religious freedom, had previously openly supported individuals who had called for more religious freedom and was directly opposed to the passing of this law.<sup>142</sup> It was Vane's belief that this law would stifle the progress of the godly and the formation of godly government, arguing that, by this law, 'it will come to pass, that Christ and his members will find worse entertainment amongst us than the Israelites did amongst the Egyptians and Babylonians, than Abram and Isaack did amongst the Philistines'.143 Moreover, Vane argued that the actions of Winthrop and the MBC had taken too much liberty in the enforcement of their theocratic governance, encouraging on Christ's authority that 'there is no liberty to be taken, neither in church nor commonwealth[,] but that which Christ gives and is according to him'.144 Despite his objection to the law, Vane was unsuccessful in having it repealed, and consequently left the colony for England, where he advocated reform of religious governance that was to be inclusive of Protestant ideas. Following his exit from MBC politics, alongside the flight of the Antinomians such as John Wheelwright to New Hampshire, Anne Hutchinson was left with few allies.145 One month after Vane left Massachusetts, Anne was called before a court made up of notable members of the MBC's religious governance, including John Endecott, Hugh Peter, Thomas Weld, Israel Stoughton and John Eliot, most of whom disagreed with her theological beliefs. Hutchinson's trial predictably ended with her conviction and subsequent banishment—although it would take a Church trial in the following spring to successfully banish her from the colony.<sup>146</sup> A threat to the effectiveness of the religious governance of the company,

<sup>141</sup> Winthrop, 'A Defense of an Order of Court, (1637)' in Thomas Hutchinson, *A Collection of Original Papers Relative to the History of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay* (Boston, MA: Thomas and John Fleet, 1769), pp. 67–81, 69.

<sup>142</sup> On the eve of the May election Vane read out a petition from the Antinomian John Wheelwright calling for freedom of religious practice, an action that Winthrop described at the time as 'out of Order' and against the rules of the court, *Winthrop Journal*, I: p. 219.

<sup>143</sup> Henry Vane, '*A Brief Answer to a Certain Declaration, made of the Intent and Equity of the Order of Court*,' in Hutchinson, *Collection of Original Papers*, p. 95.

<sup>144</sup> Ibid, p. 87.

<sup>145</sup> Winthrop, *Journal*, I: p. 294.

<sup>146</sup> Battis, *Saints and Sectaries*, pp. 242–247.

Anne Hutchinson was dealt with within the traditions of the MBC and the wider global corporate community; just as Broadgate did in the LC, Hutchinson and her supporters faced ostracism and banishment from the corporate community.

On both sides of the Atlantic, authorities saw the MBC's reaction to the Antinomian crisis as highlighting the success of the corporation's leadership in establishing and enforcing a form of English corporate theocratic governance. However, unlike its champions in Boston, authorities in London, in particular the Crown, viewed this success with suspicion and began to take steps to curtail the MBC's autonomy and revoke its charter. This reversal in the opinion of the Crown towards the autonomy of the company had been taking place since the middle of the 1630s.147 The MBC's autonomy was increasingly marked by its belligerence towards signs and symbols of English domestic authority on both sides of the Atlantic. As I have stated earlier, although the leaders and members of the MBC migrated across the Atlantic establishing their theocratic governance, this did not represent a total separation from the land they had left.<sup>148</sup> Several factors, including familial, cultural, commercial, political and legal connections, ensured that those who settled in New England would remain tied to their homeland.

For the settlers, these connections represented a double-edged sword, both providing them with legal and political justification to create a government as well as representing a distant but present threat to that government and its autonomy. As early as 1630, hostile reports began to circulate in England relating to the MBC and its members. One Dorset resident wrote that everyone involved in the 'New England business' were 'rebels' and that 'those sort that are gone over are idolaters, captivates and separatists'.<sup>149</sup> The MBC's leaders complained that many of the reports circulating in England were 'false and scandalous' and they were undermining their position and image across the Atlantic causing. As one commentator wrote, the rumours caused public perception in England to be 'ill-affected to our state at home', yet despite this, negative reports

<sup>147</sup> D'Addario, *Exile and Journey*, pp. 38–41.

<sup>148</sup> Ibid, p. 37.

<sup>149</sup> Dorset Record Office, DC/DOB/8/1 Dorchester Borough Records and Court Book, November 1630 also quoted in Cressey, *Coming Over*, p. 22.

of the company's government continued to be circulated in England.<sup>150</sup> In 1632, Edward Howes wrote to his relative John Winthrop Jr that he had heard 'diverse complaints against the severity of your government' and to remind him of the threat in England, declaring that 'a thousand eyes' were 'watching over you to pick holes in your coats'.<sup>151</sup> Howes's comments were particularly prescient, as they coincided with the initial attempts by Charles I to revoke the MBC's charter.152 Prior to the MBC receiving its charter, Charles I proclaimed his position to impose 'one uniform course of Government' in Virginia and New England whereby 'through our Whole Monarchy' the colony would 'depend upon Our Self, and not be committed to any Company or Corporation', which he argued were 'not fit nor safe to communicate the ordering of State affairs'.<sup>153</sup> For many in the MBC, this proclamation remained an ever-present threat, heightening their sensitivity to any attempt by the Crown to act upon this threat.

In particular, Howes, although a supporter of the MBC, was writing to Winthrop to encourage its leaders to 'endeavour in all mildness to do god[']s work', in the hope that the disapproving gaze of the English Crown would turn elsewhere.154 However, despite Howes's recommendation, the MBC continued to fiercely enforce its theocratic government. In 1631, news reached England of several whippings and banishments in response to criticism of the company's theocratic governance. These included the whipping of Thomas Foxe and Mr. Craddock for 'uttering malicious and scandalous speeches' and the cropping, whipping, fining and banishment of Philip Radcliffe for the same 'against the government and church of Salem', whilst Francis Perry was whipped for 'ill speeches & misbehaviour toward his minister', and Henry Linne for 'writing to England falsely and maliciously against the government'.155

<sup>150</sup> Young, *Chronicles*, p. 331.

<sup>151</sup> 'Edward Howes to John Winthrop Jr, 3 April, 1632', *Winthrop Papers*, II: p. 76.

<sup>152</sup> Malcolm Gaskill, *Between Two Worlds: How the English Became Americans* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 125.

<sup>153</sup> 'A Proclamation for the settling the Plantation of Virginia, May 13, 1625', in Clarence S. Brigham, ed., *British Royal Proclamations Relating to America, 1603–1783* (Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1911), p. 53.

<sup>154</sup> 'Howes to Winthrop Jr, 3 April, 1632', *Winthrop Papers*, II: p. 76.

<sup>155</sup> John Noble, ed., *Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of the Massachusetts Bay, –1692* (Boston, 1904), II, pp. 12, 16, 18–19; *Winthrop Journal*, I: p. 64, 67; Howe

The outcome of the Antinomian controversy was a success for the conservative base of the MBC, who secured both the pre-eminence of religious orthodoxy and uniformity in the theocratic governance of the company. As news of the treatment of Hutchinson reached England, it would soon be followed by numerous reports of religious persecution from Massachusetts, as the MBC imposed its theocratic governance in the wake of its success against Anne Hutchinson and under the perception that they were inundated by 'abominable filthiness breaking in upon us'.<sup>156</sup> In London, the colonist Samuel Gorton exposed the overextension of the magistrate's religious powers, complaining that the company tried 'to maintain that outward form of worship' that they 'had erected to themselves' and tended to force their Church upon others.<sup>157</sup> He lamented that the MBC had abandoned those 'principles of Divinity wherein we had been instructed in our native Country, tending to faith towards God in Christ'.158 Writing to John Winthrop from England in 1646, George Downing, alluding to events surrounding Hutchinson and many others, warned the then governor that it was 'the law of banishing for conscience, which makes us stink everywhere'.159 In 1652, fresh claims surfaced of the religious persecution of two Baptists under the MBC's religious governance, following John Clarke's publication of *Ill Newes from New-England, or, A Narrative of New-Englands Persecution*. Clarke, a Baptist himself, had fled persecution to Rhode Island and, along with Roger Williams, was sent to London as an agent for the colony, describing the theocratic governance of the MBC as 'most unchristian,

in particular writes about hearing of the punishment of Philip Radcliffe describing the 'cutting of a Lunatic mans ears' see *Winthrop Papers*. III: p. 76.

<sup>156</sup> *Winthrop Papers*, IV: p. 345.

<sup>157</sup> Samuel Gorton, *Simplicities defence against seven-headed policy. Or, innocency vindicated, being unjustly accused, and sorely censured by that seven-headed church-government united in New-England: or, that servant so imperious in his masters absence revived, and now thus re-acting in Nevv-England. Or, the combate of the united colonies, not onely against some of the natives and subjects but against the authority also of the kingdom of England, … Wherein is declared an act of a great people and country of the Indians in those parts, … in their voluntary submission and subjection unto the protection and government of Old England* (London: 1646), p. 3; Gorton had returned to England under duress, and was described dismissively by Winthrop as a 'High and Palmy' individual, *Winthrop Journal*, II: p. 57.

<sup>158</sup> Ibid.

<sup>159</sup> *MHSC*, VI, 4th series: p. 537.

yea Antichristian'.<sup>160</sup> It was no doubt in the wake of Clarke's publication that the MBC's migrants in London, Sir Richard Saltonstall, wrote to Cotton upon hearing 'what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New-England, as you fine, whip and imprison men for the consciences'.161 The reaction by the MBC's governance may have been considered hypocritical on a religious level; however, from a corporate perspective, the leaders of the company did not act any differently from their counterparts in the East.

## Conclusion

For those who left England in the years following the MBC's creation, the establishment and creation of a Protestant godly government were matched in importance only by the geographical and demographic advancement of the company's religious governance. As another factor in moving closer to godliness and subsequently godly religious governance, evangelism by individuals and the company was considered of vital importance. In a reply to Winthrop, his friend Robert Ryece (or Reyce) emphasised the importance of settling a Church that was capable of evangelising the company's religious government, writing after Winthrop had sailed with the fleet that 'there is no work deemed more lawful and more requisite, then the plantation and establishing of a true church for the propagating of true Religion and the Christian faith'.162 As the lines that distinguished the Church from the company's government began to fade, so the role of evangelism evolved into a political tool of acquisition, as willing or forced conversion effectively meant assimilation into the jurisdiction of the company. For the MBC, this did not just mean

<sup>160</sup> John Clarke, *Ill Newes from New-England or A Narrative of New-Englands Persecution. Wherein is Declared that while old England is becoming New-England is become Old. Also four Proposals to the Honoured Parliament and Council of State, touching the way to Propagate the Gospel of Christ (with small charge and great safety) both in Old England and New. Also four conclusion touching the faith and order of the Gospel out of his last Will and Testament confirmed and* justified (London: 1652), in *MHSC*, II, 4th series: p. 12; *Pestana, The English Atlantic*, pp. 145–146.

<sup>161</sup> Letter from Sir Richard Saltonstall to Mr. Cotton and Mr. Wilson, in Hutchinson, *Collection of Original Papers*, p. 401.

<sup>162</sup> 'Robert Ryece to John Winthrop, 1629', in *Winthrop Papers*, II: p. 127; for more information on Robert Ryece, see C. G. Harlow, 'Robert Ryece of Preston 1555–1638', *Suffolk Institute for Archaeology*, Vol. 32 (1970), pp. 44–75.

the evangelism of natives, although the 'propagation of the gospel to the Indians' was to play a considerable role in the missionary aims of the company in the years after the Restoration. Rather, it was the spreading of religion to reinforce its model of Protestant religious governance. For many in the MBC, in the years between 1640 and 1660, this was the primary function of evangelism, especially in the wake of opportunities to spread the MBC's religious governance in England during the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum.

Over the first decade of its existence, the MBC successfully achieved almost full autonomy from the English state. First by obtaining its charter and then by removing themselves across the Atlantic, away from the full extent of the Crown's authority, the company established its own religious government, based on its Church. Its leadership successfully combined secular institutions such as the joint-stock company, commerce and the government with the theories and structure of the Congregationalist Church and evangelism to establish and expand its specific form of religious governance. For the MBC, everything temporal and spiritual that the company involved itself in embraced the idea of Congregational collectivism. Whereas the EIC, who were to embrace collectivism in a universal Protestant sense, empowered individual chaplains to enforce religious governance and thereby a moral code, the MBC established a theocracy, contorting democratic principles into a Congregational collective to establish communal religious governance. In the eyes of those who established the company, only through the enfranchised communion of the saints under a godly government would they be able to create a 'city upon the hill'.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Apostasy and Debauchery (1601–1660): Behaviour, Passive Evangelism and the East India and Levant Company Chaplains

Before the acquisition of territory became an objective, the mission of England's overseas companies was twofold: first, to ensure commercial success; and second, to govern their English personnel according to the laws, religion and government of England. Unlike the emphasis on communal enforcement in the theocratic governance of the MBC, the authority of the pastoral governance in the EIC and LC was imposed by individuals. For both companies, the figure of the chaplain and his role in policing the EIC's and LC's spiritual and secular authority became instrumental in ensuring the companies' religious governance. In an era when the EIC had no jurisdictive obligations, the primary concern for the chaplains in both companies was the spiritual well-being of the English personnel in the East. By policing the religious life of their personnel, the leaders of the LC and EIC sought to ensure the commercial success of the companies. Through the imposition of pastoral governance, the LC and EIC endeavoured to control the daily lives and exchanges of their corporate flock so that their spiritual well-being was not endangered in the religiously cosmopolitan environments in which the companies operated.

Foreign interaction in the early modern era was synonymous with spiritual risks and sinful temptations. It was the chaplains' role as a corporate police force abroad to enforce the companies' pastoral governance and try to prevent these risks from becoming realities. This involved the policing of behaviour and the punishment of it, when need be, whilst also guarding

113

<sup>©</sup> The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_4

against apostasy.1 Through the position of the chaplain, both companies sought to protect their personnel against the religious 'other', securing not only their employees' spiritual and national well-being, but also their commercial mission. Treated in isolation, as agents of specific oceans and geographies, chaplains, and the companies that employed them, have rarely faced the scrutiny of comparison. Although on rare occasions there have been in-depth, biographical accounts of chaplains, these have tended to either focus on companies or individuals.<sup>2</sup> In doing so, the company chaplains and their role have been simplified by neatly defining their differing roles in separate maritime geographies. Through a comparative assessment of the roles of the chaplains in policing communal interactions and knowledge exchange in England's seventeenth-century companies, we can better illustrate how English companies linked oceans.

The seventeenth-century company not only furnished the structure that allowed companies to trade, negotiate and govern overseas, but also provided individuals and organisations with frameworks to engage with new religious environments. From an early stage, chaplains or ministers were at the heart of the organisation of the company, not only as spiritual shepherds to the corporate flock but also as advisers, scholars and enforcers of the company's legal and moral code. Despite the scarcity of records, from very early on in the EIC's existence, chaplains were considered important for both the spiritual and temporal needs of the company. The first minister to be employed by the EIC and to be sent out on a ship was Thomas Pulleyn, who was considered so important he was paid more than the surgeon.3 By 1613, the EIC Court made formal attempts

<sup>1</sup> Emily Kugler, *Sway of the Ottoman Empire on English Identity in the Long Eighteenth Century* (Leiden: Brill, 2012), pp. 17–35; Haig Smith, 'God Shall Enlarge Japheth, and He Shall Dwell in the Tdents of Shem': The Changing Face of Religious Governance and Religious Sufferance in the East India Company, 1610–1670', in Pettigrew and Mahesh Gopalan, *The East India Company, 1600–1857: Essays on Anglo-Indian Connection* (New Delhi: Routledge, 2016), pp. 100–103.

<sup>2</sup> Pearson, *A Biographical Sketch*; Conner, *Chaplains*; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, pp. 69–99; for individual chaplains, see Edward D. Neill, *Memoir of Rev. Patrick Copland, Rector Elect of the First Projected College in the United States* (New York, NY: Scribner & Co, 1871); Leonard Twells, *The Lives of Dr. Edward Pocock*, 2 vols. (London: Rivington, 1816); Gerald M. Maclean, *The Rise of Oriental Travel: English Visitors to the Ottoman Empire, 1580–1720* (Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave, 2004), pp. 49–114; for a global comparison on English chaplains abroad in the early modern period, see Games, *Web of Empire*, pp. 219–254; Smith, 'Risky Business', pp. 226–247.

<sup>3</sup> McNally, *Chaplains*, p. 69.

to ensure that a chaplain was always present, suggesting that, just as they had employed a surgeon for 'the bodies of men, so they would be as prudent for supplying them with comfortable persons for the relief of their souls'.4 Beyond relieving the souls of the individuals under their clerical care, chaplains took part in various formal and informal negotiations. In 1613, Patrick Copland along with 'divers of our merchants' was sent ashore to 'dispatch business' regarding a local decree or 'firma [firman]'.<sup>5</sup> Likewise, Robert Frampton's biographer recalls the preachers' important role following his arrival in Aleppo negotiating between the company, the Greek Orthodox community, and the local Ottoman leader.<sup>6</sup> Representing godly virtue and scholarly learning, the chaplain was instantly recognisable to company personnel as representing a familiar symbol of authority, at sea or in far-off lands. To ensure that the standards of spiritual, moral and legal leadership delegated to the chaplain were high, company leadership at home and abroad took a keen interest in recruiting and managing the men they selected for the job. This chapter traces the evolution of pastoral governance in Asia and the Middle East prior to the EIC's and LC's territorial acquisitions. It focuses on the role of the chaplains, who were important figures in securing the companies' essential aims and establishing control over company personnel who went East.

Unlike the previous chapter, which emphasised the role of the religious community in the establishment of theocratic governance in the MBC, this and the next chapter analyse the role of individuals in the developing pastoral governance in the EIC and LC. By investigating the chaplains' experiences of governing over a denominationally diverse English communities, interacting with foreign peoples of various faiths and cultures and being part of developing networks of information exchange, this chapter traces how individuals influenced religious governance in the East.

<sup>4</sup> BL IOR B/5 December 13, 1613.

<sup>5</sup> Foster, ed., *The Voyage Of Thomas Best To The East Indies 1612–1614* (London: Hakluyt Society, 1934), p. 142.

<sup>6</sup> *LRF*, pp. 34–35.

## Protestant Pluralism and the Foundations of Pastoral Governance

Both the LC and EIC embodied the plurality of the Protestant faith in England, attracting a broad spectrum of the Protestant population, which was reflected in their chaplaincy. In total, approximately 99 ministers were appointed over the century to go out to India or remain with the fleet.7 From those that can be traced, though, a broad array of Protestants seem to have been present in the company, such as conformist chaplains such as Henry Lord and Sir Thomas Roe's chaplain Edward Terry, the onetime Episcopalian and eventual Congregationalist Patrick Copland, and a few Presbyterians, Anabaptists and Baptists, as well as a Unitarian.8 This line-up of ministers with varying theological and liturgical backgrounds caused several problems that occasionally affected the social cohesion on ships and in factories. However, despite moments of internal division, the companies' Protestant communities abroad remained united.

Denominational variation was similarly illustrated in the leadership of the companies, which was frequently composed of members in both the EIC and LC as well as other overseas companies, including the VC and MBC.<sup>9</sup> The first governor of the EIC, Sir Thomas Smythe, a moderate Puritan and ally of the Earl of Warwick, was deeply involved in English corporate expansion in the seventeenth century, being actively engaged in at least ten overseas companies.10 His involvement in the EIC would last for 25 years, eight as governor and seven at the King's request. Meanwhile, from 1600 to 1605 he was also governor of the Levant Company,

<sup>7</sup> McNally, *Chaplains*.

<sup>8</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, pp. 106–111.

<sup>9</sup> Rupali Mishra, *A Business of State: Commerce, Politics and the Birth of the East India Company* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018) for the VC see p. 98: for the LC see pp. 225, 268.

<sup>10</sup> Smyth, a member of the East India, Levant, Muscovy and Virginia companies, and involved in the French, Spanish, Somer Isles and Northwest Passage companies, as well as the Merchant Adventurers. Edmond Smith, 'The Global Interests of London's Commercial Community, 1599–1625: Investment in the East India Company', *The Economic History Review*, Vol. 71, No. 4 (2018), pp. 1134–1135; For a broader discussion of the global interest of England's merchant community, see Smith 'Networks of the English East India Company, c. 1600–1625' (unpublished PhD diss., Cambridge University, 2015).

a role he relinquished when appointed ambassador to Muscovy and treasurer of the VC.<sup>11</sup> Over the same period, Smythe's political rival Sir Edwin Sandys (who was also treasurer of the VC) took up an active and often influential role in the company. A high Anglican, son of the Bishop of Worcester and accused Catholic convert, Sandys had long been a religiously controversial figure.<sup>12</sup> Following the publication of *Europa Speculum, Or A View or Survey of the State of Religion* in 1605 (it went through three editions in that year), the long-standing rumours of his sympathetic leanings towards the Catholic Church seemed to have some truth in them. Wrapped in the rhetoric of Christian unity, Sandys called for toleration of Catholicism, to not only unite European Christendom but also secure it against the growth of Islam, the faith of both the Mughal and Ottoman Empires.13

The companies also attracted the attention of the influential ecclesiastical Abbot family. Maurice, the youngest of five brothers, was involved in the Levant Company, travelling to Aleppo in 1582. He was also involved in the running of the EIC for 40 years, and was at varying points a merchant, director, deputy governor and finally governor from 1623 to 1636.<sup>14</sup> It was through Maurice that his eldest brother George, the Archbishop of Canterbury (another elder brother Robert was also the Bishop of Salisbury), became involved in the company.15 The Calvinist-leaning archbishop had financial interests in the EIC, and was deeply involved in individual and group commerce, as it not only provided the opportunity to make money but also gain information on interactions between non-Europeans and Europeans in Asia.16 Above all else, the archbishop and

<sup>11</sup> Mishra, *Business of State*, pp. 40, 80.

<sup>12</sup> ibid, p. 69.

<sup>13</sup> Sir Edwin Sandys, *Europae Speculum. Or, A View or Survey of the State of Religion in the Westerne parts of the World* (London: 1629), pp. 194–222; Theodore K. Rabb, 'The Editions of Sir Edwin Sandys's Relation of the State of Religion',*Huntington Library Quarterly*, Vol. 26, No. 4 (1963), pp. 323–336.

<sup>14</sup> Mishra, *A Business of State*, pp. 102–107; Smith, 'Global interests', p. 1125.

<sup>15</sup> Mishra, *A Business of State*, pp. 122, 184.

<sup>16</sup> For George Abbot's stock in the EIC, see Cal. SP, 1513–1616, 616, 786; for more information on Abbot, see Fincham, 'Prelacy and Politics: Archbishop Abbot's Defence of Protestant Orthodoxy', *Historical Research*, Vol. 61 (1988), pp. 36–64; S. Holland, 'Archbishop Abbot and the Problem of Puritanism', *Historical Journal*, Vol. 37 (1994), pp. 23–43.

his successor Laud both valued their correspondence with chaplains.17 For both Abbot and Laud, the chaplains of the Levant Company offered a bridge to open relations between the Church of England and the Greek Orthodox Church. For Laud, the chaplaincy of the Levant Company also provided him with a network of individuals through whom he could obtain Middle Eastern manuscripts and establish a library at Oxford. Likewise, correspondence with the Roe embassy provided Abbot with information and observations on the religions of the Indian court.<sup>18</sup> The varied Protestantism that characterised the company government, leaders and supporters in England was similarly representative of those agents, factors and chaplains who went abroad and established company governance in India and the Ottoman Empire, in this period. The internal religious disjointedness required the companies in this early period to ensure that they established their own form of stable pastoral governance over their English communities abroad. Essential to the formation of the pastoral governance of the LC and EIC in this early period was the chaplain, who ensured that it was policed and maintained.

#### Pastoral Governance and Preventing Apostasy

An important role of the company chaplain and pastoral governance was preventing apostasy or 'turning Turk.' For the EIC and LC, the chaplains were the first line of defence against apostasy and the threat posed was to the spiritual and national identity of their personnel. The companies believed that the chaplains' 'clerical approval could mitigate' the 'collective peril' of any religiously diverse society the English found themselves in.<sup>19</sup> Despite this, tales of conversion and apostasy were not uncommon and whether or not it was an actual threat, the company perceived it to be so.<sup>20</sup> The links between religious faith and national identity meant that conversion posed a serious threat to the leadership of the EIC and LC, as they perceived themselves to be the governing body that represented the English national identity abroad. Conversion

<sup>17</sup> Mishra, *Business of State*, p. 286.

<sup>19</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 223.

<sup>20</sup> For more information on conversion threats, see Stern, *Company-State*, p. 105; G V. Scammell, 'European Exiles, Renegades and Outlaws and the Maritime Economy of Asia c. 1500–1750', in *Modern Asian Studies*, Vol. 26 (1992), pp. 658–659.

<sup>18</sup> O'Connor, *Chaplains*, pp. 4–6.

then was not only a disgrace to one's country and faith, but also a threat to the company's authority. Conversion removed Englishmen from the company's sovereignty, weakening their authority and position, as well as endangering their commercial aims. Due to this threat, it was not only the chaplains' godly duty, but also their corporate mission, to prevent apostasy through the companies' pastoral governance, thereby securing the companies' commercial objectives.

Unlike the VC and the later EIC, neither company (apart from the Fort St. George) held jurisdictive control of land outside their factories in this period, and so their pastoral governance evolved to meet the demands of these religiously cosmopolitan environments. These pressures included the behavioural issues of English personnel abroad, apostasy, diplomacy and knowledge exchange, all of which the company chaplains were heavily involved in policing. The chaplaincy became a corporate police force that not only governed over the behaviour of the company's personnel, but also oversaw several of the companies' external interactions with local peoples of varying faiths. These interactions marked the limit of the companies' control over indigenous peoples and so restrained its evangelical aims. Unwilling to jeopardise the companies' commercial and diplomatic missions, the chaplains of the EIC and LC rarely sought to actively evangelise. Differing from their counterparts in the VC and the Iberian companies, English chaplains adopted a form of passive evangelism that would epitomise English religious governance in the East during the seventeenth century. As influential figures, chaplains in the EIC and LC would not only effect the evolution of religious governance abroad in this period. They became senior figures in every aspect of company life, acting as confidant and advisers to officials, and at times engaging in diplomatic and commercial missions themselves. Furthermore, chaplains also had their own motives, entering company life to travel abroad and engage in trade, evangelism and education with the hope of furthering their own careers and prospects on their return home.

Despite some years of religious acclimatisation, both the EIC and LC would continue to be worried about the threat of English personnel converting. By employing an able minister, company officials hoped to avoid any scandal that would weaken their religious governance and authority, and as such the Almighty would 'prosper us, in all such designs, & endeavours we undertake'.21 Although it is difficult to quantify how many of the English peoples converted over this period, it can be presumed that the number was small, since relatively few occurrences are recorded. For those who were captured by Barbary pirates and forced into servitude as galley slaves in the Mediterranean, it has been suggested around four per cent converted.22 However, avenues for apostasy such as marriage, or even unprovoked conversion, are much harder to quantify. Not only were EIC and LC officials worried about the spiritual ramifications of conversion, but also the implications of an individual's conversion on foreign opinions of the nation. To ensure commercial security and the nation's good name, LC and EIC officials were vigilant that company employees remained in the fold of the Anglican faith. In 1640, the LC chaplain Bartholomew Chappell was ordered in Aleppo to not only preach the word of God, but to 'administer the Sacraments, according to the Canons and Constitution of the Church of England'.23 Such a move suggested a denominational allegiance that had not always been shared amongst members of the company abroad. This may have had to do with the religious divisions in England at the time, but was most probably an inadequate gesture by company officials to make it appear as though they were enforcing the Church of England's presence amongst their English communities abroad.<sup>24</sup>

Despite attempts to allay conversion, both companies continued to receive reports of apostasy in this period. In 1599, Thomas Dallam wrote of a 'Turke, but a Cornishe man borne' whilst John Rawlins wrote back about a man called 'Ramtham Rise' formerly 'Henry Chamdler… a chandler's son in Southwark'.25 Apostasy presented such a worry that apostates from other European countries were often noted and discussed

<sup>21</sup> TNA SP. 105/109 f.191.

<sup>22</sup> Games, *Web of Empire*, p. 73.

<sup>23</sup> Quoted in Pearson, *Biographical Sketch*, p. 61.

<sup>24</sup> Christine Laidlaw suggests that in the choice of ministers, as well as the LC's own denominational allegiance there was none, and that it would be difficult to prove otherwise: Laidlaw, *The British in the Levant: Trade and Perceptions of the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century* (New York, NY: Taurus, 2010), pp. 78–79.

<sup>25</sup> 'The Diary of Master Thomas Dallam, 1599–1600', in J. Theodore Bent, ed., *Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant* (London: Hakluyt Society, 1893), p. 79; John Rawlins, *The Famous and Wonderful Recovery of a Ship of Bristol called the Exchange, from the Turkish Pirates of Argier* (London, 1622), p. 270.

offering illustrations of the threat of conversion, but also as examples of European or Catholic weakness. Furthermore, they represented the successes of English Protestants in bringing apostates back to the Christian faith. Frampton recalled meeting two individuals whilst in Aleppo who had converted to Islam, the first a Frenchman who had served with the Venetian army and had been taken captive and been freed when he converted to Islam.26 Frampton's biographer then provides a detailed account of the discussion between the preacher and the apostate, which ends with the latter repenting and Frampton ordering him to 'leave then the tents of these wicked men and repair to Christendom'.27 The second individual was a Portuguese friar who, unlike the former 'which necessity put upon desperate course', chose to willingly or actively convert, or as Frampton's biographer describes, 'ran headlong into the ways of errour to gratify a more licentious appetite to scandal and grief of Christians'.<sup>28</sup> Again following a similar format, in which the nature of the individual's conversion, his background and the nature of the Christian covenant was discussed, Frampton was able to 'bring him out' of his state of apostasy and back into 'his Saviour's fold'.<sup>29</sup> The extra degree of separation allowed for company agents and chaplains to interact with these converts differently, often employing them as middlemen, whilst remaining vigilant of their loyalties.<sup>30</sup> These men are examples of a group of individuals who, despite being in the minority of those who travelled east, were the focus of much concern from English officials both at home and abroad forcing companies to adapt their religious governance to deal with the threat.

Regardless of attempts to prevent the conversion of their personnel to Islam or Catholicism, it was often the case that the companies did not have the power to prevent apostasy but could only rectify it. One such case took place in the spring of 1649, when President Thomas Breton wrote of his grief to 'impart unto you a sad story' of the 'damned apostasy' of a factor at Agra, who had brought both 'dishonour to our nation,

 *LRF*, pp. 57–61. ibid, p. 60. ibid, pp. 61–62. ibid, p. 63.

<sup>30</sup> See the case of a Portuguese apostate employed by the East India Company, p. 119.

and (which is incomparably worse), of our Christian profession'.<sup>31</sup> Breton explains that following Sunday prayers, Joshua Blackwell went to the governor of the city and had an audience with local religious leaders, following which he 'wickedly and desperately renounced his Christian faith' converting to Islam, upon which he was 'immediately circumcised' and 'irrecoverably lost'.32 Breton's assertation that Blackwell was lost forever lay in his knowledge of Mughal law, which prevented any interaction that would lead to the reconversion of Englishmen who had become Muslim. Over the next year, Blackwell was frequently mentioned in letters between company officials in India. Factors were informed of his 'poor and wretched temporal condition' as well as his theft of a company horse.<sup>33</sup> Yet, despite Breton's belief that Blackwell was beyond 'redemption', in the months that followed, Blackwell initiated a series of correspondences starting in February 1650, when he was reported to have 'repented his apostasy and returned to the true faith'.34 Travelling first to Lahore, and eventually arriving in Surat, Blackwell was eventually readmitted into the company and the Protestant community it represented.<sup>35</sup> Even 'upon the acknowledgment of his sin and promise of perseverance in his Christian profession', Blackwell was still unable to remain in India and would instead be sent to the Middle East to be a factor at Basra or Mocha.36 The EIC's chaplain in Surat, William Isaacson, who had been placed in charge of Blackwell's re-admittance into their society, wrote of the difficulty he would face if he continued to be employed by the EIC in Surat, explaining that he would be 'subject to the abuse of every

<sup>31</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 President Breton and Messrs. Merry, Pearce and Oxenden at Swally Marine to the Company, April 5, 1649.

<sup>32</sup> Ibid.

<sup>33</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 President Merry and Messrs. Tash, Pearce and Oxenden at Swally to the Company, January 25, 1650; Instructions from the President and Council at Surat to Richard Davidge, Proceeding to Court, March 7, 1650.

<sup>34</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 Joshua Blackwell at Agra to the President and Council at Surat, February 14, 1650.

<sup>35</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 Letter from the President and Council at Surat to the Factors at Agra, March 7, 1650.

<sup>36</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 The Rev. William Isaacson at Surat to Joshua Blackwell [at Agra], March 7, 1650.

Mahometan that knows your condition'.<sup>37</sup> Although Blackwell would have made a sorry example, there were times when English converts did cause the EIC and LC problems. One such instance occurred in Istanbul, where the LC reported that a William Trednock, who refused to join Islam whilst in captivity, did so upon his release at the persuasion of yet another unnamed English apostate, disappearing from the English records altogether.<sup>38</sup> When it came to apostasy, the chaplain and the companies' pastoral governance provided two services: firstly, to prevent apostasy and secondly, to manage its damage.

It was not just conversion to Islam that the EIC and the LC were guarding against; they were also ever conscious of the presence of Catholicism. In 1648, Thomas Ivy, a factor at Fort St. George, reported with great urgency to the EIC that the grandson of the founder of the fort had 'turned Papist rouge' and fled to the informal Portuguese settlement at S¯ao Tomé de Meliapor (Mylapore).<sup>39</sup> The company replied by sending letters to Filipe de Mascarenhas, the Viceroy of Goa, to return him to India. In the event of failure, Breton would be sent to 'require him'.40 In the LC, Benjamin Lannoy, Consul in Aleppo, was ordered by the company to 'administer the Oath of Allegiance' to all members of the factory, partly to help judge whether they were 'disaffected to his Majesties Church of England'.41 The order informed Lannoy that those whom he believed to be 'disaffected' were to be refused protection and any who refused to take the oath were to be sent 'by first opportune conveyance for England' to be punished.42 By ensuring the presence of some form of Protestant Church of England, the EIC and LC sought first to prevent their English personnel from being drawn to the Catholic Church and second to damage the influence of Catholic nations at the Mughal and Ottoman courts.

<sup>37</sup> BL IOR E/3/21 Instruction for President and Council at Surat to Richard Davidge, Proceeding to Court, March 7, 1650; Isaacson to Blackwell, March 7, 1650.

<sup>38</sup> TNA SP 105/74, f.281.

<sup>39</sup> Thomas Ivy at Fort St. George to the President and Council at Surat, January 17, 1648, in Foster, *English Factories*, VIII: p. 298.

<sup>40</sup> Ibid.

<sup>41</sup> TNA SP. 110/56, f. 213.

<sup>42</sup> Ibid.

#### Pastoral Governance and Structuring Diplomatic Interaction and Response to Iberian Presence

Company chaplains in both the Levant and India had to deal with the presence of an organised Catholic mission, which not only compounded commercial and national rivalries, but also competition between the governance of Catholic and Protestant companies. In 1599, the Venetian *bailo* to Istanbul reported of the attempts of the LC and its ambassador, Henry Lello, to build an Anglican Church in the Ottoman Empire. Writing back to the doge and the senate, he declared that the Venetians and the French had enough influence to 'thwart this excessive and arrogant pretension of the English, who would endeavour to sow even here the perversity and impiety of Calvin'.43 Since the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church had taken a series of steps to try and ensure that the influence of Protestantism did not reach the Middle East. This movement culminated in 1622 when Pope Gregory XV established the *Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide* that sought to actively regulate Christian ecclesiastical affairs in non-Christian countries. With the establishment of the *Propaganda Fide*, Capuchin, Carmelite and Jesuit missionaries planted themselves across the Middle East and Asia.44 The strong presence of Catholic religious apparatus in Asia and the Middle East not only heightened the commercial and religious paranoia of EIC and LC leaders, but also provoked a response in the religious governance of the companies. Pastoral governance in eastern companies, just as in the VC, adapted in response to the presence of Catholicism, establishing its own solutions for evangelism, inter-faith interaction and policing behaviour.

For the leadership of both companies, the chaplaincy was the first defence against the aspirations of the Roman Church and what they believed to be antagonistic commercial desires of the Catholic nations,

<sup>43</sup> Girolamo Capello, Venetian Ambassador at Constantinople, to the Doge and Senate, October 2, 1599, Horatio F. Brown, ed., *Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1592–1603*, vols. 38 (London: Public Records Office, 1897), IX, p. 817.

<sup>44</sup> Felicita Tramontana, 'The Spread of Catholicism in Seventeenth-Century Palestinian Villages', in Giuseppe Marcocci, Aliocha Maldavsky, Wietse de Boer and Ilaria Pavan, eds., *Space and Conversion in Global Perspective* (Leiden: Brill, 2014), pp. 83–102; Charles A. Frazee, *Catholics and Sultans: The Church in the Ottoman Empire, 1453– 1923* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 67–102; Xavier and Županov, *Catholic Orientalism*, pp. 107, 291–300.

a view that was mirrored by their Catholic counterparts.<sup>45</sup> In March of 1600, Sir Thomas Smythe wrote to the minister at Aleppo, William Biddulph outlining his duties that 'you will continue and proceed in your charge… in the instruction of our people in knowledge of Religion'.46 The presence of the Portuguese in India concerned many in the EIC who believed they threatened their commercial and diplomatic mission. In 1613, Thomas Kerridge wrote to the council at Surat that a foreigner 'if not presented by the Jesuit, hath no grace at all'.<sup>47</sup> The same year, William Biddulph, a company factor, wrote to the governor and East India Company that the Jesuits hindered the progress of the English in India. According to Biddulph, Kerridge had been sent to Agra, amongst other things, to 'resolve the King of all such matters these prating Jesuits put into his head', which he concluded had prevailed in 'telling him we are a base people and dwell in a little island'.48 By December 1613, the presence of the Jesuits had become so problematic that the leadership of the EIC in England took formal steps to tackle Catholicism in India. The court ordered that the ministers be selected on their ability to spar with the growing Catholic presence in India, writing that each person should have the 'learning and knowledge to oppose the Jesuit'.<sup>49</sup> In the Levant Company, preachers also had to deal with a strong Catholic presence, whilst in Aleppo, Robert Frampton 'had often occasion to show his learning in defence of the Church of England', especially after making the acquaintance of a Jesuit Georgio Rihelio, resident at the French consul's house.<sup>50</sup> According to Frampton's biographer, the two

<sup>45</sup> Xavier and Županov, *Catholic Orientalism*, p. 83.

<sup>46</sup> Sir Thomas Smythe to William Biddulph, March 1600, quoted in Maclean, *Oriental Travel*, p. 54.

<sup>47</sup> Thomas Kerridge at Agra to Thomas Aldworth and Counicl at Surat, September 7, 1613, in Frederick Danvers, ed., *Letters Received by the East India Company from its Servants in the East*, 6 vols. (London: S. Low & Marston, 1896), I: pp. 282–283.

<sup>48</sup> William Biddulph to the Right Worshipful Sir Thomas Smythe, Kinght, Governor, the Deputy and rest of the merchants trading to the East Indies, 28 October 1613, Danvers, *Letters Received*, I: p. 300. This is not the same William Biddulph that was employed by the LC.

<sup>49</sup> BL IOR B/5 A Court of Committee, December 13, 1613.

<sup>50</sup> *LRF*, p. 55.

would often engage in religious discussion although after 'much argument' they 'mutually despair'd'.51 However, in order not to 'scandal [for] the poor Christians there' or cause confusion, both men agreed to outwardly observe 'strict friendship between themselves'.<sup>52</sup> As Frampton's relationship with Rihelio shows, although religiously antagonistic it was not impossible for the members of the EIC and their Catholic counterparts to get on. Indeed, across the Middle East and Asia there were many moments of cooperation between the two communities. In 1631, Thomas Rastell, president of the factory at Surat, contacted Jesuits in Goa to initiate peace talks between the English and Portuguese.53 Although unsuccessful, this was the beginning of a series of exchanges between the English, Jesuits and Portuguese that was often based on trust and friendship between individuals.54 Again in 1633, President William Methwold contacted Farther Tavares and the Jesuits in Daman to initiate peace talks between the EIC and the Portuguese, who replied that they would do what they could to 'effect so laudable an object'.55 Methwold's relationship with Tavares continued for several years, the latter at one point arranging for the president to stay with the Jesuits in Goa, where he would later represent the English to the Viceroy in order to secure a peace accord between the two nations.56 Religion and its governance became a key element in the LC and EIC plans to assert themselves diplomatically and commercially abroad. Religious differences between the EIC and their Catholic counterparts in the Levant and India did not always result in antagonism; instead, beyond Europe their shared Christianity often resulted in friendship and diplomatic support.

The need for a strong chaplaincy and Protestant presence led the EIC and LC to develop pastoral governance, which would increasingly influence interactions with local leaders and officials in this period. Arriving in religiously cosmopolitan environments, chaplains and personnel often

<sup>51</sup> Ibid.

<sup>53</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IV: p. xxxvi.

<sup>54</sup> Dauril Alden, *The Making of an Enterprise* (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996), pp. 171–174.

<sup>55</sup> Farther Tavares at Daman to President Methwold at Surat, December 1633, in Foster, *English Factories*, IV: p. 331.

<sup>56</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, V: pp. 2, 22, 31, 88.

<sup>52</sup> Ibid.

commented upon religion whilst abroad. Several of the EIC's chaplains and personnel were to write about the policy of religious toleration in the Mughal Empire. The ambassador to the Mughal Empire, Thomas Roe, later recalled a dinner party at the court where Jahangir, the Mughal emperor, drunkenly declared that 'he meddled not' with the faith of 'Christians, Moores, [and] Jewes',57 According to Jahangir, merchants, diplomats, pilgrims and artisans of all faiths came to India 'in love' and as such 'he would protect them from wrong.'<sup>58</sup> Although Roe's account of the drunken emperor is most likely apocryphal, it should not be dismissed. Jahangir's attitudes towards religion were complex and, like his father Akbar's religious policies, could be considered tolerant.59 Edward Terry, Roe's chaplain, suggested that the policy of religious toleration offered by the Mughal Emperors allowed for their 'tyrannical government there to be more easily endured'.<sup>60</sup> Many of those who ventured to India in this early period wrote back perplexed by the exotic combination of religious toleration with Mughal despotism.61 Terry later recalled a story in which Thomas Coryate shouted from a building opposite a mosque in Surat at a 'Moolas' performing the call for prayer. In response to the muezzin's call to prayer, Coryate reportedly exclaimed back '*La alla illa alla, Hasaret Easa Ben-alia*; that is, no God, but one God, and the Lord Christ, the Son of God'.62 To add insult to injury, Coryate then went on to undiplomatically declare that 'Mahomet was an imposter'.<sup>63</sup> The chaplain goes on to write that Coryate was lucky to be in India for 'every one there hath liberty to profess his own Religion freely and if he please may

<sup>57</sup> Foster, ed., *The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the Court of the Great Mogul, 1615– 1619*, 2 vols. (London: Hakluyt Society, 1899), II: p. 382.

<sup>58</sup> Ibid.

<sup>59</sup> For an insight into Jahangir's own religious perspective and how this affected his religious policy, see Sajida S. Alvi, 'Religion and State during the Reign of Mughal Emperor Jahˇangˇır (1605–27): Nonjuristical Perspectives', *Studia Islamica*, No. 69 (1989), pp. 95– 119; Athar Ali, *Mughal India: Studies in Polity, Ideas, Society and Culture* (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006), particularly chapter 16.

<sup>60</sup> Edward Terry, *A Voyage to East-India* (London: 1655), p. 418.

<sup>61</sup> Joan-Pau Rubies, 'Oriental Despotism and European Orientalism: Botero to Montesquieu', *Journal of Early Modern History*, Vol. 9 (2005), pp. 146–148.

<sup>63</sup> Ibid.

<sup>62</sup> Terry, *A Voyage*, p. 271.

argue against theirs, without fear of an inquisition'.64 Coryate himself would also go on to proclaim that the Mughal emperor 'speaketh very reverently of our Saviour' and that 'all Christians, especiallie us English, he useth so benevolently'.65 For much of this early period, misunderstanding and miscommunication not only defined the English response to local religious governance, but also how the company officials established and communicated their own pastoral governance and religious identity to local peoples and elites.

The companies' early interactions in these new geographies were often marked by the ability of its chaplains and personnel to successfully interact with several powerful local religious and cultural groups. Roe's accounts provide an insight into how Christians abroad presented their religion, or at least how they wanted others to believe their faith was being represented abroad.66 One example of this in Roe's recollections is a discussion with Jahangir on slavery, in which he declared triumphantly, and somewhat ironically, to the emperor 'that Christians keep no slaves' when the Mughal emperor offered to sell him two young boys. In what may be described as a brash diplomatic move, Roe goes on to describe how he very publicly bought the children to set them free to illustrate the mercy of Christian governance.<sup>67</sup> Neither the smugness in Roe's account, nor the underlying friction surrounding religious governance and identity between company personnel and their hosts, are uncommon for this period. Furthermore, these incidents illustrated how company officials presented English authority and religious governance to foreign rulers, or their readers, as a constant that was untouched by foreign interactions. Roe could have easily accepted the slaves; however, to his readers he emphasised his actions as being in line with Christian practice. To his readers, this would have been a comforting reminder that good Christian

<sup>64</sup> Ibid.

<sup>65</sup> Thomas Coryate, *Thomas Coriate traveller for the English wits: Greeting From the Court of the Great Mogul, Resident at the towne of Asmere, in easterne India* (London, 1616), pp. 23–24.

<sup>66</sup> Rupali Mishra, 'Diplomacy at the Edge: Split Interests in the Roe Embassy to the Mughal Court', *Journal of British Studies*, Vol. 53, No. 5 (2014), pp. 5–28.

<sup>67</sup> Roe wrote that he was 'resolved to pay the money, but so as the King should not be ignorant I had more mercy then he, and that a Christian esteemed the life of a Moore above money'; quoted in Foster, *Sir Thomas Roe*, p. 305.

behaviour was not corrupted abroad, and that it continued to be enforced and advertised by the English abroad.

In another account from Japan, the EIC agent there, Richard Cocks, wrote back describing the difficulties that Christians faced in the country. In 1613, in a letter to Richard Wickham, a merchant at Hirado, Cocks discussed the difficulty of translating both national and religious imagery across cultures, describing how he was 'full sore against [his] will' forced to take down the English flag.<sup>68</sup> Cocks goes on to recall an argument between him and a local Japanese official who believed that the St. George cross was a crucifix. Cocks, at the insistence of the Japanese authorities, took down the flag, following his inability to suitably explain the religious and national symbolism it represented. This incident illustrates two issues: firstly, the difficulties English officials faced in explaining their religious identity across cultures during this period, and secondly, how company officials were powerless to resist the local authorities, whether religious or secular. Much like Roe in his discussion with Jahangir over slavery, Cocks some years later sought to define his Protestant faith in contrast to Catholicism. He explained to the Japanese emperor that, unlike the Portuguese, whose religion was governed by an outsider, the Pope, in England the King was head of the Church.<sup>69</sup> Consequently, the English Protestants were not as weak as their Catholic counterparts, as no outsider interfered in the governing of their faith.70 Attempts by company officials to explain the distinctions between the forms of religious governance and denominational identities of European nations were often further complicated by the reaction of local rulers to aspects of Christian religious governance, in particular evangelism. To secure both their religious and commercial missions, company leaders would have to ensure that chaplains rigidly enforced their pastoral governance. In doing so, the behaviour of the companies' personnel would be secured, ensuring good commercial relations. At the same time, the leaders of the EIC and LC hoped that they would succeed in passive evangelism through securing their English people's daily, supervised interactions.

<sup>68</sup> BL IOR E/3/1 Richard Cocks at Shrongo to Richard Wickham, March 1614. <sup>69</sup> BL IOR G/12/15 Richard Cocks at Firando to EIC January 1 & 14, 1617. <sup>70</sup> Ibid.

A crucial element, and shared aspect, of pastoral governance in this period was the call to evangelise. In doing so, both Catholic and Protestant national companies competed to expand and secure not only the souls of, but also their nation's jurisdictive rights over, peoples traditionally considered beyond their realm. National rivalry alongside the well-documented presence of the Iberian nations in the Mediterranean, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean helped the EIC and LC to tailor a form of religious governance and evangelism that could be seen as opposing the Catholic companies' predilections. Upon arriving in Japan, EIC officials often wrote back lamenting the presence of Catholics, proclaiming, 'there be many Christians by reason of the Jesuits' and that 'in this land there are many Christians according to the Romish order'.71 However, from the outset, EIC personnel who ventured to Japan seemed to be both surprised by but also wary of the uneasiness of the local leadership about the strong Catholic presence in the nation. Writing back in 1611, William Adams made it a point to not only describe how the people of Japan, through the imposition of 'law without partiality', were 'governed in great civility', but also that, despite the seemingly strong Catholic presence, were still 'very superstitious in the religion'.72

The presence of a strong and successful Jesuit mission in Japan further complicated issues, as Japanese leadership grew increasingly hostile towards Christianity.73 Under the political leadership of Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu, Japanese religious relations with European powers had become increasingly tenuous and by 1614 the Jesuits, along with other Catholic orders including the Franciscans, had been exiled.74 Although on occasion Catholic authorities complained of other European agents such as the English sailor William Adams being an obstacle to improving relations, the gradual deterioration in relations was compounded by a number of issues aside from commercial and spiritual rivalry. Apart from evangelism and European antagonism, Japanese

<sup>71</sup> BL IOR E/3/1, William Adams at Hirado to Bantam, October 23, 1611; William Adams at Hirado to Augustine Spalding at Bantam, January 12, 1613.

<sup>72</sup> BL IOR E/3/1, October 23, 1611.

<sup>73</sup> Charles R. Boxer, *The Christian Century in Japan 1549–1650* (Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1967); J. F. Moran, *The Japanese and the Jesuits: Alessandro Valignano in sixteenth century Japan* (London: Routledge, 1993).

<sup>74</sup> Boxer, *The Christian Century*, pp. 137–184, 315–316.

leaders such as Hideyoshi and Ieyasu feared that Catholicism was a potentially disruptive and dangerous element in the new unified Japanese sociopolitical order.<sup>75</sup> As one Jesuit proclaimed, they were exiled 'because the law we preach is contrary to the *kami* (ancient ancestors) of Japan' and that it was 'directly destructive of the honour and reputation of the lords of Japan, for the *kami* are simply the lords of Japan themselves'.76 Furthermore, there was a growing perception amongst Japanese leaders that Catholic converts were a fifth column in the service of Portugal and Spain, undermining Japanese society in preparation for an invasion. Initial reports from EIC personnel of the Jesuits' banishment were met with surprise, with one agent writing he 'doubt[ed] the news is too good to be true' that 'all the papist Jesuits, Friars and Priests shall be banished out of Japan'.77 Over the next few years, factors repeatedly informed the company of the banishment of the Catholics from Japan and expressed concern for the reputation of their faith, as 'the name of Christian is odious to them'.78 On top of this, company personnel complained that the Jesuits were blaming the English for their apparent misfortune. Cocks, on several occasions, wrote that the Catholics 'laid the fault of this alteration on the arrival of our nation in these parts'.<sup>79</sup> However, he also

<sup>75</sup> Adriana Boscaro, 'Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the 1587 Edicts Against Christianity', *Oriens Extremus*, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1973), pp. 219–241; Timon Screech, 'The English and the Control of Christianity in the Early Edo Period', *Japan Review*, Vol. 24 (2012), pp. 4–8; Carla Montane, *Sacred Space and Ritual in Early Modern Japan: The Christian Community of Nagasaki (1569–1643)* (unpublished PhD diss., SOAS, London: 2012), pp. 114–134, 218–249; Nam-in Hur, *Death and Social Order in Tokugawa Japan: Buddhism, Anti-Christianity, and the Danka System* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Centre, 2007), pp. 37–58.

<sup>76</sup> Cartas que los Padres y Hermanos de la Compañia de Jesús, que andan en los Reynos de Iapon, escrivieron a los de la misma Compañia, desde el año de 1549 hasta el de 1574 (Alcalá, 1575), Vol. 2, 258b, quoted in Moran, *the Japanese and the Jesuits*, p. 77.

<sup>77</sup> BL IOR E/3/1 Richard Cocks at Hirado to Richard Wickham at Edo or Shizouka, February 17, 1614; BL IOR G/40/25 Richard Cocks at Hirado to John Jourdain at Bantam, December 10, 1614.

<sup>78</sup> BL IOR E/3/1 Richard Cocks at Hirado to Richard Wickham at Edo, Shizuoka or Elsewhere, March 7, 1614; BL IOR E/3/2 Richard Cocks at Hirdao to the EIC in London, November 17, 1614; Richard Cocks at Hirado to Adam Denton at Pattani, November 25, 1614; BL IOR G/12/15 Richard Wickham at Hirado to EIC in London January 15, 1617.

<sup>79</sup> BL IOR G/40/25 December 10, 1614; BL IOR E/3/3 Richard Cocks at Hirado to Richard Westby at Bantam, February 25, 1616.

concludes that it was 'notorious to all men that their own covetousness and ill behaviours' had led to their banishment.<sup>80</sup> Similarly, Wickham asserted that the accusations levelled by the Jesuits and other Catholics at the English were ill-founded and that it was 'the subtle practices & covetous dealing[s]' of the Jesuits' practices that had 'scandaled' the Emperor and caused him to act against them.81

Wickham's letter embodies the religious animosity between the Protestant English companies and their European Catholic counterparts, placing evangelism at the centre of the growing competition to increase commercial and national reputations. According to one EIC agent, although the English were not the main factor for the banishment of the Jesuits, they had 'upon demand, as occasions offered… done the Jesuits little credit'.<sup>82</sup> Critical of the Jesuits' aggressive evangelism, perceiving it to have been the cause of their banishment, EIC agents also lamented how it had also led to the religious persecution of 'Japon Christians'.<sup>83</sup> By 1620, multiple accounts of persecution had been sent back to England, including reports of churches being burnt down, people being forced to recant and several massacres across the country.84 The experiences and insights of the EIC in Japan, involving Catholic evangelism and Christian persecution abroad, draws attention to the motivations for the evolution of pastoral governance and passive evangelism in the company. Pastoral governance, unlike the reported aggressive religious policies of the Portuguese, provided the structural framework to secure the English commercial dominance as well as impose the authority of the company on its own personnel. In doing so, it allowed the English companies to proselytise through the policing of their personnel's behaviour.

<sup>80</sup> Ibid.

<sup>81</sup> BL IOR G/12/15 Richard Wickham at Edo to Sir Thomas Smyth in London, October 23, 1615.

<sup>82</sup> Ibid.

<sup>83</sup> Ibid.

<sup>84</sup> BL IOR E/3/1 William Eaton at Osaka to Richard Wickham at Edo, March 1, 1614; BL IOR G/40/25 December 10, 1614; BL IOR E/3/7 Richard Cocks at Nagasaki to Sir Thomas Wilson in London, March 10, 1620.

### Chaplains as Enforcers of Pastoral Governance and Corporate Evangelism

To ensure the good behaviour of company personnel abroad, chaplains were vital enforcers of the companies' pastoral governance. Their presence was considered key to the success of the commercial missions of the EIC and LC, which in both cases was prioritised over evangelism, as for this early period, although a concern, it was not a pressing issue.<sup>85</sup> As early as 1610, an EIC official told a chaplain that 'civil behaviour is very requisite for begetting love and estimation amongst those heathenish people'.<sup>86</sup> In order to do this, his primary aim was to 'settle such modest and sober government' that would ensure good behaviour of the company's English personnel.87 For the EIC, obtaining the 'love and estimation' of the Indian people through good behaviour had two connected and independent meanings. The first was the financial and commercial support of local merchants, helping the company to establish and maintain its business, whilst the second was related to eventual conversion of local people to Christianity. The behaviour of personnel abroad had long been a worry for the leaderships of both companies. The Levant Company factor, John Sanderson, wrote back to London that whilst in Istanbul 'a jolly set of divers devils, fools, madmen, antiques, monsters, beasts, [and] whoremongers' had surrounded him.<sup>88</sup> Many in both the LC and EIC believed that, to ensure the success of the trading mission of the company, they needed to ensure the good behaviour of its personnel, and so this fell to the authority of the company chaplains.

Punishments were enforced for several different infractions, including drunkenness, swearing, absence from services, or prayer and blasphemy, and almost all of them involved a fine, as this was considered the most effective way of ensuring that men could not get hold of drink.<sup>89</sup> The EIC were quick to realise this required a lot more policing than was

<sup>85</sup> Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 213.

<sup>86</sup> Quoted in O'Connor, *Chaplains*, p. 48.

<sup>87</sup> Ibid.

<sup>88</sup> Sanderson at Pera to Nicolas Leate in London, March 1600, Foster, ed., *The Travels of John Sanderson in the Levant, –1602* (London: Hakluyt Society, 1930), p. 197; Wood, *History of the Levant*, p. 224.

<sup>89</sup> Foster, *Thomas Best*, p. 95.

first expected, leading factors to plead with the company to send chaplains who would establish an 'effective Church', and thereby 'a well ordered and morally unassailable Protestant society'.90 In doing so, the company believed, the chaplains would counter the behaviour of its personnel, who were 'dangerously disordering themselves with drink and whores'.91 Accounts of drunkenness and debauchery amongst the company's personnel were frequent and of serious concern to the company business and image. Personnel across the company, from chaplains to captains, and merchants to governors, expressed concerns about the difficulty of governing such an 'irregular and almost incorrigible scum of rascals'.92 Their main concern about the 'ungodly behaviour' of personnel was the prejudicial effect that it had upon their commercial aims, as it damaged the company's image and reputation amongst the local population.93 This did not mean that the company advocated segregation between Englishmen and local populations, as this was considered prejudicial to commercial success. However, 'debauchery' through visiting brothels and drunkenness was perceived to be harmful to integration between the company and local society, and consequently trade.

For both companies, one of the primary methods of group contact was through church attendance and functions such as the sermon. By 1612, the EIC made daily religious communion compulsory, with the factor or captain assembling their 'men or company to hear divine service' every morning and evening.94 Although the objective of the chaplains' sermons was primarily for religious worship, they also served to bring together company personnel. At these meetings, not only were men and women told how to behave, but they also served to ensure that the factors, chief merchants and captains were able to meet with those under their authority twice a day. Even though the influence of these meetings is hard to quantify, the company's leadership considered church sermons and attendance an effective method of social control that ensured a way to achieve commercial, and ultimately religious, success. In 1614, David Middleton

<sup>90</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, pp. 117–118.

<sup>91</sup> Letter from Bantam quoted in John Keay, *The Honourable Company: History of the English East India Company* (London: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 48.

<sup>92</sup> Captain Pring to East India Company, March 23, 1619, *CSP East*, p. 264.

<sup>93</sup> Ibid.

<sup>94</sup> Foster, *Thomas Best*, p. 95.

received a commission that ordered prayers to be read morning and evening, both on land and at sea, ruling that only in the event of sickness could these group meetings be missed.95 The company leadership even dictated that group religious observation be held on a household level. A 1615 order declared that good government in the household could be established by 'observing due times of common prayer' and directing that in this way 'servants be kept from disorderly gadding to rack houses, etc.'96 By providing the company's personnel with a sermon that reinforced the religious governance of the company, the chaplain was benefiting the company but providing 'strong meat, for all growing Christians'.<sup>97</sup> Thus the chaplain fulfilled his two roles, spiritual to the religious lives of the companies' Protestant employees, and temporal by reinforcing the authority of the EIC and LC. Through sermons and enforcing religious governance, the chaplain was seen to be not only leading his flock towards godliness, but also ensuring the company's goals.

Chaplains themselves were not immune to accusations of placing the company's goals at risk through bad behaviour. Despite the rigorous procedure for picking the right candidate, company officials abroad did often report back that the wrong choice had been made.98 On one occasion, an EIC factor, Thomas Kerridge, complained that the chaplain, Peter Rogers, was causing unrest amongst the company personnel at Ajmer. For Kerridge, the role of the chaplain was to 'persuade to peace' rather than 'aggravate wrath'.99 However, Kerridge accused Rogers of committing the latter, leading him to question Rogers's education and character, suggesting that the 'friends that sent him hither were mistaken in him'.<sup>100</sup> On a separate occasion, Patrick Copland complained of another such chaplain's behaviour, recounting the story in a letter to the governor. He wrote that this fellow chaplain, Mr. Goulding, had gone ashore 'after them women', despite being 'expressly forbidden by the

<sup>96</sup> A Court of Merchants Held in Siam, April 20, 1615, in Foster, *Letters Received*, III: p. 108.

<sup>97</sup> Terry, *Voyage*, p. 463.

<sup>98</sup> BL IOR B/9 October 20, 29, November 3, 26, December 3, 5, 22, 1624.

<sup>99</sup> Thomas Kerridge in Ajmer to Sir Thomas Smyth, March 26, 1615, Foster, *Letters Received*, III: p. 92.

<sup>100</sup> Ibid.

<sup>95</sup> Commission to David Midelton, March 12, 1614, in Foster, *Letters Received*, III: p. 57.

commander'.101 Copland then 'beseeche[d] the Company to send honest preachers' complaining that if they couldn't find good preachers, 'send none', as, he asked, 'How can they work faithfully in the factories when they are dissolute themselves?'102 The LC faced similar problems, with chaplains sometimes being at the heart of, or even fuelling, confrontation whilst abroad. One remarkable case involved a feud between the ambassador at Constantinople, Sir Thomas Glover, and his predecessor, Henry Lello, over when the latter was to end his tenure. The conflict quickly escalated, and at the heart of it was the chaplain, William Biddulph. As a long-time supporter of Lello, Biddulph was disliked by many in Glover's camp, in particular the company agent John Sanderson, who complained of Biddulph's 'lying extolling of Sir Lello'.103 Glover himself wrote scathingly of Biddulph, comparing him disparagingly to a Muslim jurist: 'William Biddulph, whom the Turks here call my Mufti, as in deed he is more factious then Mufti, or the Devil himself'.<sup>104</sup> On two occasions certainly, Biddulph, through his contacts both in the Levant and in England, spread scandalous rumours to discredit Glover, including accusations of murder and bigamy.105 Despite Biddulph's best efforts, Glover remained ambassador to the Ottoman court till 1611. However, Biddulph's behaviour once again highlights the influence the chaplain wielded in securing, or in this case upsetting, the company's governance abroad. Although the stories of rogue chaplains raise questions as to the bearing of corporate orders on what was happening on the ground, they also reinforce the important position chaplains were placed in. Their behaviour and influence had not only the ability to secure the company's pastoral governance abroad, but also to place it in jeopardy along with the company's reputation.

The chaplain had several methods at his disposal to ensure the good behaviour of the company's personnel and that the companies' religious

<sup>101</sup> Copland to Sir Thomas Smyth March 4, 1618 on the Royal James*, CSP East*, pp. 135–136.

<sup>103</sup> Quoted in Maclean, *The Rise of Oriental Travel*, p. 62.

<sup>104</sup> Glover to Cecil, April 16, 1607, TNA SP 97/5, f .142.

<sup>105</sup> On accusations of murder of company servant, George Coxden, 'Biddulph to 'Mrs. Gratzwicke', July 14, 1607, TNA SP 97/5, f.181; Maclean, *Oriental Travel,* p. 58; for accusation of bigamy, see, William Biddulph, *The Travels of Certain Englishmen*, pp. 80– 81.

<sup>102</sup> Ibid.

governance and authority were maintained. Both aboard ships and ashore, the chaplain was paid more than the ship's surgeon and allowed to invest financially in ventures; their standing was in the upper-middle tiers of the company.<sup>106</sup> EIC chaplains' wages very quickly doubled in the early years of the company's existence, to £100, and often included substantial supplements for financial provision.107 They on occasions would also accompany EIC officials and be present at functions, to advise and lead when needed. At all official functions, Roe was accompanied by a chaplain, throughout his time as ambassador at the Mughal Court.108 Roe was reported to have been inconsolable at the loss when his first chaplain Thomas Hall died, writing that he could enjoy 'no Comfort, no conversation' following Hall's passing.109 So devastated was Roe at the loss of his confidant and adviser that he wrote he would 'live the life of an Atheist' until a replacement was sent.110 On another occasion, the EIC directors turned to Copland, a chaplain whom they greatly respected, to seek advice on the conduct of the captain of the fleet.111 Like the personal relationship between Roe and his chaplain, the EIC leadership's reliance on Copland further demonstrated the power and influence of a chaplain. Copland wrote back to the court, commending the 'zeal and care' shown by Captain Best in establishing 'good government amongst his people, which maintained love between them, living peaceably and conscionable all the whole voyage'.<sup>112</sup> Chaplains were important not only to establish the companies' own religious governance, but were also instrumental in legitimising and bolstering the authority of other members of the company.

<sup>106</sup> For the ability and incidence of chaplains adventuring in the EIC, see BL IOR B/5 A Court of Committee June 29, 1614; for LC incidents particularly involving Robert Frampton, see ToNA SP 105/175 f. 13, 26, 113, 132, 150.

<sup>107</sup> *CSP East*, February 9, 1607; BL IOR B/5 A Court Committee, October 26, 1614.

<sup>108</sup> For the role of Jesuit ministers at the Mughal Court, see João Melo, 'Seeking Prestige and Survival: Gift-exchange Practices between the Portuguese Estado da Índia and Asian Rulers', *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient*, Vol. 56 (2013), pp. 672–695.

<sup>109</sup> August 19, 1616, in Foster, *Embassy of Thomas Roe*, I: p. 245.

<sup>110</sup> Ibid, p. 246.

<sup>111</sup> Story recounted in O'Connor, *Chaplains*, p. 38.

<sup>112</sup> Copland to Court of Directors, June 9, 1614, Extract from the Court Minutes of the EIC, Vol. III, in Foster, *Thomas Best*, p. 264.

As a group, chaplains were an instrumental body in the companies' aim to establish pastoral governance abroad. However, it was often the work of individual chaplains that made the biggest impression on how the companies' missions would evolve. One of the most frequently mentioned chaplains in the early history of the EIC is Patrick Copland. Originally a graduate from the University of St. Andrews, Copland, a Scottish Episcopalian, was asked by the company to serve on four voyages between 1612 and 1621, before leaving for Bermuda and becoming a Congregationalist.<sup>113</sup> Copland is mostly remembered in the history of the EIC for instigating the first company conversion of a Bengali boy in 1614. Returning from India that year with the boy, Copland managed to arrange for the EIC to provide a stipend for the boy to attend school in London, where he was to be 'taught and instructed in religion'.<sup>114</sup> Just as with the VC, Copland and the EIC hoped that by educating the child he would convert and 'might upon occasion bee sent into his country' and whilst there 'God may be so pleased to make him an instrument in rounding some of his nation'.115 One year later, Copland reported back on the success of the boy's education, proclaiming him to have 'profited in the knowledge of the Christian religion' and that it may benefit the company to hold a baptism 'publicly' as he was amongst the 'first fruits of India'.116 After some discussion with Maurice Abbot's brother, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the company agreed. The following December, the boy was baptised at the Church of St. Dionis in front of a congregation made up of the Privy Council, Lord Mayor, Aldermen and members of the EIC and VC.<sup>117</sup> The King himself chose the boy's name as Peter Pope, in what Edward Neill described as 'that odd compound of cant, coarseness, and Scottishness'—or possibly just humour.118 Following the public successes of this early attempt at pastoral governance and evangelism, Copland and Pope returned to the East, where Pope, still under the tutelage of Copland, would continue his education and even write back to the

<sup>113</sup> Edward D. Neill, *Patrick Copland*, pp. 90–93.

<sup>114</sup> BL IOR B/5 A Court Committee, August 19, 1614; Neill, *Memoir of Rev. Patrick Copland*, pp. 13–14; Foster. *Thomas Best*, p. xx.

<sup>115</sup> BL IOR B/5 A Court Committee, August 19, 1614.

<sup>116</sup> BL IOR B/5 A Court Committee, July 18, 1615.

<sup>117</sup> Neill, *Patrick Copland*, p. 12; Copland and Pope, *Virginia's God Be Thanked*.

<sup>118</sup> Copland and Pope, *Virginia's God Be Thanked*.

company.119 Some years later, Copland and Pope returned to England to obtain support for yet another of Copland's education projects in Virginia. Having, on a return voyage from the East, heard that there was a lack of schools in Virginia, Copland embarked on a campaign to raise funds to establish a school in Virginia. Its purpose was to educate, like Pope, Native American children, 'in the principles of Religion, civility of life, and humane learning'.<sup>120</sup> Copland was successful in his mission of obtaining company support, initially managing to persuade 142 EIC employees to pledge donations for the opening of the East India School in the colony, although the plan would be aborted following the massacre in 1622.<sup>121</sup> Despite his successful relationship with the company, Copland did face criticism. Following the battle of Jakarta, his sermon was accused of being so influential that he 'dissanimated' the sailors, who refused to fight against the Dutch, their fellow Protestants.122 However, for the most part Copland can be seen as one of the companies' most successful early chaplains, firmly establishing and connecting pastoral governance and its passive proselytism in the early English companies, across both the Atlantic and Indian oceans.

The cosmopolitan nature of business in both Turkey and India meant that EIC and LC personnel were forced to mingle with a number of different religious groups. The strangers accounts for the LC at Constantinople highlight this diversity, listing business dealings with Jews, Muslims, Orthodox Armenians, Orthodox Greeks, Protestant Dutch, Catholic French and Venetians.123 Similarly, in India, EIC personnel entered a business environment that was religiously diverse.124 For both

<sup>119</sup> Ibid.

<sup>120</sup> Copland, *A Declaration How the Monies (* Viz*. Seventy Pound Eight Shillings Sixe Pence) Were Disposed Which Was Gathered (by M. Patrick Copland, Preacher in the Royall Lames) at the Cape of Good Hope (Towards the Building of a Free Schoole in Virginia) of the Gentlemen and Mariners in the Said Ship: A List of Whose Names Are Under Specified, for Gods Glory, Their Comfort, and the Incouragement of Others to the Furthering of the Same, or the Like Pious Worke* (London: 1622).

<sup>121</sup> Ibid.

<sup>122</sup> Copland to Court of Directors, June 9, 1614, Extract from the Court Minutes of the EIC, Vol. III, in Foster, *Embassy of Thomas Roe*, p. 264.

<sup>123</sup> TNA SP. 105/109, f. 149, 189.

<sup>124</sup> BL IOR/B/11, January 5, 1626/27; William Thurston and Edward Pearce at Basra to the Company, June 22, 1640, Foster, *English Factories*, II: p. 73; VI: p. 248; Danvers, *Letters Received*, VI: pp. 244, 303.

companies, their personnel were forced to interact with individuals and groups of varying faiths to secure the commercial mission of the company. However, these interactions brought with them dangers that the companies' leadership believed their personnel needed to be protected against. EIC and LC officials relied on the chaplains' enforcement of pastoral governance to ensure that their personnel remained, and behaved as, the godly.

From their initial attempts to establish trade abroad, the EIC and LC were wary of the allure other faiths might have on their personnel. The leadership of both companies was conscious of the damaging effects conversion from Protestantism would have on the reputation of the faith, nation and governance of the company. For many, the biggest fear was conversion to Islam. In the Ottoman, Persian and Mughal Empires, conversion not only meant a switch in faith, but also national identity. Edward Terry speculated that the practical appeal of Islam to many Europeans, as well as for those who practised the religion, was the liberty and toleration it afforded towards the marriage rights of men. According to Terry, it was partially this that encouraged apostasy and hindered 'the settlement and growth of Christianity in those parts'.<sup>125</sup> Marriage posed several problems for the company, which ranged from the legality and religious sanctity of marriage to the issue of the subject identity of not only the couple, but also any children born from the union. Much later, following the Restoration, an English captain was sent out to the North African coast to secure the return of some Englishmen from slavery. However, he reported that the men refused to return and wished to remain Muslim. According to the captain, the reason that these men 'were tempted to forsake their God' was 'for the love of Turkish women, who are generally very beautiful'.<sup>126</sup> Over the same period, the allure of Muslim women for Christian men, and the threat they posed, was immortalised in English folk song. In the Ballad of Lord Bateman, a noble from Northumberland is captured in Turkey, and whilst imprisoned by an Ottoman governor falls in love with his daughter. Several years after his release, she sails to England and convinces him to abandon

<sup>125</sup> Terry, *A Voyage*, p. 428.

<sup>126</sup> Quoted in John B. Wolf, *The Barbary Coast: Algiers Under the Turks, 1500 to 1830* (New York, NY: W. W. Norton, 1979), p. 237.

his Christian bride, to marry her.<sup>127</sup> Not only were Muslim women seen as exotic and seductive by the religious and political leadership, within and outside the company, their stance on marriage also caused concern. In the European imagination, Islam became highly sexualised as it became increasingly associated with polygamy and the concept of the harem, and the dangers of cultural exposure to this were never far from the minds of the EIC and LC leaders.128 However, by providing a minister, company officials hoped to prevent apostasy, ensuring that their personnel remained within the godly and behaved according to the pastoral governance of the company.

Despite the fear of apostasy amongst the companies' English personnel, pastoral governance supported rather than prevented the companies from interacting with and employing people of numerous faiths, many of whom were European converts. The letter books of the EIC report cases that demonstrate how the company was primarily only concerned with the conversion of English subjects, or specifically its own personnel, reinforcing the idea that evangelism, for much of the seventeenth century, was an internal mission. Evangelism was encouraged by example rather than coercion, to not endanger the company's relationship with educated middlemen such as European converts, Jews and Orthodox Armenians, as well as Hindus and Muslims, on whom it relied. One case in the EIC involved a recently employed Portuguese convert to Islam who had become an 'enemy of the Jesuits' and had come into the employ of the factor at Agra, Thomas Kerridge. Worried by his employee's status as a converted European, Kerridge wrote a letter to ensure his continued employment, as he wished to keep him in service, writing that, as a European convert, he did 'more business in an hour than his banyan in a day'.129 The prospect of an Englishman in the company committing apostasy continued to be a threat that the companies' spiritual and secular leadership feared. Such news of English converts 'greatly afflicted' the Levant Company, as they feared it would 'draw no mean Scandal to

<sup>129</sup> Thomas Kerridge at Agra to Thomas Aldworth and the Council at Surat, September 7, 1613, in Foster*, Letters Received*, I: pp. 283–284.

<sup>127</sup> 'The Loving Balled of Lord Bateman', in Francis James Child, ed., *The English and Scottish Popular Ballads*, vols. 10 (New York, NY: Dover Publications, 1884), I: p. 477.

<sup>128</sup> Hsu-Ming Teo, *Desert Passions: Orientalism and Romance Novels* (Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 2012), pp. 37–50.

our nation and to the Christian Religion'.130 However, in the case of the EIC and this particular Portuguese convert to Islam, his coming into the employment of the company was not an issue. It was perceived that his apostasy had only brought disgrace to his nation, not the English one, and so was not a threat to the authority of the company.

## Chaplains and Knowledge Exchange

The companies not only companiesrovided the chaplains with employment, but also offered them unique opportunities to take part in commerce and knowledge exchange. Through company employment they were provided with the opportunity to advance their academic and ecclesiastical credentials, which would also develop ideas on religious governance at home and abroad. The expectation that chaplains would establish a religious government, in addition to individual ministers' curiosity about foreign religious cultures, surrounded the experiences of company chaplains in this early period. Being educated men, chaplains were sought after by officials both inside and outside the companies who hoped to utilise their talents, to advance English academic and religious pursuits.

The interactions associated with pastoral governance that chaplains were involved in abroad offered rare opportunities to pursue intellectual pursuits, that advanced their academic and ecclesiastical future at home. By hunting for early Islamic and biblical manuscripts or penning works on their travels, chaplains became key figures in an exchange of knowledge across oceans. Of a long line of influential LC chaplains who effected religious and academic governance abroad and in England, one of the most famous was the Middle Eastern scholar and the first Laudian Chair of Arabic at Oxford, Edward Pococke.<sup>131</sup>

#### <sup>130</sup> TNA SP. 105/113, f. 188.

<sup>131</sup> Mills, 'The Chaplains to the English Levant Company: Exploration and Biblical Scholarship in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth-Century England', in Judith Becker and Bettina Braun, eds., *Die Begegnung mit Fremden und das Geschichtsbewusstein* (Gottingen: 2012), pp. 243–266; Mills, 'The English Chaplains at Aleppo: Exploration and Scholarship between England and the Ottoman Empire, 1620–1760', *Bulletin of the Council of British Research on the Levant*, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2011), pp. 13–20; Smith, 'Risky Business', pp. 244– 245; G. J. Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome and Learning: The Study of Arabic in Seventeenth Century England* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 116–225.

Born in Oxford in 1604, Pococke was the eldest son of Edward Pococke, a clergyman and one time fellow at St. Mary Magdalen college. After attending a free school in Thame, Oxfordshire, Pococke entered Magdalen Hall in 1618, following which in 1620 he received a scholar's place at Corpus Christi College, Oxford.132 In 1622, at the age of 18, he was admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, where his interest in Middle Eastern languages was sparked by his tutors, the German exile mathematician and Hebrew, Arabic and Syriac scholar Matthias Pasor and the influential English Arabist and religious minister William Bedwell.133 Pococke graduated at the age of 26 and that same year applied to fill the vacant chaplaincy position, following fellow Oxford graduate Charles Robson's return to England from the Levant.<sup>134</sup> Many years later noted polymath John Selden received a recommendation from the English consul describing him as 'a diligent and able gent' and that his skills as a translator were such that 'he himself made Arab his mistress'.135 Convinced that Pococke's skills as both theologian and translator made him right for the job, Selden concluded, 'I shall intreate you to accept from me', yet despite being the only applicant, Pococke was forced to go through the rigmarole of selection.136 He was finally selected by the company in March 1630, after the company received further 'very good testimony & recommendations'.<sup>137</sup> Moreover, they commended Pococke's 'ability in learning, Soundness in the Study of divinity, conformity to the constitutions of the Church & integrity of Life and conversation'.<sup>138</sup> Although Pococke was a capable chaplain, it was not in his spiritual role that he achieved fame, instead receiving recognition both during his time in the Levant and after for his notable achievements as an agent of knowledge exchange and oriental learning.

By the middle of October 1630, Pococke had arrived in Aleppo and immediately set to work amassing a substantial collection of oriental manuscripts, many of which he would translate and send back to England

 Twells, *Lives*, I: p. 2. Ibid, pp. 4–5. Twells, *Lives*, p. 13. Selden Mss supra 108, f. 25. <sup>136</sup> Ibid. TNA SP 105/145, f. 218–219. <sup>138</sup> Ibid.

to William Laud, who was then Archbishop of London and the Chancellor of Oxford.<sup>139</sup> Although possibly not the main reason behind Pococke's interest, these manuscripts were part of Laud's desire to mould the established Church's governance by reconnecting the Church with its eastern counterpart, the Greek Orthodox Church. According to Laud, the English Church was 'an Orthodox Church' and being so, he believed that it was perfectly lawful to communicate with other Orthodox churches.140 Communications between the Greek and English Churches had been established by Laud's predecessor, George Abbot, and were continued under him.<sup>141</sup> As early as 1631, Laud wrote to Pococke requesting that he send back manuscripts to build up the library at Oxford, and several years later Laud wrote a letter to the LC directly ordering that every company boat return home 'one Arab, or Persian Manuscript Book', which would be delivered to him.<sup>142</sup> Although the company may have been fairly relaxed about sending material back to England, Pococke was not. Many of the early manuscripts in the Bodleian library either were acquisitions made by Pococke on behalf of the library or for his private collection.143 This includes over 400 Arabic, Hebrew, Persian, Turkish, Greek and Armenian manuscripts that cover a variety of subjects, from history to literature and religion to philology.

In both the acquiring of manuscripts and learning of languages, Pococke was helped by building a substantial network of friendships with European and Ottoman scholars, clergymen and merchants of varying

<sup>139</sup> Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, pp. 71–72; Twells, *Lives*, pp. 6–7.

<sup>140</sup> William Laud, *A Relation of the Conference Between William Laud Late Lord Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Fisher The Jesuit* (London: 1673), pp. 243.

<sup>141</sup> For the relationship between Abbot, Laud and Lucaris, see Steven Runciman, *The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), pp. 294–296; For more on the relationship between Cyril Lucaris, Orthodoxy, the Anglican Church and religious governance in England, see W. B. Patterson, 'Cyril Lukaris, George Abbot, James VI and I, and the Beginning of Orthodox-Anglican Relations', and Colin Davey, 'Metrophanes Kritopoulos and his Studes at Balliol College from 1617 to 1622', in Peter M. Doll, ed., *Anglicanism and Orthodoxy: 300 Years After the 'Greek College' in Oxford* (Bern: Peter Lang, 2006), pp. 39–78.

<sup>142</sup> TNA SP 16.260, f. 116.

<sup>143</sup> Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 71.

faiths, many of whom he stayed in contact with until the end of his life.<sup>144</sup> Pococke was particularly keen to improve his written and spoken language skills, and employed a number of individuals to aid him.145 Of all his language studies, it was to Arabic that Pococke dedicated most of his spare time. Whilst in Aleppo, he employed a native speaker named Ham¯ıd as his personnel attendant, in order to acquire a better knowledge of the spoken language, whilst he became acquainted with a Muslim 'shaykh' to improve his reading and writing.146 Writing from Aleppo in 1671, then LC chaplain and fellow orientalist Robert Huntington informed Pococke that his 'old scheich' had died several years earlier, but that he still fondly remembered him even on his deathbed, declaring that 'he did not doubt but to meet you in paradise, under the banner of our Jesus'.<sup>147</sup> Similarly, during his time in Aleppo, Pococke employed a number of Jewish instructors, including a Rabbi to teach him Hebrew. Likewise, during his time in Constantinople Pococke employed a number of Jews, including Jacob Roman, to help him in his academic and personal pursuits.148 It is particularly noteworthy that Pococke enjoyed conversing with Roman about the various Christian sects and the theological differences he had observed when reading about their beliefs.<sup>149</sup>

In addition to Roman, Ham¯ıd and his 'old scheich', Pococke also formed intellectual friendships and maintained contacts with a number of Christians, including Dutch Orientalist Jacobus Golius and his brother, the Carmelite friar Petrus Golius, as well as leaders of the Greek Orthodox

<sup>144</sup> Claire Gallien, 'Orientalist Pococke: Brokering across Borders, Disciplines and Genres', in Robert Mankin, ed., *The Internationalization of Intellectual Exchange in a Globalizing Europe 1636–1780* (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press, 2017), pp. 1– 30; For information on trans-cultural or trans-imperial agents and brokers see E. Natalie Rothman, *Brokering Empire: Trans-Imperial Subjects between Venice and Istanbul* (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2012), pp. 3–7, 36–38.

<sup>145</sup> Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, p. 121.

<sup>146</sup> Mills, 'Learning Arabic in the Overseas Factories: The Case of the English', in Jan Loop, Alastair Hamilton and Charles Burnett, eds., *The Teaching and learning of Arabic in Early Modern Europe* (Leiden, Brill, 2017) p. 280.

<sup>147</sup> Quoted in Twells, *Lives,* pp. 30–31.

<sup>148</sup> Pococke, 'Porta Mosis' in Twells, *Theological Works*, p. 160; Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, p. 121; Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 90.

<sup>149</sup> Twells, *Lives,* p. 46.

Church.<sup>150</sup> These included the Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, whom Pococke's eighteenth-century biographer described as having 'a great esteem for Mr. Pococke', and Nathaniel Canopius. Following the death of the former, the latter fled to England and studied at Balliol College, where, it is rumoured, he was the first person to introduce coffee drinking to England, a habit Pococke would also be known for in Oxford.151 Through these friendships, Pococke engaged in a series of transcultural exchanges that allowed him to pursue his studies in not only Middle Eastern languages, but also history, culture, law and faith. Moreover, and no less important, they also provided him with further contacts to establish and nourish links with local merchants and collectors whom he could call upon to acquire the many manuscripts he sought, both whilst in the Levant and after he returned home.

Although these friendships arose from a transactional relationship, they were often just as deep and as long-lasting as the others that Pococke formed whilst in the Levant. Again, as in his academic pursuits, these crossed the various ethnic, religious and cultural divides of the Levantine world, including Muslims, Greek and Syriac Christians, Jews and European travellers. One such collector whom Pococke used to acquire manuscripts was the German itinerant minister and orientalist Christianus Ravius. A transcultural European, Ravius travelled throughout Europe and the Middle East between 1636 and 1677. Before travelling to the Ottoman Empire, he studied at Oxford, where through his friendship with Pococke he secured free quarters at the English Embassy in Constantinople. There, Pococke wrote, he saw it 'very fitting' that Ravius 'be employed in setting forth of books in the Arabic Language'.<sup>152</sup> Ravius would later return to Oxford to teach Hebrew, before lecturing in Upsala, Kiel and Frankfurt an der Oder. In his quest for oriental manuscripts, Pococke also developed close friendships with a Greek surgeon called Georgio Cergio, a Syrian Christian named Abdel Messiah and Michael Thaljah, the scribe and brother of a local Greek Bishop.<sup>153</sup> Yet it was his

<sup>150</sup> Although Pococke was in contact with Jacobus Golius, he had left Aleppo by the time Pococke had arrived: Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, pp. 120–122; Twells, *Lives*, pp. 23, 300.

<sup>151</sup> Judith Pinnington, *Anglicans and Orthodox: Unity and Subversion 1559–1725* (Leominster: Herefordshire; Gracewing, 2003), p. 15.

<sup>152</sup> Twells, *Lives,* p. 61.

<sup>153</sup> Twells, *Lives,* pp. 56, 58; Gallien, 'Orientalist Pococke', p. 22.

friendship with a Muslim scribe and scholar, who would be his teacher, from Aleppo named Darwish Ahmed ibn Husam al-Gulshani that has become the most enduring representation of the transcultural friendship network that made up Pococke's collectors.<sup>154</sup>

Although not dated, it has been proved that five letters were sent between 1636 and 1640, after Pococke's return to England, and they are a testament to the friendship of both Pococke and al-Gulshani.<sup>155</sup> Al-Gulshani details the manuscripts sent from Aleppo and Oxford, which he had collected and purchased for Pococke. These included among others a copy of an encyclopaedia produced by a Muslim secret society, a twelfthcentury work on agricultural practices called the *Kit¯ab al-fil¯aha*, an Egyptian zoological text entitled *Hay¯at al-hayaw¯an*, an Arabic adaptation of Indian fables called the *Kal¯ılah wa-Dimnah*, as well as countless biographies, commentaries and religious texts.156 Occasionally, the letters also highlight the transactional nature of transcultural knowledge exchange, with al-Gulshani on one occasion requesting Pococke send him 'something of the rarities of your homeland' and a 'printed geography'.157 To add to the detailed notes of the manuscripts exchanging hands, al-Gulshani's letters show the close bond between himself and Pococke, addressing the chaplain in several letters as his 'dear pupil', whilst also detailing significant events in his life such as his marriage.<sup>158</sup> Al-Gulshani's letters also note how he kept up to date on events in Pococke's life, describing him after he had taken the chair in Arabic as 'the teacher of the English sect, the erudite in Christian sciences, and the researcher into the roots of the Arabic language'.159 Yet it is from his letter following the

<sup>154</sup> Gallien, 'Orientalist Pococke', p. 11; see Simon Mills's incredible work on Pococke in the Levant and his relationship with Gulshani, in particular his role as his Arabic tutor, as well as the Gulshani's important role in acquiring large numbers of manuscripts for Pococke: Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, pp. 74–89; Hilary Kilpatrick, 'Arabic Private Correspondence from Seventeenth-Century Syria: The Letters Edward Pococke', *Bodleian Library Record*, Vol. 21, No.1 (2010), pp. 20–40; P. M. Holt, *Studies in the history of the Near East* (Abingdon, Oxford; Frank Cass, 1973), pp. 3–66; Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, pp. 222–223.

<sup>155</sup> Five letters have been translated in Holt, *Near East*: see Appendix II, pp. 42–45.

<sup>156</sup> Holt, *Near East*, p. 42–45; Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 78.

<sup>157</sup> Ibid, p. 43.

<sup>158</sup> Ibid, pp. 42–43.

<sup>159</sup> Ibid, p. 43.

death of Pococke's father in 1636/7 that we gain a touching insight into the enduring bond between these two men. The letter consists of several condolences, and Pococke is affectionately addressed by al-Gulshani as his 'honoured and dear son'.<sup>160</sup> Moreover, he often asked Pococke to inform him of events in his life, requesting on one occasion that he 'send me a letter in the Arabic tongue, and send also without fail to inform me of your condition'.<sup>161</sup> By travelling, Pococke was not only able to acquire manuscripts and advance his own language learning, but also establish a network of friendships that were truly transcultural, transcending the cultural, linguistic and religious divides of the time.

Apart from the acquisition of manuscripts, these friendships helped Pococke advance his own scholarly learning, furthering his understanding of Arabic, Syriac, Ethiopic and Hebrew languages. Despite returning to Oxford in 1636 and obtaining a post at the university, Pococke was only home a mere two years before asking to be returned to the Levant. Obtaining the support of Laud, Pococke returned to the Middle East, still in receipt of his academic salary and with permission from the company to supplement his salary by trading in bales of cloth.162 During this second Eastern sojourn, Pococke not only continued to amass and send home manuscripts, but also fulfilled the influential and important duty of chaplain to two ambassadors. By 1639/40, Pococke had returned permanently to England and continued his academic career, translating, annotating and publishing numerous oriental manuscripts in Latin for a European audience that was increasingly interested in learning about the culture, law and history of the Islamic world. Some of the texts Pococke translated included works by Eutychius, a short account of the origin and manners of the Arabs, the preface to an Arabic version of the *Pentateuch*, a complete Arabic edition of Bar Hebraeus' work and what has been described as both his 'masterpiece' and 'magnum opus', the *Specimen historiae arabum* (collected for him by al-Gulshani).163 These texts were part of the transcultural expansion of seventeenth-century learning; as commerce encouraged English culinary tastes and fashions to change,

<sup>162</sup> TNA SP 110/54, f. 216; TNA SP 16/381, f. 159; TNA SP 105/149, f.157.

<sup>163</sup> Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 81; 'Learning Arabic', p. 289; Gallien, 'Orientalist Pococke', p. 25; Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, pp. 159–162, 164.

<sup>160</sup> ibid, p. 44.

<sup>161</sup> ibid, p. 43.

it also encouraged English intellectuals to learn about the cultures and peoples that they were trading with. Furthermore, the surge in language learning also inspired the exportation of European culture, and religion, in the form of the Polyglot Bible. Pococke actively assisted in its production and compilation, specifically the sections in Arabic, and was so connected with its development that it was first mentioned in a letter between Selden and Pococke in 1652*.* <sup>164</sup> Although his employment in the LC was essential in developing his knowledge of Middle Eastern language and culture, it did not guarantee him support following his exit from the company's employment. Despite having a tradition of funding religious educational initiatives such as the translation of the Bible into Turkish, Pococke did not receive any financial or institutional support from the LC.<sup>165</sup>

Through the LC, Pococke enhanced his scholarship, acquired manuscripts, interacted with peoples of numerous faiths and experienced the pastoral governance of the company. The experiences granted him influence in both the Church and academy in England, and through his work and connections the company could mould, for a period, their own governance. Pococke highlights the role overseas chaplains would play in developing and governing varying institutions when they returned to England.

As in the Ottoman Empire, India offered chaplains similar possibilities to influence the direction of governance and expansion both at home and abroad through academic pursuits. One EIC chaplain who sought to influence the pastoral governance of the company, alongside opinions and ideas of Indian peoples in England, through the knowledge he acquired whilst working for the company, was Henry Lord. Before leaving India, Lord sent his manuscript back to England and upon his return published an account of his interactions with the Hindu and Parsi faiths that he had encountered when out there. Published the same year that Pococke left for Aleppo, Lord's *A display of two forraigne sects* offered one of the first in-depth English language analyses of the two religions.<sup>166</sup>

<sup>164</sup> Toomer, *Eastern Wisedome*, p. 203; part of the letter can be found in Twells, *Lives,* p. 205.

<sup>165</sup> W. Seaman to Boyle 5 October, 1664, *BC*, II: pp. 341–342; W. Seaman to Boyle, 19 October, 1664, *BC*, II: pp. 353–354; Mills, *Commerce of Knowledge*, p. 212.

<sup>166</sup> Lord, *A Display of Two Forraigne Sects*; O' Connor, *Chaplains*, pp. 68–69.

*A display of two forraigne sects* can be considered to have established a new genre of literature in the Protestant world that would later include Abraham Roger's *De open-deure tot het verborgen heydendom* (1651) and Bartholomaus Ziegenbalg's *Genealogie der Malabarischen Gotter* (1713).167 Lord's work was unique in English literature, considering its focus was solely on religion, whereas earlier works had only mentioned religion as a part of sections on customs and practices in the region. Christopher Farewell's *An East-India Coalition* (1633) and Edward Terry's sympathetic account *Voyage to East India* (1655) reported on religion but were much more interested in broader political and social descriptions of India and its peoples. Terry in his famous account held a mirror up to his readers, encouraging reflection on the conduct of the English in foreign lands, in comparison to the behaviour of the Indians. One of his aims was to illustrate how commercial or spiritual agendas could only be achieved when English travellers and company personnel 'as the Beams of the Sun put forth their virtue, and do good by their reflection'.<sup>168</sup> Discussing several attributes, in his reflection Terry criticises the Christian behaviour of EIC personnel, writing how 'we quarrel at the superstition and blind devotion of others. But let us examine ourselves, whether superstition in them, hath not a great deal of more heat in it, than Religion in us'.169 For Terry, evangelism was an important goal, that could only be achieved when the temporal and spiritual behaviour of the English had been rectified. His work aimed to instruct the reader, both by example and reflection upon local Indian customs, highlighting the importance of behaviour in evangelism.170 Lord, on the other hand, was simply critical of the lack of evangelism, not finding fault in the daily behaviour of English personnel in India, but in the lack of zeal in their attempts to evangelise. In order to rectify this, Lord sought to inform his English audience of 'the inner secrets of an ancient people' by viewing the religious practices and customs of groups of Hindus, Jains

 Xavier and Županov, *Catholic Orientalism*, pp. 115–244. Terry, *A Voyage*, p. 453. Ibid, pp. 441–442. Ibid, pp. 452–545.

and Parsees in India through a Christian viewing glass.<sup>171</sup> This was a form of 'paganopapism' used by Lord to find a connection between Indian faiths and Roman Catholicism in order to criticise both the former and the latter.<sup>172</sup> This includes presenting religious texts as the 'Banian Bible', suggesting Pourous (Purusha) and Parcoutee (Prakriti) lived together like Adam and Eve and his description of a creation myth paralleling that in Genesis.173 Lord distorts the customs, laws and origins of local Indian religions in order to justify his agenda, emphasising Indian people's 'heathenism' as well as presenting the similarities to Christianity as a means to highlight the potential for conversion.

Little is known about Lord. It has been argued that he was born in 1563 and attended Magdalen Hall, Oxford, although this would have meant that he would have been 61 when appointed to the EIC in 1624, at a time when the average age of these early ministers was 30.174 However, Nora Firby has argued that Lord was older, suggesting that he was 63 when he entered the company's service, and that the company made the decision to send out an older man due to a series of incidents involving younger ministers.175 Moreover, Lord came highly recommended, with the company minute noting how the 'court had particular commendation of Mr Lord from Mr Deane White under whom he served as Curate, and likewise from Mr Shute'.<sup>176</sup> Lord from the beginning of his company career had openly expressed an interest in evangelism. His interview sermon, which was taken from Ephesians 5:11, 'Have no fellowship with the works of darkness but rather reprove them', neatly summarises the

<sup>171</sup> Amrita Sen and Jyotsna G. Singh, 'Classifying the Natives in Early Modern Ethnographies: Henry Lord's A Display of Two Foreign Sects in the East Indies (1630)', *Journeys*, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2013), p. 74.

<sup>172</sup> Nora Firby, *European Travellers and their Perceptions of Zoroastrians in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries* (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1988), pp. 110–111.

<sup>173</sup> Lord, *A Display of Two Forraigne Sects*, p. 4; Sen and Singh, 'Classifying the Natives', pp. 75–76.

<sup>174</sup> Will Sweetman, *Mapping Hinduism: 'Hinduism' and the Study of Indian Religions, 1600–1776* (Halle: Verlag der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle, 2003), pp. 65–66; Firby, *European Travellers*.

<sup>175</sup> Firby, *European Travellers*, p. 98.

<sup>176</sup> BL IOR B/8 A Court of Committees held of the January 7, 1624.

rationale behind his later work, both to reprove the intellectual ignorance of the English and the spiritual iniquity of the Indians.177

Despite never straying far from Surat whilst in India, Lord's time in the city offered him considerable opportunity to investigate and learn about the faiths that he encountered. Lord's story began in the city in 1624, having successfully imposed the company's pastoral governance on board a ship in 'gain[ing] a charge of souls in the Adventure of the honourable Company of Merchants trading to the East-Indies'.178 Even as he mentions his success in establishing and securing religious governance aboard the EIC's ships, several biblical verses on the ornate frontispiece of his work set the tone for the reasoning behind its publication. The verses that Lord used express two related concerns of his book: firstly, his (albeit prejudiced) interests in the religion and governance of the Hindu and Parsi people, and secondly how to 'reform' their religious governance. The first verse from 1 Corinthians 11:19, 'For there must be heresies even among you, that they which are approved among you, might be known', expressed Lord's wish to inform his readers of Indian religions. The second, taken from Isaiah 9:16, 'For the leaders of the people cause them to erre: and they that are led to them are destroyed' reinforced his perception of English spiritual superiority and encouraged the company and English people back home to support evangelism.179 Whether or not his work was well received by the company, Lord sought to provide knowledge to help the process of establishing the company's 'reforming' religious governance in India.

By explaining the creation myths, holy texts, eating habits and the traditions governing the social structures of the Hindu and Pars Parsi i religions, Lord sought to inform his readers so they could judge and, as with all judgements, a sentence for reform would follow. According to Lord, the two faiths were 'rebelliously and schismatically violating the divine law of the dread Majesty of Heaven', and so required his readers, in particular the Archbishop of Canterbury, to whom the book was dedicated, to 'judge of their causes and crimes'.<sup>180</sup> Despite his own religious sentiments, Lord does seem to fondly recall his interaction with Indian

<sup>177</sup> Ibid. Lord, *A Display of Two Forraigne Sects*, sig. B. ibid, frontispiece. ibid, sig. A3.

peoples, notably his first encounter with a Hindu. He gives an account of a Hindu man who worked for the company, noting his 'linen garments' and 'gesture and garb as I may say maidenly and well-nigh effeminate', concluding, with a note of fondness, how the people were 'strangely notable, and notably strange?'181 Throughout, Lord seeks to compare and criticise elements of the Hindu and Parsi religious governance by comparison with historical comments and biblical and Christian teachings. In his discussion about Hindu laws, in particular the prohibition on the drinking of alcohol and eating of meat that he particularly criticises, Lord argues that both were part of a 'tradition' that was 'void of ground or reason'.182 According to Lord, the Romans described ancient Indians as '*vini amatores*, lovers of Wine', highlighting the classical misconceptions many English travellers held. At the same time, Lord also called upon his Christian understanding of the world to suggest that the practice of not eating meat was 'against the common end and use of the Creature, which God hath made to comfort the heart of Man'.183 For Lord, the Hindu practice of vegetarianism was a problem, as they rejected God's purpose in creating animals, but was also easily rectified through Christian scripture, and as such by the successful establishment of pastoral governance. Similarly, Lord tried to establish the societal structure of India through their religious governance, discussing caste and how society was ordered, noting, particularly, the Brahmins who 'instruct people in matters of Religion'.184

Lord concludes his remarks on the religious governance in India by discussing how 'all evidences of brains intoxicate with the fumes of Error and Polytheism' and deems 'their Religion a composed Fiction, rather than anything real for faith to lean on'.185 Not only was Lord making one final pointed remark on the consumption of alcohol in Indian society, but he was also commenting on the role of religion in governance, for since their faith was not real enough to lean on, their government too was weak and so required the establishment of Protestant religious governance to secure this. Although this would not happen as Lord may have wanted,

 ibid, sig. B2. ibid, p. 47. ibid, pp. 47, 49. ibid, p. 70. ibid, pp. 94–95.

and not until after the post-Braganza era, *A display of two forraigne sects* illustrates how, in England at least, ideas on the permanence and exportability of pastoral governance were beginning to form through the EIC's early interactions.

## Pastoral Governance and Securing Commercial Success and Religious Behaviour

Although at their core the EIC and LC remained commercial enterprises with profit maximisation as their primary mission, the religious interests of their members ensured that theologically diverse chaplaincy would play a part in the companies' evolution. For the companies to achieve their commercial mission they required their personnel, whether religious or secular, to maintain cordial relations between themselves and the diverse religious and cultural communities that surrounded them. Interactions with other communities, however, not only proved to be a challenge to the commercial enterprise of the companies, but also complicated the religious and commercial life of English communities. Powerful and close-knit religious communities such as the Armenians, who had a deep understanding of Mughal, Safavid and Ottoman religious governance, often proved difficult for the EIC and LC to negotiate in this early period.

Early interactions with the Armenian community in India and Persia illustrate this difficulty and highlight how the pastoral governance of the company could be manipulated to negative effect when dealing with strong religious minorities. In the first few decades of the EIC's existence, the combination of a lack of gold and a weak naval presence in the region hampered relations between company officials who wanted to establish a silk trade and the Armenians who effectively monopolised the trade across Persia and into the Levant.186 In 1619, the company council in London recommended to its factors in Isfahan that they send letters with Armenian and Georgian merchants, as they 'travell saufley and freely without superstition betwixt Persia and Turkey'.<sup>187</sup> Seeing an opportunity, the company in London sought to gain from the expertise of Armenian trade,

<sup>186</sup> R W. Ferrier, 'The Armenians and the East India Company in Persia in the Seventeenth and Early Eighteenth Centuries', *The Economic History Review*, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), pp. 43–44.

<sup>187</sup> BL IOR B/6 A Court of Committee, February 23, 1619.

as well as their skills as linguists and servants, calling for factors to establish an agreement with the Armenians. However, the factors in Persia saw this as unacceptable, arguing that such a decision should be left 'to our discretion'.188 Despite the Persian factors' resistance, the EIC did try to form some form of commercial agreement with the Armenian community in Persia in the 1630s. In 1631 the EIC 'strongly opposed' French attempts to gain access to the silk trade and were joined by the 'Dutch and Armenian Jullfareyns' who form a 'joint faction' with the company.189 Several years later, the company in London again proposed a deal with the Armenians, to which the agent in Persia, William Gibson, replied that if they knew any Armenians 'you would never wish us to'.190 Gibson went on to list a series of prejudicial characteristics, from them being 'so unfaithful in work and deed' to 'so gripping and deceitful in their dealings'.<sup>191</sup> It was through the factors' inability to deal with the Armenians that the company became further exposed to competition and so failed to secure the silk trade for much of the early part of the century. Despite this inability to negotiate trade, the EIC's naval supremacy in the Persian Gulf following the fall of Portuguese-held Hormuz in 1622 meant the Armenians utilised English shipping to and from India. In March 1632, company agents reported that 'many Armenians' had taken passage 'on our shipps'.192 Likewise, many senior Armenian merchants such as Cojah Suffras, 'cheife of the Armenians in Persia, and 'Cojah Pedroffe' would approach and petition the company to either travel or pay for goods to be freighted on EIC ships and in April 1643, Armenians in London requested passage back to Persia.<sup>193</sup> The EIC diplomatic and commercial relationship with the Armenians would change in the second half of the century; the flexibility of early pastoral governance meant that its effects could, at times, put the company's commercial missions at risk. This was

<sup>188</sup> BL IOR E/3/12, Gombroon to Surat, February 20, 1629.

<sup>189</sup> BL IOR E/3/12, Edward Heynes and William Gibson on Board the Discovery at Gombroon to the Company in London, March 17, 1631.

<sup>190</sup> BL IOR E/3/14, William Gibson, Richard Cooper and William Fall at Isfahan to Company in London, June 26, 1633.

<sup>191</sup> Ibid.

<sup>192</sup> BL IOR E/3/13, William Gibson, John Sherland, Richard Cooper and William Fall at Gombroon to Company in London, March 22, 1632.

<sup>193</sup> BL IOR B/19 A Court of Committee, February 19, 1640; A Court of Committee, March 10, 1640; BL IOR B/21 A Court of Committee, April 4, 1645.

especially the case when the company was competing against religious communities whose religious governance was far more accustomed to navigating the political and geographical environments that the EIC and LC were operating in.

The religious sentiments of the companies' leadership and chaplaincy provide an insight into the broad Protestant spectrum that was incorporated throughout the companies. In 1664, the orthodox Anglican, and ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Sir Heneage Finch highlighted this issue when he complained of the lack of orthodox chaplains being sent out to Turkey. He placed the blame for this upon the 'companies merchants in England', which, according to him, were mostly 'composed of factious members'.<sup>194</sup> As suggested earlier, the variants of Protestantism, whether acute or moderate, represented in the high-ranking positions of the companies reflected in the make-up of the companies' chaplaincy. For the most part, the denominational diversity of the chaplaincy would help to establish the religiously sufferant ecumenical governance of the post-Braganza EIC. However, in the LC during this early period, it did cause some religious division in the pastoral governance of the companies. One incident that highlights this involved the dismissal of the Nonconformist minister at Smyrna, John Broadgate. Elected by the company to take up the position of chaplain in Smyrna in December 1662, and described as being 'palmed… upon the Turkey Company', Broadgate was seen as a controversial figure and would only spend two years in his post before being dismissed.195 Although it was quite likely that the company knew of his Nonconformist background when he was appointed to the chaplaincy, Broadgate's theological persuasion did not seem to go down well with the company leadership in the Levant. Dudley North described him as a 'fanatic and a whimsical pedant' and was horrified at what he saw as Broadgate's attempts to 'erect a discipline and make a Presbyterian reform amongst them'.196 Similarly, the Consul at Smyrna, William Cave,

<sup>194</sup> *Finch Mss.*, 326.

<sup>196</sup> North, *North,* II: p. 41.

<sup>195</sup> TNA SP 105/152, f. 72; Roger North, *The Lives of Francis North, Baron Guildford, Sir Dudley North, and Rev. Dr. John North*, vols. 3 (London: Henry Colburn, 1826), I: p. 56; Pearson, *A Biographical Sketch*, pp. 31–35; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, pp. 74–75.

wrote to the ambassador, Finch, that Broadgate was so 'universally obnoxious none cares for his company'.197 Finch himself later complained to the Bishop of London that the chaplain was a 'man of most imprudent and petulant behaviour' and 'malicious spirit'.198 However, at the same time that complaints were being raised against the minister by consuls and ambassadors, the company formally acknowledged that they had been 'much prejudiced' against Broadgate and that this had been to his 'great discredit, & dishonour'.<sup>199</sup> Such accusations highlight the internal conflicts of this period, often centred on religion, whether as a cloak for personal issues or reflecting genuine differences. Broadgate's attempts notwithstanding, such carping to impose 'discipline' to strengthen the company, and North's reactions, illustrate the power chaplains had to impose and adapt the company's pastoral governance.

Broadgate's Presbyterianism continued to be the subject of much friction in the company. By 15 April the following year, company leadership in Turkey had been successful in obtaining an order to have Broadgate forcibly brought from Smyrna to Istanbul. Having been accused of 'disturbance of the public peace' at Smyrna and of uttering 'several scandalous words to the dishonour of the Consul of that place', a Mr. Richard Morsse was dispatched to bring Broadgate to the ambassador, with permission to use extreme force if necessary.<sup>200</sup> In the deposition that followed, it was Broadgate's ecclesiastical actions that were seen to be seditious and the focus of the court. A council of three men was chosen to examine the case against Broadgate on 4 May, and their terms of reference were remarkably specific. The three were ordered to inquire into whether the chaplain had gone against 'the late act of Parliament for uniformity of public prayer, set down at the beginning of the new liturgy of the Church of England'.201 The deposition heard that Broadgate had not only opened up the chapel to other Christian faiths, but had refused to give a sermon to his congregation after they were unwilling to 'tune a psalm' and had failed to provide the sacraments

<sup>197</sup> Consul Cave to Earl of Winchilsea, May 17, 1664, *Finch Mss.*, 312. <sup>198</sup> Earl of Winchilsea to Bishop of London, June 1, 1664, *Finch Mss.,* 314. <sup>199</sup> TNA SP 105/109, f. 219. <sup>200</sup> TNA SP 105/175, f. 153. <sup>201</sup> TNA SP 107/175, f. 157.

at the Lord's supper, Christmas and Easter.202 In doing so, company members argued that he had 'destroyed the charity betwixt himself and them' by neglecting the needs of his parishioners, and that his actions had also brought 'reproach and scandal' upon the 'Protestant religion professed on the Church of England'.203 By July 1664, Broadgate had embarked for England, having been dismissed from his post by Finch and other company officials in Turkey. This was not well received by the company in London, who believed that Finch and the others had exceeded their authority in doing so.204 The Broadgate debacle illustrates that, during the seventeenth century, the companies' overseas jurisdictions often became the scene of debate surrounding religion. Furthermore, it draws attention to the theological antagonisms of England, which were transported abroad and fought out between the different ranks of the company's personnel. Nevertheless, the corporate religious governance of England's diverse Protestant communities and their chaplaincies overseas were not always so fractious, and in some cases led to forms of toleration and the establishment of ecumenical governance.

## Conclusion

By assessing the role of the EIC and LC chaplains in the early years of the seventeenth century, a clear picture emerges of the importance of individuals in establishing and developing religion and pastoral governance as a means of securing and regulating behaviour. Unlike in the religious governance of the VC, the EIC and LC in this period did not have to deal with the challenges that came with territorial acquisition. Consequently, this allowed the chaplains and leadership of the EIC and LC to interact with overseas cultures, adopting pastoral governance and

<sup>204</sup> Consul Cave to the Earl of Winchilsea, July 13 & 14, 1664, *Finch Mss.*, 325–26; Glaisyer, *Culture of Commerce*, p. 75.

<sup>202</sup> TNA SP 107/175, f. 158; Earl of Winchilsea to Bishop of London, June 1, 1664, *Finch Mss.*, 315.

<sup>203</sup> TNA SP 107/175; Earl of Winchilsea to Bishop of London, June 1, 1664, *Finch Mss.*, 315; Opening the chapel up to other faiths was not unheard of and preachers in the Levant company continued to do so after Broadgate had left the Levant. Frampton on several occasions allowed German and Lutherans to attend the chapel. Furthermore, according to Thomas Evans, Frampton would also preach in Italian to ensure that the whole congregation understood him, suggesting that attendance was diverse: *LRF*, pp. 40–42.

eventually adapting it to suit the companies' unique circumstances. For both the EIC and LC, commerce was the priority, and fearing a similar fate as their Atlantic brethren, they shaped the evangelical wing of their pastoral governance to fit their commercial mission by adopting a passive form of evangelism. Unlike the active evangelism of the VC, in most cases the LC and EIC firmly categorised conversion as a positive by-product of the maintenance of godly behaviour. Despite this, chaplains would prove decidedly influential in the direction of evolution of company religious governance in the pre-Braganza era. EIC and LC chaplains not only influenced pastoral governance across the globe, but through their experiences, interactions and opportunities would also influence religious and academic governance at home. Similarly, the next chapter on the MBC in the years surrounding the Wars of the Three Kingdoms highlights the role of individual members of the company in developing peripheral models of religious governance through connecting to the political and religious debates in England. By the time the EIC was acquiring Bombay in the late 1660s, the pastoral governance established by these early chaplains was evolving into a form of ecumenical governance. The early chaplaincy in the East and its responses to company interaction, behaviour and knowledge would be influential in this evolution.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## The Massachusetts Bay Company and New England Company (1640–1684): Exportation, Revaluation and the Demise of Corporate Theocratic Governance

Between 1640 and 1684, the theocratic governance that had successfully been established by the MBC paradoxically both advanced and weakened the company's governmental aims. By the end of almost a decade of providing an example of godly governance in New England, the leaders of the MBC faced a crisis of identity, as it seemed 'Old' England would follow its example. The company's leaders remaining in New England faced significant issues in maintaining the company's theocratic governance, with the conflict in England pushing Massachusetts into financial difficulty, as support from the godly in England declined.1 In the wake of this crisis of identity, the MBC's supporters in England turned to the calls in the company's charter for evangelising Native America. To do this, they established a separate but intimately linked Evangelical Corporation to gain moral, political and financial support for this mission in England. First chartered by Parliament in 1649 and the Crown in 1662, the Native

<sup>1</sup> Bailyn, *New England Merchants*, pp. 44–46, 77–78.

© The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_5

161

American proselytising society, the New England Company (NEC), was born.<sup>2</sup>

A separate organisation, that helped to obtain financial help for the MBC, the NEC highlights the connection and friendship as 'transatlantic siblings' between the New and Old England legislature during the Interregnum.3 It also illustrates how, as for the New Jerusalem being built in Old England, New Englanders were forced to find new ways to legitimise their existence and did so by returning to their charter's call to evangelise the Native Americans.<sup>4</sup> Despite the MBC's close affiliation to the parliamentary cause, the NEC continued to survive and gain support after the Restoration, promoting itself as a 'missionary enterprise'.5 However, the evangelical actions of the MBC gradually became more and more aggressive, not only towards Native Americans, but also other English settlers in the surrounding areas as well. Already hostile to the religious others, and prone to acts of religious extremism, the evangelical awakening of the 1640s served to increase the religious belligerence of the leaders and members of the MBC. By using its theocracy to justify territorial acquisition from both English settlers and Native Americans, subsequently attempting to govern their behaviour in line with the godly.

<sup>2</sup> William Kellaway, *The New England Company, 1649–1776: Missionary Society to the American Indians* (London: Longmans, 1961); Gabriel Glickman, 'Protestantism, Colonization, and the New England Company in Restoration Politics', *Historical Journal*, Vol. 59, No. 2 (2016), pp. 365–391; Stern, 'The Weld-Peter Mission to England' (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1935), pp. 118–277; Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 108, 111.

<sup>3</sup> Karen Bross, *Dry Bones and Indian Sermons: Praying Indians in Colonial America* (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), p. 7.

<sup>4</sup> Ibid., pp. 1–51; Elise M. Brenner, 'To Pray or To Be Prey: That is the Question Strategies for Cultural Autonomy of Massachusetts Praying Town Indians', *Ethnohistory*, Vol. 27, No. 2 (1980), pp. 135–152; Kenneth M. Morrison, 'That Art of Coyning Christians: John Eliot and the Praying Indians of Massachusetts', *Ethnohistory*, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1974), pp. 77–92; Robert James Naeher, 'Dialogue in the Wilderness: John Eliot and the Indian Exploration of Puritanism as a Source of Meaning Comfort, and Ethical Survival', *New England Quarterly*, Vol. 62, No. 3 (1989), pp. 346–368; Constance Post, 'Old World Order in the New: John Eliot and 'Praying Indians' in Cotton Mather's *Magnalia Christi Americana*', *New England Quarterly*, Vol. 66, No. 3 (1993), pp. 416–433; Linford D. Fisher, 'Native Americans, Conversion, and Christian Practice in Colonial New England, 1640–1730', *Harvard Theological Review*, Vol. 102, No. 1 (2009), pp. 101–124; Rex, 'Indians and Images', pp. 61–93.

<sup>5</sup> Bross, *Dry Bones*, p. 3.

It also provided the moral justification for long-held attitudes and opinions towards forced conversion or banishment upon pain of death of those who did not adhere to the MBC's strict Congregational moral code.

From the mid-1660s onwards, news, petitions and letters returned from America to England reporting increasingly hostile acts of religious intolerance and political exclusion by the MBC. These were sent by not only Native Americans, but also English settlers from neighbouring colonies who were worried about the aggressive territorial pursuits being conducted from Boston.<sup>6</sup> The Restoration of the monarchy in 1661 left the MBC politically isolated across the Atlantic, and the information being passed on to the returned royals was not well received. Furthermore, the MBC, and its members' association with Parliament, had left them politically vulnerable, and the MBC's unwillingness to accept the presence of Anglicans aggravated Charles even more. A further blow was dealt to the MBC's theocracy by the King's brother James, Duke of York, who during this period embarked on a public campaign for religious toleration, calling for a 'Magna Carta for liberty of Conscience'.<sup>7</sup> Pressure from royal religious policies and the changing attitudes towards Protestant diversity within England was matched by an increasing religious and political intransigence in the government in Boston.

Growing divisions between the two leaderships and the internal religious and political issues that caused division amongst not only the New Englanders but also between themselves and the Native American population, eventually resulted in conflict between 1675 and 1676. King Philip's War brought to the surface the growing discontent many Native Americans felt towards the evangelical policies of the MBC members

<sup>6</sup> Pulsipher, *Subjects,* pp. 40–66; Daniel R. Mandell, *King Philip's War: Colonial Expansion, Native Resistance, and the End of Indian Sovereignty* (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), p. 37; Lisa Brooks, *Our Beloved Kin: A New History of King Philip's War* (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 201), pp. 57, 311, 318.

<sup>7</sup> For recent work on calls for 'liberty of conscience' following the Restoration, see Scott Sowerby, 'Of Different Complexions: Religious Diversity and National Identity in James II's Toleration Campaign', *English Historical Review*, Vol. 124 (2009), pp. 29– 52; Sowerby, 'Forgetting the Repealers: Religious and Historical Amnesia in Later Stuart England', *Past & Present*, No. 215 (2012), pp. 85–123; Sowerby, *Making Toleration: The Repealers and the Glorious Revolution* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013). and their government.8 Alongside Anglo-Native hostilities, the government of the MBC continued to pursue aggressive policies, seeking to annex and threaten the jurisdictions of other English colonies. The period between 1660 and mid-1684 in New England was marred by factionalism, growing authoritarianism and conflict that 'warranted royal intervention'.9 From 1680 onwards, the leadership of the MBC confronted growing royal scrutiny with an increasingly 'peculiar obduracy', continually asserting the autonomy and authority of their religious government and forcing Charles II's hand.10 In June 1684, a *quo warranto* was issued against the colony and by October that year, the Court of Chancery, by writ of *scire facias*, revoked the 65-year-old corporate charter of the MBC. The revocation of the charter abolished the theocratic government of the MBC and placed control of the government of Massachusetts in the Crown's hands, ending the godly experiment of the MBC's founders.

## Territory and the Expansion of Theocratic Governance

In England, Parliament and the Privy Council began to receive petitions from disgruntled settlers in Massachusetts who wished for the authorities in England to force the MBC into adopting a more liberal approach. One of many incidents involved a man who had his ears cropped, following

<sup>8</sup> Pestana, *Protestant Empire*, p. 210; for extensive discussion on King Philip's War, see Brooks, *Our Beloved Kin*, pp. 140–300; James David Drake, *King Philip's War: Civil War in New England, 1675–1676* (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 1999); Jill Lepore, *The Name of War: King Philip's War and the Origins of American Identity* (New York: Vintage, 1999), pp. 71–124; James Drake, 'Symbol of a Failed Strategy: The Sassamon Trail, Political Culture, and the Outbreak of King Philip's War', *American Indian Culture and Research Journal*, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1995), pp. 111–141; Philip Ranlet, 'Another Look at the Causes of King Philip's War', *The New England Quarterly*, Vol. 61, No. 1 (1988), pp. 79–100; Virginia DeJohn Anderson, 'King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 51, No. 4 (1994), pp. 601–624.

<sup>9</sup> Drake, *King Philip's War*, p. 194.

<sup>10</sup> Richard Johnson, *Adjustment to Empire: The New England Colonies, 1675–1715* (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1981), p. 64.

which he was deported to England. His crime had been 'uttering malicious and scandalous speeches against the government and church'.11 Upon returning, the man signed an affidavit, that called for the end of self-sovereignty in the MBC. Similarly, the Presbyterian entrepreneur and scientist Robert Child tried unsuccessfully to obtain the support of Parliament in forcing the MBC to adopt a more liberal form of religious governance, allowing for 'liberty of Conscience' and the enfranchisement of all 'truly English' Protestants.12 After gaining significant public support in the colony, Child's petition was met with anger amongst the leadership of the MBC, who accused him of throwing 'shame and dirt upon our church and government.'13 Child was tried and fined. Following this, he attempted to return to England to take up his grievance with Parliament; however, he would be unsuccessful. Arrested whilst trying to board his ship back to England, Child was charged with sedition and fined £250, the equivalent of the MBC's entire tax revenue for the whole month, and imprisoned. Despite his best attempts, Child's grievances were dismissed by Parliament. Child would eventually return to England, and although he would never return to New England, he did remain in contact with several prominent New Englanders, including the younger Winthrop. In 1648, he would write to Winthrop about the possibilities of a glassworks at Long Island.14 For many, the only way to get the authorities in the MBC to change their theocratic government was to seek support from authorities in England.

Despite reports of negative reaction and hostile publications, aimed towards the MBC's theocratic governance across the Atlantic, the company did receive vocal support in 'Old' England. One anonymous writer declared that Baptists, Antinomians and Quakers were made up of people of an 'unstayed spirit', and as such were able to 'abide to be so

<sup>11</sup> Charles Francis Adams, *Three Episodes of Massachusetts History*, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1892), I: p. 259.

<sup>12</sup> Child's fellow signatories were John Smith, Thomas Fowle, John Dand, Thomas Burton, Samuel Maverick and David Yale; see Hutchinson, *Collection of Original Papers*, pp. 188–196; *RCM*, III: pp. 90–91; *Winthrop Papers*, V: pp. 140–141; Francis J. Bremer, *John Winthrop: America's Forgotten Founding Father* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 366–369; Margret E. Newell, 'Robert Child and Entrepreneurial Vision: Economy and Ideology in Early New England', *The New England Quarterly*, Vol. 68, No. 2 (1995), pp. 246–252.

<sup>13</sup> *RCM*, III: p. 91.

<sup>14</sup> *Winthrop Papers*, V: pp. 140–141.

pinioned with the strict Government in the Commonwealth, or Discipline in the Church' like that of the MBC.15 Nathaniel Ward went so far as to proclaim that those who criticised the MBC's government and instead supported the models of religious governance being established in the Protectorate England were insincere in their own faiths. According to Ward, 'he that is willing to tolerate any Religion, or discrepant way of Religion besides his own, unless it be in matters merely indifferent, either doubts of his own, or is not sincere in it'.16 In the period between 1640 and 1660, many of those who returned to England not only did so to seek support against the MBC's theocratic government, but to encourage its adoption in England. In the years surrounding the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, large numbers of New England émigrés returned to England to take part in the growing conflict in England.<sup>17</sup> As both moderates, as well as a substantial element of the homegrown, educated individuals and families, left Massachusetts for England in this period, individuals whose ideals fell at the extremes of the company's conservative base increasingly filled the MBC's governmental positions.

Consequently, the MBC became progressively more theocratic, adopting an aggressive approach to ensuring its predominance on the north-east coast of America. Increasingly focused on issues of behaviour, the government of the MBC became more and more paranoid that remigration of godly families and men had led to the debasement of their society. For example, Essex County showed an increase in issues of lawlessness in their godly society, citing what may be considered minor incidents involving 'false weights, illegal sale of liquor' and 'abuse of

<sup>15</sup> Anonymous, *New England's First Fruit* (London, 1643), p. 26.

<sup>16</sup> Nathaniel Ward, *The Simple Cobler of Aggawamm In America. Willing to help mend his Native Country lamentably tattered both in upper-Leather and sole, with all the honest stitches he can take. And as willing never to be paid for his work, by Old English wonted pay. It is his Trade to patch all the year long, gratis, Therefore I pray gentlemen keep your purses* (London: 1647), p. 8.

<sup>17</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, pp. 64–72; William L. Sachse, 'The Migration of New Englanders to England, 1640–1660', *The American Historical Review*, Vol. 53, No. 2 (1948), pp. 251–278; Andrew Delbanco, 'Looking. Homeward, Going Home: The Lure of England for the Founders of New England', *New England Quarterly*, Vol. 59, No. 3 (1986), pp. 358–386; Harry S. Stout, 'The Morphology of Remigration: New England University. Men and their Return to England, 1640–1660', *Journal of American Studies*, Vol. 10, No. 2 (1976), pp. 151–172.

constables'.18 The growing paranoia led to arbitrary actions by the MBC's government, similar in many ways to those that had enraged many of the original company members in England, in the 1620s. This included the MBC's imposition of royal prerogative through the enforcement of trading monopolies, which the Puritans had rallied against in England. By the 1640s, New England magistrates imposed regional monopolies for Indian trade and iron making, whilst also granting monopolies on the receiving of ships at port to certain merchants who were loyal to the theocratic governance of the company.<sup>19</sup>

Mirroring the internal policy, the company's leadership also began to adopt progressively more authoritarian responses towards those outside the MBC's legal jurisdiction. Although the MBC's use of banishment had for a brief time 'limited the damage' of internal religious disputes, it fuelled the MBC's leadership's paranoia towards those religious groups that had been banished and settled elsewhere.20 They began aggressively seeking to secure their own internal authority and identity by imposing their theocratic governance over neighbours. In 1643, the MBC joined the Plymouth, Connecticut and New Haven colonies, becoming the senior governmental authority in the New England Confederation. The confederation connected colonies with similar theocratic governments to ensure the regional dominance of their religious authoritarianism. Through the combined force of the confederation, the MBC, during the Interregnum, embarked on a series of annexations across New England, in an attempt to bring the less-populated fringe colonies of New Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island under the legal authority of the company.21 Winthrop justified this action by highlighting the uniformity of the confederation as being in opposition to these colonies that had a 'different course from us both in their ministry and civil administration' and consequently were a risk to the security of the MBC's theocratic governance.<sup>22</sup>

<sup>22</sup> *Winthrop's Journal*, II: p. 99.

<sup>18</sup> David T. Koning, *Law and Society in Puritan Massachusetts: Essex County, 1629–1692* (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 27–30.

<sup>19</sup> *RCM*: I: p. 142; II: pp. 62, 81, 125–128 Hosmer, *Winthrop's Journal*, I: p. 152: Bailyn, *New England Merchants*, pp. 24, 64.

<sup>20</sup> Moore, *Pilgrims*, p. 37.

<sup>21</sup> Robert Bliss, *Revolution and Empire: English Politics and the American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century* (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1993), pp. 83–86.

Each of these colonies had been peopled predominantly by the religious exiles banished by the MBC's theocratic governance. They were made up of significant populations of Quakers, Baptists, Antinomians and, in Maine, Anglicans all of whom had been ostracised and persecuted by MBC authorities. Many of these small settlements were faced with problems of size, legitimacy and religious difference, as few possessed the legal titles to govern. Maine claimed governmental authority through Sir Fernando Gorges's loosely held proprietary grant, which was weakened by his death in 1647. Roger Williams secured Rhode Island through a charter from Parliament between 1643 and 1644, whilst others had tried to produce dubious patents, either through private purchase or communal compacts.23 For many of these smaller settlements, the authority of the MBC's charter and government superseded their legitimacy: a fact that MBC leaders knew only too well, as they moved quickly to annex New Hampshire and Maine in 1652, under the pretext of protection. Following their assimilation, the MBC leaders extended their authority, seeing it as their chartered right to ensure that 'we [the MBC] could protect them'.24 The MBC did have some local support, offering land titles, local rule, freedom of worship and protection from the French. However, this was disingenuous, as it became quickly apparent that freedom to worship and local rule fell into the very narrow confines of the MBC's theocratic governance.<sup>25</sup> Moreover, the MBC's annexation was an attempt to bring an outpost of Quakers and Anglicans under its watchful gaze, imposing its theocratic governance over these colonies. As the court records for Maine highlight, following its acquisitions, the number of cases for religious infringements, such as Sabbath breaking, neglect of public worship, drunkenness and swearing, became more frequent as Maine's government adopted the new order.26

The MBC's attempts to annex Rhode Island proved more difficult. Formerly the Providence Plantation, Rhode Island, more so than any other New England colony, had been founded by, and welcomed, the


<sup>25</sup> For support from Maine, see Willliam Willis, ed., *Collections of the Maine Historical Society*, 9 vols., 1st series (Portland, ME: Brown Thurston, 1865), I: pp. 385–389.

<sup>26</sup> Charles Thornton Libby and Robert E. Moody, ed., *Maine Province and Court Records*, 5 vols. (Portland: Maine Historical Society, 1928–1931), II: pp. 12–14 (hereafter *MPCR*).

religious and political exiles of the MBC, and so was perceived as a risk to the theocratic governance of the company. For the leadership of the MBC, this risk was most clearly illustrated by the religiously heterodox formation of government founded by Roger Williams in Rhode Island, which granted 'soul liberty' to all Christians.27 Williams objected to any form of religious coercion, repeatedly associating it with rape, and sought to establish a society free of its practice.<sup>28</sup> As the MBC's orthodoxy increased, Rhode Island became a 'receptacle for people of Several Sorts and Opinions' fleeing theocratic governance in Massachusetts.29 As one Rhode Islander, Gregorie Dexter, would sarcastically proclaim to Henry Vane, they had not 'been consumed with the over-zealous fire of the (so called) Godly and Christian magistrates' of the MBC.30 Although Rhode Island had escaped the magistrates of the MBC, it did not mean that they had escaped their gaze, and Rhode Islanders were keenly aware of this.

The MBC's leaders justified their aggressive attempts to annex territories through its corporate charter, even as they faced growing opposition from English settlers and Native American communities. Since late 1643, Samuel Gorton had purchased land from the Narragansett sachem Miantonomi, triggering a minor conflict that brought Gorton, Rhode Island and the MBC into direct conflict. A local Shawomet sachem, Pomham, had petitioned that the land sold to Gorton was his and went to the MBC to help him get it back. The MBC were more than willing to take up arms against Gorton, whom they had banished some years earlier as a vocal opponent of the company's theocratic governance. Unable to defend themselves against the attack, Gorton and his supporters, both English and Native American, were forced to flee. Gorton, along with Miantonomi's uncle Canonicus and brother Pessacus, delivered a letter to Charles I in 1644, submitting themselves and their land to

<sup>27</sup> Roger Williams, *Queries of the Highest consideration* (London: 1644), p. 3.

<sup>28</sup> Williams, *The Bloudy Tenant Yet More Bloody* (London: 1652), pt. 2, pp. 190–192; Pestana, *The English Atlantic*, p. 127.

<sup>29</sup> Quoted in Thomas Williams Bicknall, *The History of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations*, 7 vols. (New York, NY: The American Historical Society, 1920), II: pp. 634– 637.

<sup>30</sup> John Russell Bartlett, *Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation in New England, 1636–1663*, 2 vols. (Providence, RI: A.C. Greene and Brothers, 1856), I: pp. 228–289 (hereafter *RCHIP*).

'His Majesties' royal protection'.<sup>31</sup> Consequently, upon their return they informed the MBC that, as 'being subject now, (& that with joint & voluntary consent,) unto the same king', disputes could no longer be resolved between English settlers and Native Americans by colonial officials, as this prerogative was the King's alone.<sup>32</sup> Horrified at this response, Winthrop argued that 'Gorton's company' had written the letter themselves. MBC officials then sent a messenger to inquire whether Gorton had in fact written the letter.33 Following the King's defeat and the Interregnum, the MBC continued, once again, to try to advance the reach of its theocratic government into Rhode Island's territory, as well as over local Native American communities. In response, Roger Williams and John Clarke returned to England to obtain a patent from Parliament securing the Islanders' independence from the encroaching theocratic governance of the MBC. To combat the company's expansionist aims, English and Native American neighbours of the MBC either embraced its theocratic model or adopted English methods of political opposition in order to secure their own forms of 'corporate' autonomy against the company.

The MBC's aggression over this period was not only down to the rise of the conservative base, but also the angst that surrounded the downfall of the Crown in England. For many in the MBC, the establishment of godly government in England had marked the end of its role and so its leaders and thinkers sought to quickly find a new role for their godly corporate governance in this new English Atlantic world. During this period, however, the MBC's leadership also sought another solution to its crisis of identity in the evangelism of Native Americans, turning the company and Massachusetts into a missionary enterprise.34

Despite the obligation set out in its charter to evangelise, the MBC leadership had abandoned its charge in favour of establishing theocratic

<sup>31</sup> *RCHIP*, I: p. 133; Jenny Hale Pulispher discusses this incident in detail, pointing out that the MBC government's aggressiveness caused division amongst the New England colonies and as such caused conflicts across the century, which would 'draw in Indians and the authority of the crown': *Subjects*, pp. 4, 27–31.

<sup>32</sup> David Pulsifer, ed., *Records of the Plymouth Colony,* 12 vols. (Boston, MA: W. White, 1855–1861), X: pp. 415–416 (hereafter *PCR*).

<sup>33</sup> *Wintrop's Journal*, p. 509.

<sup>34</sup> Bross, *Dry Bones*, p. 4.

governance and it was wary of making the same mistakes as the religious government of the VC.<sup>35</sup> This partially had to do with the memory of evangelism and its role in the downfall of the VC, whilst also being connected to Congregationalist ideas of conversion. The followers of the MBC believed that true conversion had to involve both an outward and internal confession. As the great evangelist Roger Williams would warn of conversion, 'God's way is first to turn a soul from its Idols, both of heart, worship and conversation, before it is capable of worship, to the true and living God'.36 To know the true living God, one had to be able to hear the voice of God, this being the Bible.<sup>37</sup> This highlighted the theological difficulty for Congregationalists in the early years of the MBC's theocracy, of understanding how true conversion could take place, when the voice of God had not been translated into Algonquin. Even Williams highlighted the difficulty of translating ideas and 'the mysteries of Christ Jesus' into Native American languages. John Eliot had to overcome these reservations when he first preached in Algonquin in 1646.38 Across the Atlantic, the lack of Native American evangelism in Massachusetts did not go unnoticed. William Castell, along with 76 other ministers, petitioned Parliament to encourage evangelism, as it was a 'great and general neglect of this Kingdoms, in not propagating the Glorious Gospel' in New England.39 The same year, the MBC's General Court sent Thomas Weld and Hugh Peter to England to meet with the colony creditors, an action that would influence the future of theocratic governance of the company and evangelism in New England.40

Two years after Castell's petition and the arrival of Peter and Weld in England, the MBC ordered its agents in London to publish the tract *New England First Fruits*, highlighting that, just as Parliament was succeeding

<sup>35</sup> *Winthrop Papers*, II: pp. 106–152.

<sup>36</sup> Roger Williams, *A Key into the Language of America, or An help to the Language of the Natives in that part of America called New-England* (London: 1643), p. 129.

<sup>37</sup> Cotton, *The Bloudy Tenent, washed, and made white in the bloud of the Lambe: being discussed and discharged of bloud-guiltiness by just defence* (London: 1647).

<sup>38</sup> Williams, *Yet More Bloody*, p. 219; Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 372; Kellaway, *The New England Company*, pp. 5–7.

<sup>39</sup> William Castell, *A Petition of W.C. exhibited to the high court of Parliament now assembled, for propagating of Gospel in America, and the West Indies, and for the settling of our plantations there* (London: 1641), sig. A5v, p. 10.

<sup>40</sup> Stern, 'The Weld-Peter Mission', p. 219; Moore, *Pilgrims*, p. 108.

in England, the MBC was remembering its charter's evangelical charge. The commonwealth and the New England Mission became 'transatlantic siblings', emerging at the same time as solutions to issues of identity in religious politics.41 Following the publication of *First Fruits*, the MBC's proselytising aims obtained growing support on both sides of the Atlantic. Whilst ministers in Massachusetts began to evangelise, in England reports of these ministers' works were published in pamphlets. By the winter of 1645, the General Court in Boston had made formal requests to ministers to consider what could be done to embark on some form of evangelical agenda.<sup>42</sup> Following a series of pamphlets initiated in 1648 by Thomas Shepard and the publication of his tract *The clear-sunshine of the gospel*, the necessity of evangelism was finally considered. However, it would not be till the publication of Edward Winslow's tract, dedicated to Parliament in the spring of 1649, that any legislative progress was made.43 Winslow noted that although the '*English* were not wholly negligent' and that the MBC had 'begat a good opinion of our persons' amongst the local Native Americans population, encouraging them to 'affect our Laws and Government', there was still much more to be done.44 By the summer of that year, the 'Act for promoting and propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England' was passed.<sup>45</sup> This act laid the foundations for the establishment of England's first overseas evangelical company thirteen years later, offering a financial life raft to the struggling MBC. Through the society, and later the NEC, the MBC was able to obtain funds in England to support the evangelical aims of its government. Moreover, it signified a slow but noticeable change in the way in which the English state saw the responsibility of religion overseas slowly move away from chartered commercial companies to specifically evangelical corporations.

The establishment of the first evangelical corporation marked the beginning of a gradual change in domestic ideas on the character of

<sup>41</sup> Bross, *Dry Bones*, pp. 6–7.

<sup>42</sup> *RCM*, II: pp. 84, 134, 166; III: pp. 85, 96, 97.

<sup>43</sup> Winslow, *The Glorious Progress of the Gospel Amongst the Indians in New England manifested by three letters under the hand of the famous instrument of the Lord, Mr. John Eliot, and another from Mr. Thomas Mayhew Jun., both preachers of the world, as well to the English as Indians in New England* (London: 1649).

<sup>44</sup> Ibid., p. 1.

<sup>45</sup> July 1649: An Act for the promoting and propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ in New England', in Firth and Rait, *Acts and Ordinances*, II: pp. 197–200.

English overseas expansion of corporate authority, and the role of religion within it. The act was passed calling for so 'glorious a propagation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ amongst those poor heathen' as to successfully achieve this 'one Body Politic and Corporate in Law'.<sup>46</sup> This corporation was to be called 'The President and Society for propagation of the Gospel in New England', and after the Restoration would be known as the New England Company. Structurally, it was much like any corporate body, including the MBC; it had a president, a treasurer and a court of assistants. However, unlike the MBC, its government, according to its charter, was to remain in England.

The Society quickly drew support from mostly wealthy Congregationalist and independent merchants in London, who immediately set about raising funds and publishing a series of tracts highlighting the evangelical aims of the corporation.47 The tracts offered an insight into conversion of Native Americans, who had been enlightened by the 'clear-sunshine of the gospel'.<sup>48</sup> These tracts not only illustrate the reformation of Native Americans, but also the wholesale reimagining of the purpose of the MBC,

<sup>46</sup> Ibid., pp. 197–98.

<sup>47</sup> Between 1651 and 1660 the company published five tracts: Henry Whitfield, *The light appearing more and more towards the perfect day. Or, a farther discovery of the present state of the Indians in New-England, concerning the progresse of the Gospel amongst them. Manifested by letters from such as preacht to them there* (London: 1651); Whitfield, *Strength out of Weakness. Or a Glorious Manifestation of the further Progress of the Gospel Amongst the Indians in New-England* (London: 1651); John Eliot, *Tears of repentance: Or, a further narrative of the progress of the Gospel amongst the Indians in New-England: setting forth, not only their present state and condition, but sundry confessions of sin by diverse of the said Indians, wrought upon by the saving power of the Gospel; together with the manifestation of their faith and hope in Jesus Christ, and the work of grace upon their hearts* (London: 1653); Eliot, *A late and further manifestation of the progress of the gospel amongst the Indians in New-England declaring their constant love and zeal to the truth: with a readiness to give accompt of their faith and hope, as of their desires in church communion to be partakers of the ordinances of Christ: being a narrative of the examinations of the Indians, about their knowledge in religion, by the elders of the churches* (London: 1655); Eliot, *A further account of the progress of the Gospel amongst the Indians in New England: being a relation of the confessions made by several Indians (in the presence of the elders and members of several churches) in order to their admission into churchfellowship. Sent over to the corporation for propagating the Gospel of Jesus Christ amongst the Indians in New England at London* (London: 1660).

<sup>48</sup> Thomas Shepard, *The clear sun-shine of the gospel breaking forth upon the Indians in New-England. Or, An historicall narration of Gods wonderfull workings upon sundry of the Indians, both chief governors and common-people, in bringing them to a willing and desired submission to the ordinances of the gospel; and framing their hearts to an earnest* along with other New England governments. They suggested that their mission was no longer to set a godly example for English brethren but to propagate godly governance within New England's Native American population. As Henry Whitfield wrote, 'the Lord hath now declared one great end he had of sending many of his people to those ends of the earth' and that was the conversion of the Native American people to God's governance.<sup>49</sup> Such a movement was perceived by John Eliot as an alternative conquest, which traded the violent conquest pursued by the Spanish—and replicated by the settlers of the MBC—for a benevolent occupation of the soul and mind. Writing in 1652, Eliot explained that many who had settled in America 'have only sought their own advantage to possess their Land, Transport their gold, and that with so much covetousness and cruelty'.<sup>50</sup> In doing so, they had 'made the name of Christianity and of Christ an abomination', both for their own and for Native Americans.51 Part of this abomination lay in the perceived ideas of the genuine conversion: a convert by violent conquest had not truly repented. Instead, Eliot's benevolent conquest, in line with Puritan theology, would be like the planting of the 'mustard seed' that would slowly grow and amount to true believers in Christ.52 Authors would then revel in informing their readers of the successes of evangelism, offering examples of true conversion and confession of Native Americans such as Monequassun and Toteswamp.53 It was precisely this slow mission that the MBC leaders now embraced, rebranding their theocratic governance following the evangelical agenda taking hold in England.

This subtle but nonetheless noticeable shift in policy for the MBC's theocratic governance towards active evangelism was not only triggered by an identity crisis triggered by moral superiority, but also by economic incentive. This incentive was both spiritual and real, offering 'comfort to your own accounts in the day of the lord', whilst also providing those

*inquirie after the knowledge of God the Father, and of Jesus Christ the Saviour of the world* (London: 1648); Bross, *Dry Bones*, p. 9.

<sup>49</sup> Whitfield, *The Light Appearing*, pp. 44–45.

<sup>50</sup> Eliot's letter in Whitfield, *Strength out of Weakness*, Introduction*.*

<sup>51</sup> Ibid.

<sup>52</sup> John Wilson, *The Day-Breaking, If Not the Sun-Rising of the Gospell with the Indians in New-England* (1647), frontispiece, pp. 16, 23.

<sup>53</sup> Eliot, *Tears of Repentance*, p. 16; Eliot, *A Late and Further Manifestation*, pp. 7–8.

in the MBC and the rest of New England with a financial lifeline.54 The Wars of the Three Kingdoms, return migration and a downturn in trade had left the colony facing an economic crisis, and the knitting together of a religious agenda with financial speculation offered a possible reprieve. In 1648, John Eliot linked conversion to the growth of material wealth amongst both Native Americans and English settlers, as converted Native Americans sought to adopt the practices of English 'civil' society. The example one evangelist gave involved the natives adopting English clothing, suggesting that Native American conversion would lead to a rise in the sale of English textiles and clothing, describing how Praying Indians 'have some more cloths' than the 'wicked Indians' who practised their own faiths.55 Shepard would go on to write that, at one public sermon, so many Native Americans arrived dressed in English clothing that 'you would scarce know them from English people.'<sup>56</sup> The financial possibilities opened up through convert communities were not only limited to textiles, but also extended to technology, architecture and construction, and were key to the evangelical mission.<sup>57</sup> Conversion equated to the wholesale adoption of English Protestant civility over barbarous Native American practices, and as such it opened up new markets for colonists' goods.

As well as emphasising the new markets for English goods opened by evangelism, the Society's supporters also reminded people in England of the need for financial support to maintain its success. Just as the economy in Massachusetts was faltering, dependent on long-absent money and support from England, the wealthy came forth ordering merchants to 'part with your Gold to promote the Gospel'.<sup>58</sup> Eliot went further, comparing 'souls' to 'Merchandize' to be invested in and exchanged in churches, in a 'heavenly Trade'.59 The collection of money was further

<sup>54</sup> Shepard, *Clear Sun-Shine*, p. 5.

<sup>55</sup> Ibid., pp. 26–27.

<sup>56</sup> Ibid., p*.* 11; for more on clothing, status and symbolism in the New England during the seventeenth century, see Ann M. Little, '"Shoot That Rogue, for He Hath an Englishman's Coat On!": Cultural Cross-Dressing on the New England Frontier, 1630–1760', *New England Quarterly*, Vol. 74, No. 2 (2001), pp. 240–242.

<sup>57</sup> Bross, *Dry Bones*, p. 24.

<sup>58</sup> Eliot, *A Further Account of the Progress*, pp. 4–6, 167; Winslow, *The Glorious Progress*, p. 27.

<sup>59</sup> Eliot, *A Late and Further Manifestation*, p. 4; Bross, *Dry Bones*, p. 33.

helped by the Society securing the interest of Cromwell, an achievement greatly lauded by the commissioners in Boston, who wrote, 'we are glad to hear of the Religious care which the right honorable Lord General evidences in so promoting the service of Christ in publishing the Gospel amongst these poor heathens'.60 Moreover, much to the commissioners' delight, Cromwell's support encouraged further investment from the army and the parishes.61 However, the corporation's success and widespread popularity also brought with it unwanted scrutiny, and claims of fraud quickly followed. The Society was referred to the Council of State in 1655, which ordered the Society to collect its money efficiently.62 This was followed quickly by the Council of State ordering that the Society submit its records to each member of the council. However, the Society went on the defensive when, once again, they were asked to return in January and were ordered to find a new treasurer.63 Much like the VC three decades previously, the NEC would at times face problems in securing financial support for its financial and spiritual mission. Like its corporate predecessor in Virginia, the NEC tried to secure financial support for its mission through the ecclesiastical establishment in England.

From an early stage, Society officials received complaints from donors who were unhappy that they received little information on how the money was being spent. In 1649, Edward Winslow wrote to a colleague that ministers who had previously met at Sion College were refusing to give and collect money 'because they were unsatisfied in monies they had formerly collected for transporting children to New England and never knew how it was disposed'.64 Receiving this information also proved difficult as, when the Society asked for the Commissioners in Massachusetts to account for the money spent, they unhelpfully replied 'foundation work'.<sup>65</sup> Moreover, sometimes the Society's requests for funds were

<sup>60</sup> Pulsifer, ed., *Acts of the Commissioner of the United Colonies*, 2 vols. (Boston, MA: W. White, 1859), II: p. 105 (hereafter *AC*).

<sup>61</sup> The Ledger, 1650–1660 printed in George Winship, *New England Company of 1649 and John Eliot* (Boston, MA: The Prince Society, 1920), p. lxviii.

<sup>62</sup> *CSPC*, 1574–1660, p. 426; Kelleway, *New England Company*, pp. 33–35.

<sup>63</sup> London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) CLC/540/Ms. 07952, 18, Dec. 1655; CLC/540 Ms. 07943.

<sup>64</sup> Bod. Rawl C 934, 27.

<sup>65</sup> *AC*, I: pp. 193–95.

greeted with hostility; as one minister wrote, 'I am not able any way to promote so religious a work having but 30 shillings yearly settled on me for my cure'.<sup>66</sup> Despite this, prior to the Restoration, the company was successful at raising the extraordinary sum of £15,910. 15*s*. 6.5*d*. 67 Following the Restoration, the Society was dissolved by the Convention and Cavalier Parliaments and replaced by the NEC two years later. However, despite this, the Society reflected a key moment in ideas of English Protestant expansion abroad. Its creation marked the beginning of a slow change in the role of religion in the organisations of governance abroad, moving away from the authority of commercial companies to specifically establish evangelical corporation. Moreover, its establishment also undermined the authority of the MBC's religious government; a process that would continue well after the creation of the NEC.

Although the financial lifeline across the Atlantic would continue after the Restoration, the company faced new issues, as the Society and its mission, which had connected the MBC to supporters in Cromwellian England, were re-chartered to fit more closely with post-Restoration English politics. Despite being caught up in the scandals of the previous Society, a royal charter was granted in 1662, effectively reorganising the Society into the Company for Propagation of the Gospel in New England, or the NEC.68 Sanctioned by royalty, the chartering of the NEC marked a renewed effort by the recently restored monarchy to expand English subjecthood beyond its current boundaries, through evangelism. For the MBC, this was to be an alarming change in policy, overriding the autonomy of their theocratic governance in controlling subject identity in favour of the Crown and reminding many of the events surrounding the Narragansett and Miantonomi, two decades earlier. Furthermore, not only did it signify an attempt by the Crown to control the expansion of Protestantism and MBC theocracy in North East America, but also to centralise it.

<sup>66</sup> Bod. Rawl C. 934, 72.

<sup>67</sup> Kellaway, *New England Company*, pp. 31–36; Winship, *New England Company*, pp. lxviii–lxxxiv.

<sup>68</sup> LMA CLC/540/Ms. 07908, Charter, 7 Feb, 1662; see also *CSPC*, 1661–1668, pp. 71–72; for discussion of property scandal tied up in the first and second charter, see Kellaway, New England Company, pp. 41–44; for more on the Restoration NEC, see Glickman, 'New England Company', pp. 365–391.

The Puritan 'Apostle to the Indians', John Eliot, noted that his evangelism had led to the Native Americans' 'submission to the King's government', extending the King's authority in Massachusetts.<sup>69</sup> Under its new charter, the NEC embodied a reinvigorated policy by the Crown to involve itself subtly in the expansion of English Protestantism abroad, and just as the evangelical company's members had submitted themselves to this authority, they called for the MBC to do so also.<sup>70</sup> However, in order for the MBC to truly submit to royal authority, the company's leaders and members would have to remodel their theocratic governance in line with reemerging 'irenicist' ideas of Restoration religious governance, a prospect that many refused to consider.

For the leadership of the MBC, their theocratic model of governance faced further threats to autonomy from the newly reformed corporation. The new governor, Robert Boyle, whose policies would embrace the irenicist revival in England, would place the leadership's aims of the NEC in opposition to the MBC's theocratic governance. Although presumably only outwardly a Conformist to the established Church, his selection for the top position in the company highlighted an attempt to publicly reinvent the company's image. Boyle's leadership distanced the NEC from its Cromwellian predecessor, as well as those members who had been vocal supporters of the MBC's theocratic governance.<sup>71</sup> Following Boyle's election, the broad membership of the new company, made up of several denominations, was still keen to advertise their disassociation from the leadership of the old Society. They quietly asked those members who had held office under Cromwell to step down from the government of the company.<sup>72</sup> It was precisely this aim, to pull the NEC away from its uniform Cromwellian religious origins, that marked Boyle's 27-year tenure as governor of the NEC. Boyle and the company sought to encourage a broad Protestant opinion, to advance its mission.

<sup>69</sup> Quoted in Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 376.

<sup>71</sup> Sarah Irving, *Natural Science and the Origins of the British Empire* (Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2008), p. 83.

<sup>72</sup> Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 375; For a list of members and company leaders such as Presbyterians Sir Thomas Abney, George Monck and Sir William Thompson, Huguenot Philip Papillon and Members of the Established Church Sir John Morden, Sir Robert Clayton and Michael Boyle Bishop of Dublin that highlights the broad church of Boyle's company, see LMA CLC/540/MS. 07942.

<sup>70</sup> Ibid.

As Boyle himself wrote, the company's mission would be secured 'not by making an Independent a Presbyter, or Presbyter an independent, but by converting those to Christianity that are either enemies or strangers to it'.<sup>73</sup> However, Boyle struggled in connecting Protestants with a unifying agenda of evangelism. Deep-rooted political and religious suspicion plagued the company's internal relationships, as well as their dealings with the MBC, whose Congregational theocratic governance was hostile to any interference from England, especially since the return of the established Episcopal Church. Despite this, Boyle continued to advocate a policy of Protestant inclusivity, namely that the mission of the NEC would succeed through unity and not uniformity bringing with it spiritual and financial wealth for all those involved, placing the corporation in opposition to the MBC.

Just as the advocates of evangelism during the Interregnum had highlighted the financial benefits of evangelism, so too did the leaders of the NEC, who blended the need for national commercial expansion with the spreading of the gospel. This can most clearly be seen in the mercantile support the company gained in the years after it was chartered. Boyle himself served on the board of the EIC and was a subscriber in the Hudson's Bay Company, whilst almost every other member of the company was also involved in one of the many London Livery Companies, or another overseas company.74 For example, Sir John Banks alongside his membership in the NEC was at one time or another a freeman in the EIC, a member of the LC and an assistant and subgovernor in the Royal African Company. Other examples of members who were involved in two or more companies before 1700 include Sir Robert Clayton, Sir Thomas Cooke and Sir John Morden.75 Moreover, membership was not the only aspect that connected these companies. Boyle, by using the knowledge acquired through company agents, sought to advance evangelism by employing men such as the former LC chaplain Edward Pococke to translate 'Grotius Book of the Truth of the Christian

<sup>73</sup> Robert Boyle to Samuel Hartlib, November 3, 1659, *BC*, I: p. 383.

<sup>74</sup> E. E. Rich, ed., *Minutes of the Hudson's Bay Company, 1679–1684, Fist Part 1679– 1682* (Toronto: Champlain Society, 1945), pp. 307–308.

<sup>75</sup> Robert Clayton in the Scriveners, Drapers, Hudson Bay Company, Royal African Company (RAC) and Irish Society, Thomas Cooke in the Goldsmiths, EIC and RAC and John Morden in the LC and EIC.

religion'.<sup>76</sup> Furthermore, by meeting at East India House, the company embedded the corporation in the heart of the mercantile community of London.

The position of the NEC among the merchant community in London was a geographic fusing of the long-established belief that Boyle and the company's members held dear: that English overseas expansion could only be achieved when trade and evangelism were fused. Commercial and territorial expansion in the East had highlighted the reciprocity in trade beyond the exchange of goods. English merchants relied upon local peoples; they also brought to light the needs of non-European communities.<sup>77</sup> In a letter to EIC member and later governor of the NEC Robert Thompson, Boyle argued the important relationship between evangelism and commerce. According to Boyle, 'Christians as well as Merchants' had the responsibility to 'attempt to bring those countries some spiritual good things, whence we so frequently brought back temporal ones'.78 These spiritual goods, according to Boyle and the NEC, were equally as valuable as the temporal ones, and if traded would increase the value and success of England's commercial enterprise. As one of Boyle's fellow Royal Society members wrote, Stuart expansion would only succeed when trading ventures were linked to evangelism. Trading companies offered the English state an opportunity to 'take some lustre for our English church' and export and establish dominion abroad through the reformed religion.79 Such calls alarmed leaders in the MBC, who feared any form of encroachment upon their theocratic governance by corporate bodies associated with members of an Episcopal Church.

These aims were clearly emphasised in the royal charter, which connected their success with the betterment of the welfare of settlers in Massachusetts. The company's responsibility was to ensure that 'the pains and industry of certain English Ministers of the Gospel' in converting Native Americans in their own language continued to succeed.<sup>80</sup> To do this it had to provide financial, spiritual and material help to ministers,

<sup>76</sup> Boyle to Hartlib, November 3, 1659, *BC*, I: p. 383. The English in this reference has been modernised for clarity.


<sup>77</sup> Irving, *Natural Science*, p. 84.

<sup>78</sup> Robert Boyle to Robert Thompson, March 5, 1677, *BC*, IV: p. 436.

Native Americans and, pointedly, 'those planters who began it being unable to bear the whole charge' of the project.81 The company then not only became an agent of spiritual salvation, but also one that would ensure the 'outward prosperity of those colonies' in New England.82 This was a point that did not escape the leadership of the MBC's attention, melding as it did evangelism with a particular form of civilising mission that ensured the MBC leadership's own social and spiritual superiority and benefited both the MBC and NEC financially. John Winthrop the Younger ultimately saw the success of the mission as financial rather than spiritual gain, arguing that a key responsibility of an evangelical programme was to bring Native Americans towards civility. His solution was to put them to work in 'English Employment', that 'thereby the bringing them to hearken to the Gospel may be easier effected'.83 More than the encouraging spiritual success, this was to be a lucrative financial opportunity for the MBC and 'the English people here', providing possibilities of 'vending store of their commodities especially drapery… for there be many thousands which would willingly wear English apparel… besides many other manufactures would be vended'.84 Winthrop's letter illustrates not only the hopes of financial success that many believed would follow evangelism, but also how the MBC leaders perceived the position of Native American converts in their theocratic governance. The MBC would tenuously construct their own governmental identity and authority as a response to the perception that the Native Americans were ungoverned savages awaiting the theocratic government of the company's members. Winthrop's letter also illustrated the fragility of this concept, as the leaders of the MBC feared that the Crown, through the NEC, would usurp their religious authority over converted Native Americans.

In line with traditional ideas of 'civilising' the NEC and the MBC sought to bring into the English protestant world Native Americans however, this did not necessarily mean equals as the leadership of the later company sought to secure the authority of its own theological governance of converts, or 'Praying Indians'. Although Eliot had been working on establishing Praying Towns for converted Native Americans since the


<sup>81</sup> Ibid.

middle 1640s the establishment of the NEC alongside local conflicts between Native groups compounded by the MBC's desire for land for convert settlements, helped to bolster the number of praying towns to 14.<sup>85</sup> By 1675, some estimated that between 2000 and 2500 Native Americans had converted to Christianity, which was 20% of the local native population falling under the competed authority of the MBC and the crown.86 The communities in these towns straddled a line between cultures, accepted by neither Native Americans nor English, but championed as examples of the success of the evangelical mission of both the MBC and the NEC. For the MBC these 'Praying Towns' became the centres of their authority as the residents submitted themselves to the authority of Massachusetts's theocratic governance. In turn the MBC established schools, and native run courts, which were supervised by the company's magistrates. The aim was to both spiritually and governmentally anglicise these communities, thereby distancing themselves from local Indians who had not converted. For both companies the establishment of these towns was considered a success of the missions, for the NEC they were flourishing communities of Christian converts, whilst for the MBC leaders they firmly illustrated to possible onlookers the extent of governing authority. Despite being perceived as Christian, 'Praying Indians' were treated with suspicion by MBC communities. Burdened with a Calvinist conception of conversion and entrenched racial prejudices MBC members found it difficult to adjust to a group that broke from traditional examples of natives.<sup>87</sup> As Cathy Rex has pointed out Englishness was a cultural and mental state and although many Native Americans would adopt and emulate English religious, cultural and social practices they would not be wholly accepted by the MBC.<sup>88</sup> For the MBC 'Praying Indians' symbolised the complexities and fragility of their own governing

<sup>85</sup> For list on praying towns see Daniel Gookin, 'An Historical Account of the Doings and Sufferings of the Christian Indians in New England, in the years 1675, 1676, 1677', *Archaeologia Americana: Transactions and Collections of the American Antiquarian Society* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1836), II; p. 195. Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 377; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 77–80.

<sup>86</sup> This is a far lower number in Gookin who estimated that the number was closer to 1100, Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 195; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, p. 74; Glickman, *New England Company*, p. 377.

<sup>87</sup> Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 137–140.

<sup>88</sup> Rex, 'Indian and Images', pp. 61–93.

identity as the company's leadership with increasing aggression sought to stabilise its own position in reaction to their existence in order to ensure they were the absolute governing authority in New England.

The years that followed the Restoration and the establishment of the NEC were the most challenging for, and ultimately detrimental to, the MBC. The loss of its parliamentary ally and the return of the Stuarts rightly panicked the MBC's leadership, who feared for the security of their charter and independent theocratic governance. As ideas of 'liberty of conscience' began to develop on both sides of the Atlantic, spearheaded by James II in England, the MBC's theocratic governance and its aggressive attempts to achieve uniformity began to gain notoriety. The Restoration signalled a fresh wave of interference from England as the Crown sought to centralise colonial authority and force the company to engage in a more tolerant form of religious government. However, despite repeated calls for the company to offer 'liberty of conscience' and open franchise, the leadership of the MBC continued to fiercely guard their theocratic governance, an action that would seal their fate.

Alongside the chartering of the NEC, the granting of a charter to Rhode Island and Providence in 1663 illustrated Charles II's willingness to accept religious diversity and his desire to continue to extend his authority across the Atlantic. Moreover, it emphasises how the returning monarch was willing to combine both to ensure his control. Almost immediately after regaining the Crown, Charles encouraged religiously liberal plans for overseas expansion in Bombay, Tangier, Pennsylvania and even South America, where there were plans to establish an English Jewish settlement.<sup>89</sup> Radically different from the theocratic governance of the MBC, these plans would offer 'liberty of conscience in the exercise of their laws, writes and ceremonies, according to the doctrine of their Ancients', so long as various religious communities accepted the sovereignty of the English monarch.<sup>90</sup> Charles's plan in action can most clearly be seen by the granting of the Rhode Island charter, which sanctioned and formally protected the religiously tolerant government of Rhode Island. The charter ensured 'that no person within the said colony shall hereafter be any wise molested or called in question for any difference in opinion in

<sup>89</sup> BL Egerton Ms/2385, f. 456. <sup>90</sup> Ibid.

matters of religion that does not disturb the civil peace of the colony'.91 Pointedly aimed at the MBC's theocratic government, the charter also ensured the inhabitants of Rhode Island, both English and Native Americans, were protected from interference of the territorial encroachment of other New England governments. Granted special protection by the King, the charter reminded those in New England who were unfriendly to Rhode Island that it was illegal for 'colonies to invade the natives or other inhabitants within the bounds hereafter mentioned', considering their 'being taken into his Majesty's special protection'.92 Alongside the chartering of the NEC, the Charter of Rhode Island illustrated yet another moment following the Restoration where Charles, extending his royal authority into America, very publicly 'incorporated' colonial enterprise. This placed mounting pressure on the autonomy of the MBC's theocratic governance and its leaders who, after years of unchecked expansion, were facing growing criticism for their actions.

## Restoration and Reaction to Theocratic Governance in Massachusetts

The Restoration and the return of Charles II to the throne in 1660 brought with it more problems for the MBC's theocratic governance, as the returning monarch offered a new outlet for the MBC's detractors to express their grievances. For many groups in Old and New England, the reestablishment of the monarchy signalled an opportunity to seek redress for the two decades of aggressive territorial and governmental acquisition by the MBC. English Quaker, Baptist and Anglican settlers, as well as Native Americans, formed a united group that had been subjected to the heavy hand of the MBC's theocratic authority. In response, these groups formed mutually assistive relationships, working together to elevate their own position by exposing and critiquing the actions of the MBC's theocracy.<sup>93</sup> When securing the Rhode Island charter, the colony's agents, keen to assert and protect its fragile autonomy within New England, obtained a number of rights ensuring their protection. Most distinct was the right

<sup>91</sup> 'Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation', July 8, 1663, *CSPC*, 1661–8, p. 148.

<sup>92</sup> Ibid.

<sup>93</sup> Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 10–12.

to appeal to the King over any disputes with their neighbours.<sup>94</sup> The inclusion of this clause was a direct reaction to the actions of the MBC, securing Rhode Island's borders and government against the company. Moreover, it also weakened the security of the charters of other colonies, which through the clause could be amended. Any action against the colony would force an individual or governing body, such as the MBC, to stand before the King, whatever the terms of its own charter.95 Although Charles was always quick to assure the MBC that his actions were done out of good will, the chartering of the NEC and Rhode Island subtly eroded the authority of the MBC's theocratic governance, a fact that did not escape notice by the company's authorities. Despite this, the company's leadership did little to alter the course of their theocratic governance. In fact, the more strongly the Crown's presence began to be felt, the greater was the hostility of the MBC's actions towards its English and Native American neighbours.

The return of the King, and his seeming willingness to listen to colonial authorities, sparked an outpouring of grievances from English colonists and Native Americans against the actions of the MBC and its theocratic governance over the previous two decades. For the residents of Maine, who had slowly been absorbed under the government of the MBC and treated with contempt by its leadership, which perceived them as having lived 'like the Heathen' due to their scattered settlements and government, the Restoration provided an opportunity to assert their independence.96 Following Richard Cromwell's downfall, the inhabitants of Maine immediately petitioned the authorities in England, declaring that the 'Government of Massachusetts by strong hand and menaces' had brought them under its government.97 By 1662, supporters of Fernando Gorges's heir were so confident that Charles would grant their independence that they publicly declared the King was sending authorities to

<sup>94</sup> Joseph Henry Smith, *Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Colonies* (New York, NY: Colombia University Press, 1950), pp. 52–53.

<sup>95</sup> Ibid., p. 53.

<sup>96</sup> Increase Mather, 'A Brief History of the War with the Indians in New England' [1676], in Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom, eds., *So Dreadfull a Judgment: Puritan Response to King Philip's War, 1676–1677* (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1978), p. 99.

<sup>97</sup> *CSPC*, 1574–1660, p. 479.

'countermand the authority' of the MBC in Maine.<sup>98</sup> However, such rumours were not well received by the leadership of the MBC, who quickly reprimanded anybody linked to such claims, or who supported Maine's plight and was in a position of authority.99 This would lead the Conformist minister and supporter of Gorges, Robert Jordan to claim that 'the Governor of Boston was a Rogue & all the rest thereof were Traitors & Rebels against the King.'100 Maine was not alone in reaching out to the Crown in an attempt to assert its autonomy from the theocratic governance of the MBC. Following an outpouring of letters in response to the MBC's attempts to police the religious behaviour of other colonies throughout the previous decade, Charles authorised the formation of a Royal Commission to be sent to New England to settle grievances.

Charles's attempts to mediate the growing conflicts between the company and its neighbours by sending royal commissioners were seen by MBC leaders as an attempt to extend his authority into New England.<sup>101</sup> The arrival of the King's representatives in 1664 ignited disputes in the area against Massachusetts's expansionist behaviour, as many had believed that it had exceeded its authority. In a letter addressed to the governor and council of the MBC, Charles summarised the intentions of the commissioners in a manner that, although phrased diplomatically, was at times pointed, declaring that he had 'received much information and several complaints' from other colonies.<sup>102</sup> Alluding to the actions of the MBC against settlers in Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, as well as Native Americans, Charles asserted that it was the intention of the commissioner to investigate and provide 'full information of the true state & condition of that of our plantation & of their neighbours on all sides'.103 Immediately, the commissioners' presence unleashed a further wave of complaints against the MBC.

<sup>98</sup> *MPCR*, I: pp. 181–210.

<sup>99</sup> Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 53–55.

<sup>100</sup> *MPCR*, II: p.141; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, p. 54.

<sup>101</sup> For more on the royal commissioners and Restoration debates on the monarchy in Massachusetts, see Paul R. Lucas, 'Colony or Commonwealth: Massachusetts Bay, 1661– 1666', *William and Mary Quarterly*, Vol. 24, No.1 (1967), pp. 88–107; for a discussion on toleration of the established Church, see pp. 99–100.

<sup>102</sup> *MCR*, IV, pt. 2: p. 158.

<sup>103</sup> Ibid.

Amongst these complaints were several from Narragansett Indians; these reflected the fact that the Native communities had developed a complex understanding of English power structures, embracing English petitioning practices and sending them to a distant English authority. In this way the Narragansett in New England was able to secure their autonomy from the MBC's theocratic governance, although this came at a cost. To the MBC's dismay, when Rhode Island was granted its charter, the Narragansett leaders established a cordial relationship with Charles II. Commanding the commissioners to leave for New England, Charles ordered that they were to promise the Narragansett that 'the King will do them justice'.104 The King also physically illustrated the friendly relationship, by providing a gift of 'two rich scarlet cloaks' to be given to the Narragansett leaders who had 'expressed so much affection to his Majesty'.<sup>105</sup> These cordial, (but highly functional) exchanges illustrate how Native Americans believed that the relationship between themselves and the English Crown was based on an alliance rather than inferiority. Although for the most part a one-sided concept, for Native Americans it can be seen to have persisted across groups, having been established a generation ago through Canonicus and Pessacus in New England and Powhatan in Virginia.<sup>106</sup> Through this concept, Native Americans in New England were, just like the English settlers, provided with a separate means to express objections to a higher authority for the actions of other English settlers or authorities, such as the theocratic governance of the MBC.

For the Narragansett, as for many English settlers, the Crown and the royal commissioners became the only outlet through which they had a hope of receiving recompense for the actions of the MBC. In the first petition given to Crown commissioners, the Narragansett intimated that MBC settlers, pretending to 'belong to the [Rhode Island] colony', had destroyed their homes.107 During the period that the commissioners were resident in New England, this claim was followed by a series of accusations from the Narragansett leadership, who suggested that the MBC, in the previous decades, had unlawfully taken their land from

<sup>104</sup> *CSPC*, 1661–8, p. 201.

<sup>105</sup> Ibid.

<sup>106</sup> Pulsipher, *Subjec*t, pp. 29–32; Kupperman, *Facing Off* , p. 175.

<sup>107</sup> Ibid., p. 275.

them. The loss of land suffered by the Narragansett had been triggered by a series of conflicts between themselves and the Mohegans in the 1640s and would involve the MBC through the latter having acquired the support of the United Colonies. After several violations of peace agreements between both parties, the United Colonies formed an expedition against the Narragansett. Having suffered substantial financial losses through this interference, the MBC members hiding behind the United Colonies fined the local Narragansett people.<sup>108</sup> Unable to pay the fine, the Native Americans were forced to give up their land to pay the debt. Explaining these events in brief to the Crown, the Narragansett succinctly described how, through 'violence and injustice', the MBC had taken 'their whole country in mortgage'.<sup>109</sup> After receiving information from both parties, the royal commissioners drafted a solution to settle the dispute once and for all. By voiding any former English patents to Narragansett land, the commissioners placed it under the protection of the King. It was therefore removed totally from the jurisdiction of any colonial authority apart from Rhode Island, from which they would assign justices of the peace.110 Named the 'King's Province', the Narragansett leaders fully submitted themselves and their people to the authority and protection of Charles, handing over the patent, given to them in 1644 by the King's father, which had 'been carefully kept by Mr. Gorton'.111 The commissioners, in their report, also alluded to the unity between the Rhode Islanders and their Narragansett counterparts, writing that the former were 'generally hated by the other colonies' and that, to weaken Rhode Island, the MBC supported 'other Indians against the Narragansetts'.<sup>112</sup> The Narragansett were not the only Native Americans that the commissioners would visit, settling a dispute between the Metacom and Pessacus.113 The agreement between the Wampanoag and Narragansett leaders, mediated by commissioners, was designed to maintain


<sup>113</sup> Glenn W. LaFantasie, ed., *The Correspondence of Roger Williams*, 2 vols. (Hanover, NH: University of New England Press, 1988), II: pp. 577–579; John Russell Bartlett, *Letters of Roger Williams 1632–1682* (Providence, RI: Narragensett Club, 1874), p. 323; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, p. 57.

<sup>108</sup> *PCR*, IX: pp. 34–35.

a balance of power between rival Native American groups.<sup>114</sup> Unwittingly, though, the commissioners, in drafting their agreement, had laid the foundations for an alliance that later threatened the very foundations of the MBC's company's theocratic governance. By appealing to the King, the Narragansett had effectively weakened the authority of the MBC and its theocratic governance, proving that protests to England and the Crown could be successful.

Similarly, English settlers across New England, spurred by the presence of the royal commissioners, sought to further assure the security of their independence from encroachments by the MBC's theocratic governance. For many, their presence provided the opportunity to once again draw attention to the religious persecution that many had faced under the MBC. This was explicitly said in a petition from the colony of Rhode Island, which had become a haven for 'all religions, even Quakers and Generalists' who wished to be 'defended from oppressing one another in civil or religious matter in which most of the members of this colony have suffered very much under strange pretenses from the neighbouring colonies particularly from Massachusetts'.115 For religious groups inside and outside Rhode Island, the royal commissioners offered the opportunity to ask for protection against the 'strange pretenses' of the MBC's theocratic governance. Since 1663, Charles had asked the MBC to stop its persecution of religious groups and to open the company's secular and ecclesiastical franchise.116 However, despite passing the Half-Way Covenant in 1662, which in reality only extended a half franchise to younger members of families of people who were already members, the MBC did nothing to act on these requests. Instead, it openly criticised the possibility of any such action as absurd, proclaiming at a General Court that this would be an impossibility as 'there are many who are inhabitants of this jurisdiction which are enemies to all government'.117

Yet the company was suggesting that anyone who was not a part of its established Church was an enemy of its government. Upon this conclusion, the MBC court ordered, against the direct wishes of the Crown, anyone who 'refuse to attend upon public worship of God established

 Bartlett, *Letters*, p. 323. Ibid., pp. 342–350, 275. *MCR*, IV, pt. 2: p. 74. *MCR*, IV pt. 2: p. 88.

here… are made uncapable of voting in all civil assemblies'.118 By 1665, following little success previously, Charles would once again order the MBC to adopt more liberal policies. Invoking the image of the MBC's much protected charter, the King argued that its principal aim 'was & is the freedom & liberty of conscience' and as such he demanded 'that that freedom & liberty be duly admitted & allowed' to those whom the MBC currently excluded.119 This was followed by a very specific request by the Crown for the MBC to make room in their theocratic government for followers of the established Church, or those who desired 'to use the Book of Common Prayer & perform their devotion in that manner as is established here'.<sup>120</sup> Although the King's attempt was to nudge the MBC's leadership in the direction of toleration by appealing to their sentimental ideas concerning their charter, his request, however, raised concerns that he was trying to lay the foundations to establish an Episcopal Church in New England. Such an action, according to MBC leaders, would have opened the door to the freemanship of the company, eroding their theocratic governance, bolstering in its place the royal and Church authority from which they had tried to flee some 30 years previously.

Just as it tried to encourage the MBC to open out the franchise of its theocratic governance, the Crown also began to interfere with the company's theocratic justice system. The 'enemies' of government that the MBC had alluded to, following the Crown's initial requests for the company to widen its franchise, were the Quakers, playing upon the prevailing misconception that those who belonged to the faith were unwilling to obey authority.<sup>121</sup> The MBC's General Court believed the Quakers to be a threat to their society. According to the court they wished to 'undermine the authority of civil government, as also to destroy the order of

<sup>121</sup> For more on Quakers and governmental perceptions of them, see Paul Finkelman, 'The Root of Religious Freedom in Early America: Religious Toleration and Religious Diversity in New Netherland and Colonial New York', *Nanzan Review of American Studies*, Vo. 34 (2012), pp. 1–26; Esther Sahle, *Quakers in the British Atlantic World c.1660–1800* (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 2021), pp. 25–29.

<sup>118</sup> Ibid.

<sup>119</sup> *MCR*, IV pt. 2: p. 165.

<sup>120</sup> Ibid.

the churches', the two pillars on which the company's theocratic government was built.<sup>122</sup> Even Charles did not hide his disdain for Quakers, and ordered that in both America and England 'sharp laws' be established against them.123 Starting in 1656, the MBC's courts began to introduce a number of draconian laws against Quakers, which either consisted of a fine of £100, whipping or imprisonment, as well as fining people who sold Quaker literature.<sup>124</sup> However, between 1659 and 1660, the company's theocratic leadership shocked people on both sides of the Atlantic by sentencing to death three Quakers: William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson and Mary Dyer.125 In response to petitions, the King ordered that any Quaker awaiting a death sentence was to be sent to England for trial, and the execution of Quakers was banned. Quick to assure the Crown that all 'imprisoned [Quakers] have been released and sent away', the MBC leadership also informed the English authorities that they respected the command for 'corporal punishment or death, be suspended until further order'.126 In addition to the continued support for aggressive theocratic governance, the MBC's leaders faced criticism and civil unrest, following the execution of the Boston martyrs, thereby forcing the company leaders to try and obtain some form of support back in England, although this would not be forthcoming.

Amid the MBC leadership's growing paranoia about the security of its charter and the autonomy it granted them to maintain their theocratic governance, they sought to enlist the help of allies in England. Although the company had some friends, such as the merchant and NEC member Henry Ashurst, who had seen evangelism as a way to hinder the advancement of royal authority upon the MBC, there were few, even among those with whom the MBC had repeated dealings, who were disposed to help the company. The MBC's leadership nevertheless continued to persecute religious groups and would brazenly disregard the Crown's wishes for them to reassess their theocracy, insisting the sovereignty of their charter

<sup>125</sup> For more on the punishment of Quakers in Massachusetts, see Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 39–40, 43–44.

<sup>126</sup> *CSPC*, 1661–8, p. 62.

<sup>122</sup> *MCR*, IV pt. 1: p. 345.

<sup>123</sup> Ibid., p. 166.

<sup>124</sup> *MCR*, III: pp. 415–416.

and government be maintained from any 'injustice of encroachment'.<sup>127</sup> Amongst their correspondents in England, these actions would progressively lead to further criticism. For example, the Nonconformist Earl of Anglesey, although at times critical of Charles's actions at home, would 'chide you [MBC leaders] and the whole people of New England' for their behaviour, declaring that they wrongly acted as if they 'needed not his [Charles's] protection'.128 Similarly, the Secretary of State, Sir William Morice, chastised the MBC leaders for making 'unreasonable and groundless complaint' in their petitions to the Crown.<sup>129</sup> Morice also stepped in to advise the company of their choice of leadership, complaining that their governor, 'hath during all the late revolutions continued the government there'.<sup>130</sup> Morice concluded that the choice in leader was not satisfactory and that the King would 'take it very well if at the next election any other person of good reputation be chosen in the place'.131 The MBC leaders were, equally, unable to find support outside the political arena, as Boyle and the NEC were at times unable, or unwilling, to act on the company's behalf.132

Indeed, as more reports flooded across the Atlantic of the company's continued persecution of religious groups under its theocratic governance, Boyle was to become less and less diplomatic. Perplexed and angered by the MBC's actions, Boyle wrote to John Eliot about how he believed it to be the most 'strange and less defensible' action for those who once fled persecution in England to enjoy religious liberty abroad to now themselves persecute others.<sup>133</sup> Later on, Boyle would also warn the New England evangelists that, if the MBC continued to impose their theocratic governance, there would be 'very bad consequences'

<sup>127</sup> 'The Humble Supplication of the General Court of the Massachusetts Colony in New England to the King' October 19, 1664, *CSPC*, 1661–8, p. 247.

<sup>128</sup> Anglesey to John Leveret, 16 May, 1676, Thomas Hutchinson, *The History of Massachusetts*, I: p. 279.

<sup>129</sup> *CSPC*, 1661–8, p. 283.

<sup>130</sup> Ibid.

<sup>131</sup> Although interrupted, John Endecott had served 15 years as the company's governor since 1644 and was perceived by Charles and his government as a supporter of Parliament during the Interregnum and so unfriendly to the monarch, ibid.

<sup>132</sup> *MHSC*, 2nd ser., VIII: pp. 49–51; Boyle to Commissioners, March 17, 1665, *BC*, II: p. 460.

<sup>133</sup> Boyle to Eliot, 1680, *BC*, V: p. 225; Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 383.

for Nonconformists in England.134 Although referring to outcomes in England, Boyle's warning could also be seen as a foreshadowing of eventual consequences for the MBC's own Congregationalists, following the results of their refusal to effectively reduce the harshness of their theocratic governance.

#### King Philip's War and the End to Theocratic Governance

Upon the departure of the Royal Commission, the MBC continued its theocratic governance with renewed vigour. Once again encroaching on local Native American land in the name of its evangelical mission, old tensions re-emerged between the two groups, spilling into open conflict. Although the arbitration of the royal commissioners and the reaction of people in England should have served as a warning to the leaders of the MBC, in reality it was nothing more than a slap on the wrist, as the company's General Court and the company's theocratic governance held its ground, and as such, old habits re-emerged. The MBC sought to advance its mission with continued zeal, converting Native Americans, whilst at the same time eroding Native American sovereignty and annexing land, often through dubious transactions, for Christian Indians to settle. With continued zeal the MBC sought to advance its evangelical mission, converting Native Americans whilst at the same time annexing land, often by dubious transaction, for Christian Indians to settle alongside slowly eroding Native American sovereignty by ignoring their laws.<sup>135</sup> In 1673 the Wampanoag sachem Metacom, or King Philip as the English knew him, was facing increasing encroachment on his lands by English settlers and Christian Indians, who had been bought land of another rival Native American leader, Totomomocke.136 Unable to seek redress in the MBC courts, the relationship between MBC and Native American was increasingly strained, as Local leaders, such a Metacom, were left powerless to the company buying lands. As relationships soured,

<sup>134</sup> Boyle to Eliot, 1680, *BC*, V: p. 225.

<sup>135</sup> For more information of the transactions of land and its affects on Anglo-Native American relations in New England see Jeremy Dupertuis Bangs, *Indian Deeds: Land Transactions in the Plymouth Colony, 1620–1691* (Boston, MA: New England Historic Genealogical Society, 2002).

<sup>136</sup> Ibid., p. 96, 164; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, p. 103; Mandell, *King Philip's* War, p. 38.

New England was pushed closer to the brink of conflict and was finally pushed into war by the reaction of New England officials to the death of the Native American missionary John Sassamon.

A native convert to Christianity Sassamon acted as a cultural mediator and evangelist between the Native American and English groups. It was Sassamon who reported to the Plymouth Colony the possibility that Metacom was preparing for conflict against the English, following which he was found dead in a 'ice broken pond'.<sup>137</sup> New England authorities were quick to accuse Metacom and his followers of murdering Sassamon claiming that his Christianity and position as a preacher amongst the Indians offended them, as Metacom was firmly opposed to the spreading of Christianity amongst Indians.<sup>138</sup> According to Increase Mather it was very Christianity that led to his death writing the Native Americans harboured 'hatred against him for his religion'.139 Facing accusations of murder from leaders of the Plymouth colony Metacom and other leaders of the Wampanoag peoples denied any such claim suggesting accident or suicide however, they did suggest that Sassamon deserved to die. According to Metacom, the deceased had tried to steal land from him. This being so Metacom claimed that even if he had ordered Sassamon executed it would have been a matter of his law and as such he and the Wampanoags 'had no Cause to hide it'.140 However, despite their claims to innocence, and legal sovereignty to take action New England leadership convicted and executed three Wampanoag men for the murder of Sassamon, ignoring both Metacom authority, and any claims he had of sovereignty over his people. Events surrounding Sassamon's death highlighted how repeated encroachment of Native American land and sovereignty by New Englanders theocratic governance lead to New England being plunged to a conflict.<sup>141</sup>

As King Philip's War quickly spread across New England, the MBC members increasingly believed that the actions of Metacom and his

<sup>140</sup> Easton, *A Relation*, p. 3.

<sup>141</sup> James Drake, 'Symbol of a Failed Stratergy: The Sassamon Trail, Political Culture, and the Outbreak of King Philip's War,' *American Indian Culture and Research Journal*, Vol. 19, No. 2 (1995), pp.111–41.

<sup>137</sup> Mather, *A Brief History*, p. 87; John Easton, *A Relation of the Indian War* (1675), p. 3.

<sup>138</sup> Drake*, King Philip's War*, p. 58.

<sup>139</sup> Mather, *A Brief History*, p. 87.

supporters were attacks against their Christian religion and theocratic governance. Throughout the conflict, reports of Native American atrocities towards symbols of Christianity were plentiful as ever more New Englanders saw the focus of the wars as being the Native Americans' 'Damnable antipathy' towards 'Religion and Piety'.<sup>142</sup> When news of each attack reached Boston, it contained reports of some form of action against the MBC's theocratic governance. Much like in Virginia five decades earlier, religious centres and symbols seemed to be the focus of Native Americans attacks. News quickly began to reach Boston of attacks on 'friend Indians' residing in centres of Christianity at Chabanakongkomun, Hassanemesit and Magunkaquog.<sup>143</sup> Besides physical aggression, disgruntled individuals also resorted to vandalism to vent their unhappiness, targeting Sunday worship, with reports of bibles being torn 'and the leaves scattered about by the enemy, in hatred of our religion'.<sup>144</sup> Moreover, these accounts also suggested that Metacom's forces were focusing on people associated with the MBC's theocracy, arguing that they 'enraged Spleen chiefly on the promoters of it [Christianity]'.145 News of these events prompted a series of often-horrific anti-Native American responses from New Englanders, specifically the MBC members. Of these, the most heinous were often committed by the former Jamaican privateer Samuel Mosely, who unlawfully hanged several Native Americans at Malbury and, on one occasion, ordered a captive to be 'torn to pieces by Dogs'.146 Although willing to apportion

<sup>142</sup> Anonymous, *News from New-England being a true and last account of the present bloody wars carried on betwixt the infidels, natives, and the English Christians and converted Indians of New-England, declaring the many dreadful battles fought betwixt them, as also the many towns and villages burnt by the merciless heathens and also the true number of all the Christians slain since the beginning of that war, as it was sent over by a factor of New-England to a merchant in London* (London: 1676), p. 3.

<sup>143</sup> Gookin, *An Historical Account*, pp. 475–477.

Increase Mather, *An Earnest Exhortation to the Inhabitants of New-England, To Harken to the voice of God in his late and present Dispensations* (Boston, MA: 1676).

<sup>144</sup> William Hubbard, *A Narrative of the Indian Wars in New England, Form the first Planting thereof in the Year 1607 to the Year 1677* (Stockbridge, MA: Heman Willard, 1801), p. 88; Anonymous, *News*, p. 5.

<sup>145</sup> Anonymous, *News*, p. 3.

<sup>146</sup> George M. Bodge, *Soldiers in King Philip's War: Containing Lists of the Soldiers of Massachusetts Colony, Who Served in the Indian War of 1675–1677* (Boston, MA; Bodge, 1891), pp. 26, 27: Drake, King Philip's War, pp. 128–130; For the incident in which partial blame to the influence of merchants having 'debauched and scandalised' Native Americans against the Christian faith, Mather also argued that these actions had been perpetrated by 'such vile enemies… yea the worst of the Heathen'.147 Settlers also responded to the ongoing crisis by rallying behind the MBC's theocratic government, as colonists across Massachusetts publicly renewed covenants, reinforcing the company's religious authority.148

The evangelical mission of the previous three decades established the foundations for paranoia, as the leadership of the MBC became increasingly suspicious of 'Praying Indians' being a fifth column. In response to their presence, the MBC would pass several harsh laws aimed at 'Praying Indians' that would erode the sovereignty of Native American communities in New England and lead to further external criticism of the company. Early into the conflict, leaders of the local Natick 'Praying Indian' community approached the MBC leaders, fearful that Metacom and 'his confederates, intended some mischief shortly to the English and Christian Indians'.<sup>149</sup> Upon hearing their plea, the MBC leaders promised to protect them and also ordered that some join their forces to allow the leaders to gain expertise in the 'Indian manner of fighting' and 'to try their fidelity' to the company.150 However, the MBC authorities quickly reneged on their promise, as rumours surrounding the loyalty of Indian converts swept through Massachusetts, fuelling already deep-set social and religious paranoia. The MBC Council dismissed any autonomy that the 'Praying Indians' had carved out under the company's theocratic governance, and any of those who advocated their rights, such as Eliot and the first superintendent of the Praying Indians, Daniel Gookin, were publicly scorned. Consequently, the latter would be unable to publish and would lose a re-election on his support for Native Americans.151 Following the attacks on settlements along the Connecticut

Mosely arrested several innocent 'Praying Indians' following an attack on Lancaster and tried to have them hanged, see Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 459.

<sup>147</sup> Mather, *An Earnest Exhortation*, p. 3; *A Brief History*, p. 105.

<sup>148</sup> Perry Miller, *The New England Mind: From Colony to Province* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 116.

<sup>149</sup> Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 411: Brooks, *Our Beloved Kin*, p. 225.

<sup>150</sup> Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 411.

<sup>151</sup> See Drake, *King Philip's War*, p. 102, footnote 44.

River, reprisals against Praying Indians increased significantly, culminating in their imprisonment on Deer Island.

At first, the MBC ordered that just the Christian residents of Natick be sent to the rocky outcrop in Boston harbour. The council noted this was not only for 'their' safety but also 'our protection', and they were soon followed by several other 'Praying Indian' communities as the MBC became progressively more suspicious and paranoid.<sup>152</sup> Forced onto the island in the middle of winter, the 'Praying Indians' were effectively left to fend for themselves.153 Visitors to the island described it as 'bleak and cold' and highlighted how those '350 souls' imprisoned there 'suffer hunger & cold', with 'neither food nor competent fuel', subsisting only on a diet of 'clams and shell-fish'.<sup>154</sup> Many were also unclothed after having their belongings stolen upon being sent to the island, with little accommodation, and what was there was described as 'poor and mean'.<sup>155</sup> Despite these conditions, the 'Praying Indians' sent to Deer Island were forced to remain there under 'pain of death', and for many Native Americans its mere mention was enough for them to flee north or join Metacom's forces.156 Following attacks on praying towns, 'Praying Indians', much to the horror of MBC authorities, were offered the opportunity to fight with Metacom, an option that many such as the Nipmuck convert and assistant to Eliot, James Printer exercised rather than be sent to Deer Island.<sup>157</sup> By the end of the conflict, the autonomy of both Christian and non-Christian Native Americans had been severally eroded, and the MBC had, although barely, succeeded in asserting its authority by force. Although some did still advocate 'a covenant' between the MBC

<sup>152</sup> *MCR,* V: p. 64: Nashoba Indians joined those of Natick in the May of 1676: see Bodge, *Soldiers*, p. 35; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 143–147.

<sup>153</sup> Brook, *Our Beloved Kin*, pp. 225–226, 246–248; Carla Gardina Pestana, *Protestant Empire*, p. 134.

<sup>154</sup> Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 485; John Eliot to Robert Boyle, October 17, 1675, in John Ford, ed., *Some Correspondence Between the Governors and treasurers of the New England Company in London and the Commissioners of the United Colonies in America* (London: Spottiswoode & Co., 1896), p. 53.

<sup>155</sup> Mosely before sending the Nashoba to the island ordered his troops to loot their belongings: Bodge, *Soldiers*, p. 35; Gookin, *An Historical Account*, p. 485.

<sup>156</sup> *MCR,* V: p. 64.

<sup>157</sup> Drake, *King Philip's War*; for in-depth analysis of John Printer and his relationship with the MBC, see Rex, 'Indians and Images', pp. 81–83; Brooks, *Our Beloved Kin*, pp. 86–89.

and 'Praying Indians', general opinion amongst company leaders and members was for continued harsh punishment. However, externally, both in America and England, the expensive conflict had irreparably damaged the MBC's reputation, and in the name of peace, royalist authorities in America now sought to firmly plant the King's influence in the peace process.

By the May of 1677 MBC leaders begrudgingly were forced to request the help of the royal governor of New York, Edmund Andros in settling a peace agreement. In doing so the company's leadership had effectively acknowledged the position of the crown as the sovereign arbitrator of affairs in Massachusetts, a position it had always claimed for itself. Following the surrender of Black Point in Maine in October of 1676 to the Native Americans under Mogg Heigon, the war was effectively over.<sup>158</sup> However, this bloodless victory brought with it panic across Maine and Massachusetts, as English settlers sought to fled rumours of murdering Indians and French troops.159 Following Black Point Andros began to negotiate for peace with the Native Americans. As an agent of the King, Native American leaders were willing to negotiate with Andros, highlighting the growing reach of royal authority in New England. Further illustrating a shift in authority and allegiance, local Native American leaders openly refused to settle peace with the MBC, arguing that they would negotiate with the other English governments in New England but asked Andros that he 'not to include the Massachusetts'.160 Although Andros refused this request insisting that the MBC be included in the terms of peace with Native American his report back to the Committee for Trade and Plantations, highlighted how Massachusetts's leaders unwillingness to cooperate with English colonies ruled by the King. Andros particularly noted the 'violent proceedings of the Magistrates of Boston' who both during and since the conflict had refused any offer of help or assistance from the governor, and at one point detained the men sent to offer the MBC assistance.<sup>161</sup>

<sup>160</sup> Ibid., p. 256.

<sup>161</sup> Andros offered help at several points in the conflict, in Winter 1675 he offered to send both English and Mohawk troops to assist the MBC, this was followed in the

<sup>158</sup> John Romeyn Brodhead ed., *Document Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York* (DCNY) vol. III (New York, 1853), pp. 255, 265; Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 219–223.

<sup>159</sup> *DCNY* , p. 220.

On top of this, Andros also reported that MBC leaders had through several publications tried to undermine his authority in both New York and in Massachusetts. In these tracts, MBC authorities claimed that towns under the royal supervision of Andros had sold Metacom arms during the conflict and that anyone from Albany found in the Massachusetts would be arrested and face trail in relation to these accusations.<sup>162</sup> Although these claims were dismissed by Andros and the King, who write to the MBC authorities that he could 'find no cause' that Andros or anyone in New York did sell arms to Metacom, they illustrate the lengths the company's leaders would go in to in order to maintain their independence of their theocratic governance from any form of royal authority. Indeed, the appointment of Andros, as the chief negotiator between the two parties highlighted the growing influence and power of the monarchy in America, and the waning influence of MBC authority and theocracy in New England. By agreeing to his appointment, MBC leadership effectively acknowledged the position of the Crown as the sovereign arbitrator of affairs in Massachusetts, a position the company had always claimed for itself. Wary of the MBC's governmental behaviour, many in England were fearful that its theocratic leaders were on the 'very brink of renouncing any dependence on the crown'.<sup>163</sup> However, despite outward signs that its leaders were still vigorously asserting the autonomy of their government, the conflict had left the MBC financially ruined. Its theocratic governance was weak and vulnerable to both internal and external attack.164 Having lost much of the territory in Maine and New Hampshire that it had gained over the previous decades, the MBC found its government surrounded by Native American and English neighbours who

summer to act as a intermediary to help obtain peace and was ignored. Following this Andros sent relief to the people of Boston and Piscataway and offered them safety in New York, but his agents were detained by the MBC authorities, ibid., pp. 264–265, 257.

<sup>162</sup> Ibid., pp. 257–260, 266, 67.

<sup>163</sup> William Bray, ed., *The Diary and Correspondence of John Evelyn*, Vols. 4 (London: Henry G Bohn, 1862), II: p. 65: for in-depth analysis of Andros's role in the peace negotiations, see Pulsipher, *Subjects*, pp. 234–237.

<sup>164</sup> Around half of New England's towns had been damaged and trade had been totally disrupted, costing approximately £100,000, whilst the estimated number of English and Native American casualties is somewhere around 3,600. See Douglas E. Leach, *Flintlock & Tomahawk: New England in King Philip's War* (New York: Macmillan, 1958), pp. 243– 244; Glickman, 'New England Company', p. 378; Drake, *King Philip's War*, p. 169.

harboured nothing but ill will towards the company's theocratic governance. Moreover, internally it faced mounting pressure from emerging royalist groups who gave increasing political voice to those who for five decades had been ignored or persecuted by the MBC. Although the war with Metacom had concluded, the company's battle against royal intervention continued. In the years after King Philip's War, the company tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to secure the authority and independence of its theocratic governance.

Following King Philip's War, the MBC's theocratic governance continued to be the centre of conflict, as company and Crown battled to secure the authority and right to govern over the godly in New England. This set in motion events that would lead to the revocation of the company's charter in 1684 and the downfall of the MBC's theocratic governance. Despite previous attempts by the Crown to prevent the company from infringing upon the rights of Native Americans, MBC authorities, keen to blame the latter for the conflict, continued to trample upon their autonomy. Increasingly, it was 'Praying Indians' who bore the brunt of the company's legislative attempts to segregate and subordinate Indians under its theocratic governance. Furthermore, non-Christian and 'Praying Indians' were forced to live in praying towns, whilst the MBC leaders imposed draconian laws on the financial exchanges between English settlers and Native Americans.165 These would make it harder for Native Americans, in particular 'Praying Indians', to buy and sell land, as well as engage in simple financial transactions.166 In an atmosphere of paranoia and governmental restriction, the praying towns in post-war Massachusetts became ever more potent symbols of racial and spiritual segregation.167 The great evangelical mission that had reinvigorated the company's theocratic governance and godly identity in the 1640s had, in its waning years, fuelled paranoia and fault-finding. Edward Randolph blamed praying towns for educating Native Americans in military ways, whilst Mary Rowlandson, a Native American captive during the

<sup>165</sup> Pulsipher, 'Our Sages are Sageles': A Letter on Massachusetts Indian Policy after King Philip's War', *William and Mary Quarterly* Vol. 58, No. 2 (2001), pp. 431–448; Yasuhide Kawashima, *Puritan Justice and the Indian: White Man's Law in Massachusetts 1630–1763* (Middletown, CO: Wesleyan University Press, 1986), p. 280.

<sup>166</sup> *MCR,* V: pp. 463, 486–487.

<sup>167</sup> Pulispher, *Subjects*, pp. 242–243; Pulsipher, 'Our Sages are Sageles', p. 440.

war, scolded her captors, focusing much of her vitriol on 'Praying Indians', describing them as 'wicked and cruel'.<sup>168</sup> However, for some, the evangelical movement came to be the focus of paranoia against the King, seeing in it an attempt by the monarch to assert his authority and the established Church over the godly in America.

By early 1680 the MBC leaders found their government increasingly encroached upon by royal authorities, not only had a royal authority mediated the peace agreement of the previous decade, but it also now shared its northern border with America's second royal colony, New Hampshire. Moreover, the company's leadership was horrified that the crown was also seeking to influence the policing of trade in the colony through granting Edward Randolph the position of comptroller of the Plantation duty.169 In this position Randolph, much to the irritation of company leaders, was to enforce the crowns laws concerning trade in particular the Navigation Act. Randolph's imposition angered many in the company's leadership as they believed that their charter had given them the right to govern trade in and out of the colony. In response MBC Magistrate and officials openly sought to act against him, passing laws establishing their own Naval officers to police trade whilst also aggressively throwing any case Randolph presented to them of trading infractions out of the courts.170 Replying to these actions Randolph would suggest that the MBC leaders were passing 'verdicts against his Majesitie' and the laws of England, and as such the company leaders had gone beyond the bounds of their chartered authority.<sup>171</sup> The appointment of Randolph sparked division in Massachusetts government as moderates argued that the crown was within its right to appoint officers in the colony, whilst the 'Church party' believed such appointments were attacks of the sovereignty on the company's theocratic governance. The

<sup>168</sup> Glickman, 'New England Company'*,* p. 384; Mary Rowlandson, *The sovereignty & goodness of God, together, with the faithfulness of his promises displayed; being a narrative of the captivity and restauration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson* (Boston, MA: 1682), p. 50.

<sup>169</sup> Michael Garibaldi Hall, *Edward Randolph and the American Colonies, 1676–1703* (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1960), pp. 54–57.

<sup>170</sup> *MCR*, V: pp. 337–338.

<sup>171</sup> Mr Randolp's Queries to the General Court, 7 June 1682, Robert Noxon Toppan ed., *Edward Randolph; Including His Letters and Official Papers from New England, Middle and Southern Colonies in America, With Other Documents Relating Chiefly to the Vacating of the Royal Charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1676–1703* (ERL) 5 vols. (Boston 1899), III, p. 149.

appointment of Randolph and the subsequent debate that surrounded royal appointed officials, as well as continued reports of religious persecution of English and Indian peoples would lead to a crown and authorities in England taking action.

In 1680, the King requested that the MBC send agents to England, an order that many rightly assumed was a sign that the company's charter was under attack. Prior to leaving for England, the MBC's agents were reminded by the religious ministers and magistrates of the company that their role was to secure the independence of their theocratic governance. The MBC's leaders believed that the 'government of the Massachusetts ought not to yield blind obedience to the pleasure of the Court', as they, through their charter rights, had established a government ordained by God and not the King.172 Rumours of procedures against the MBC sparked responses from its spiritual leadership to resist and revive the company's religious traditions, with some openly applauding its theocratic tradition. The Boston minister Samuel Willard was a vocal supporter of the company's theocratic government.173 He openly described it as a theocracy and argued against any royal intervention by suggesting that the only King that had sovereignty in Massachusetts was Christ, as their government was 'a glorious specimen of Kingly government of Christ'.174 Accordingly, Willard argued that the MBC's members would not tolerate any interference in its religious government 'from the invasion of perverse men' who wished to 'disseminate their erroneous principles, make breaches in Churches' and 'undermine and seduce silly souls'.<sup>175</sup> However, what worried Willard most were the Crown's attempts to have 'free and public liberty to carry on their own ways' in church worship in Massachusetts, an act he described as a 'dishonor to Christ'.176 In true Congregationalist form, Willard offered a solution or a remedy to the current predicament the MBC leaders found themselves

<sup>176</sup> Ibid.

<sup>172</sup> 'Arguments against Relinquishing the Charter', *MHSC*, I, 3rd series: pp. 73–81.

<sup>173</sup> For an in-depth analysis of Samuel Willard's ministerial career, see Seymour Van Dyken, *Samuel Willard: Preacher of Orthodoxy in an Era of Change* (Grand Rapid, MI: Eerdmans, 1972).

<sup>174</sup> Samuel Willard, *The child's portion: or The unseen glory of the children of God, asserted, and proved: together with several other sermons occasionally preached* (Boston, MA: 1682), p. 192.

<sup>175</sup> Ibid.

in: covenant renewal. By renewing the covenants that had established and bonded together the members of the MBC in theocratic government, Willard argued that they would be able to illustrate their strength and unity, placing them 'out of reach of foreign mischief'.<sup>177</sup> Although his very religious solution may have offered comfort to some in the MBC, any attempt to suggest that there was collective unity or strength in the theocratic governance of the company was too late.

Amongst the many commercial and financial reasons given for taking legal action against the MBC by its detractors was the opportunity to bring an end to the company's theocratic governance. By 1682, the MBC's agents had arrived in England to find the company's reputation in ruins and that the rumours of formal actions against the company's charter and its theocratic governance were, indeed, very real. Having received petitions to start *quo warranto* procedures in 1680, Crown authorities had slowly begun the process of investigation against the company.178 According to many in England, the MBC's leaders, by enforcing the company's theocratic government over English settlers and Native Americans, had reneged on the company's charter, imposing 'Lawes Ecclesiastical being repugnant to the Lawes of England'.<sup>179</sup> This not only warranted action against the MBC's charter, but also provided the perfect opportunity for the Crown to impose 'liberty of Conscience in matter of Religion' in Massachusetts.180 MBC leaders desperately tried to continue to remind their agents of their mission to protect the company's theocratic governance, worried that the persecution Nonconformists faced in England would seep into Massachusetts, if the Crown took control.181 It then became imperative that their agents understood 'our liberties & privileges in matters of religion and worship of God, which you are therefore in nowise to consent to any infringement'.<sup>182</sup> However,

<sup>177</sup> Ibid., p. 195.

<sup>178</sup> Robert Toppan Noxon, ed., *Edward Randolph; Including His Letters and Official Papers from New England, Middle and Southern Colonies in America, With Other Documents Relating Chiefly to the Vacating of the Royal Charter of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay*, 5 vols. (Boston, MA: John Wilson & Son, 1899), III: pp. 89–94.

<sup>179</sup> Ibid., pp. 229–230.

<sup>180</sup> Ibid., p. 94.

<sup>181</sup> John Cotton to Thomas Hinckley December 27, 1683, *MHSC*, I, 3rd series: p. 75; V, 4th series: pp. 103–104.

<sup>182</sup> *MCR*, V: p. 390.

despite repeated reminders regarding their mission, the agents of the company were powerless to prevent the charter from being revoked.

In June of 1684, the MBC as an overseas company ceased to exist. Following the revocation of its charter, its theocratic governance collapsed. For the MBC, the key to its success as well as the cause of its failure was the combination of its corporate charter and its theocratic governance. Despite often being isolated from many histories of England's other companies during the seventeenth century, the MBC and its members were an influential part in a connected history of overseas trading corporations and the development of English religious governance abroad. The MBC, unlike the EIC and LC, illustrates another aspect of the governmental flexibility of corporation, which allowed members to establish rigid authoritarian structures. The purpose of the theocratic government that the members of the MBC formed was like any of England's seventeenth-century overseas companies. Its priority was to police the behaviour of its members to ensure they represented the model of society that the company wished to represent. Unlike its eastern counterparts, for the MBC this meant the strict formation of a unified religious society, with no room for doctrinal difference, and extinguishing any signs of contrary belief at the first opportunity. Following the Restoration, this behaviour was increasingly at odds with the Crown's plans for English expansion in the Atlantic. Yet, the very corporate flexibility that had provided the MBC with the framework to establish theocratic governance in New England would end up being its undoing. Its government had become progressively more rigid; its attempts to police the behaviour of those in its jurisdiction had become increasingly arbitrary. On top of this, company leaders were unwilling to compromise in the face of growing criticism of its government, justifying their government as a right granted to them by their corporate charter. By 1686, they had left English authorities with no option but to end their experiment, revoking their corporate charter and thereby abolishing their theocratic governance.

## Conclusion

From its origins as a joint-stock overseas company, the MBC evolved into a corporate body that governed in its overseas territory like a state. It legislated, elected and governed a body of people that embraced the narrow theology of its members. Its leaders declared war and annexed land from their English and Native American neighbours. Proselytising expansion became a tool of the MBC's theocratic government that connected its senior figures' interests in advancing religion alongside their own political and trading interests over English and Native American peoples. For the MBC's leaders and members, it was not enough for their corporate theocratic government to be an example of godly rule; they actively sought to export it through both example and expansion.

The MBC's theocratic governance illustrated the extremities of inclusivity and exclusivity of England's seventeenth-century companies. Unlike the ecumenical governance that developed in the EIC over this period, the MBC manifested a corporate zeal to incorporate and exclude people from its unitary theocratic governance. Alongside this zeal, it was the MBC's obsession with policing the behaviour of all people that would lead to the company's downfall. The establishment of the NEC marked a shift in corporate attitudes to the role of religion in English corporate government abroad that would gradually take place across the remainder of the century, removing its responsibility from overseas trading companies and placing it into the hands of specifically designed evangelical corporations. In the next chapter highlights how the EIC, unlike the MBC, developed a model of religious governance that was based not on religious exclusivity but, to a certain extent, inclusivity in the religious and political regulation of behaviour of multiple peoples of varying faiths.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## The East India Company (1661–1698): Territorial Acquisition and the 'Amsterdam of Liberty'

In opposition to the religiously oppressive manner of corporate territorial expansion in New England, the EIC's ecumenical governance in India embraced, out of necessity, a broad sense of religious sufferance to govern over religiously cosmopolitan environments in the subcontinent. Central to the development of the EIC's ecumenical model was its leadership's unhappy endurance of the diverse religious communities that made up India's cosmopolitan society. The tentative religious and political acceptance of the presence of peoples of numerous faiths became a policy of sufferance that EIC officials employed, offering begrudging inclusion into political life and religious freedoms in its territories. Unlike the pastoral governance discussed in Chapter 3, the EIC in the years that followed the acquisition of territory in India was forced to expand its legislative and governing authority beyond its factories and ships into the international religiously cosmopolitan geographies.<sup>1</sup> Following the territorial acquisitions of religiously cosmopolitan environments in India, the EIC established various methods to govern over the behaviour of those in its jurisdictions. The adoption of ecumenical governance by the EIC, unlike

<sup>1</sup> Glenn J. Ames, 'The Role of Religion in the Transfer and Rise of Bombay, c. 1661– 1687', *The Historical Journal*, Vol. 46. No. 2 (2003), pp. 317–340; Stern, 'Rethinking Institutional Transformations in the Making of Modern Empire: The East India Company in Madras', *Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History*, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2008).

© The Author(s) 2022

H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_6

207

the theocratic model of the MBC, evolved from an inward to an ecumenically outward form of governance. In doing so, the company secured its commercial and governmental mission through policing political and religious behaviour through various levels of political, legal and religious inclusion.

As the EIC obtained governmental control over new territories, its leaders had to develop new methods of religious governance that embraced inclusivity, ensuring that they successfully secured their authority. In the Atlantic world, the presence of a substantial English population was considered the most effective way of ensuring governmental security. However, unable to establish English-populated plantations like those in the Atlantic, the EIC turned to local populations to settle its territories. To encourage migration, EIC leaders developed sufferance as a policy of governance, often in line with or in opposition to other forms of Indian and European religious governments established in the subcontinent.2 However, ecumenical governance and its policy of religious sufferance did not arise from any liberal ideology, but through treaty obligations and necessity. EIC officials were only able to secure their territories and control the behaviour of Muslim, Hindu, Catholic, Orthodox Armenian and Jewish communities by offering freedom to practise their faith.3 Moreover, as the company succeeded in encouraging religious groups to settle in Bombay and Madras, EIC leaders were

<sup>3</sup> For general discussions on religion in the EIC in the second half of the seventeenth century, see Stern, *Company-State*, pp. 100–120; Ames, 'The Role of Religion', pp. 317– 340; Aparna Balachandran, 'Of Corporations and Caste Heads: Urban Rule in Company Madras, 1640–1720', *Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History*, Vol. 9, No. 2 (2008); Farhat Hasan, 'Indigenous Cooperation and the Birth of a Colonial City: Calcutta, c. 1698–1750', *Modern Asian Studies*, Vol. 26, No.1 (1992), pp. 65–82; Penelope Carson, *The East India Company and Religion: 1698–1858* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 2012), pp. 1–2; for research into specific religions see Ferrier, 'The Armenians', pp. 38–62; Kanakalatha Mukund, *The View from Below: Indigenous Society, Temples and the Early Colonial State in Tamilnadu, 1700–1825* (Telangana: Orient Blackswan, 2005), pp. 10– 25; For Christianity see Moffett, *Christianity in Asia*; Frank Penny, *The Church in Madras:*

<sup>2</sup> Farhat Hasan, 'Conflict and Cooperation in Anglo-Mughal Trade Relations During the Reign of Aurangzeb', *Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient*, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1991), pp. 351–360; James D. Tracy, 'Asian Despotism? Mughal Government as Seen from the Dutch East India Company Factory in Surat', *Journal of Early Modern History*, Vol. 3, No. 3 (1999), pp. 267–278; for European examples, see Markus P. M. Vink, 'Church and State in Seventeenth-Century Colonial Asia: Dutch-Parava Relations in Southeast India in a Comparative Perspective', *Journal of Early Modern History*, Vol. 4, No. 1 (2000), pp. 1–43; Alden, *The Making of Enterprise*; A. K. Priolkar, *The Goa Inquisition* (Bombay: 1961); Glenn J. Ames, 'Serving God, Mammon, or Both? Religious vis-à-vis Economic Priorities in the Portuguese *Estado da India*, c.1600–1700', *Catholic Historical Review,* Vol. 86 (2000), pp. 193–216.

forced to expand civic representation to police the religious and political behaviour of these communities.4

Firstly, this chapter investigates the role of one individual, the EIC governor Josiah Child, in the development of ecumenical governance, and his ideas surrounding emulation of the Dutch models of religious governance. Moreover, it assesses the influence of South Asian religious cosmopolitanism and governance in the policing of religious behaviour through government in EIC jurisdictions. It does so by looking at key moments of religious governance in the East, such as Aurangzeb's levy of the *jizya* and establishment of the Inquisition in the Portuguese *Estado da India*. Furthermore, the chapter highlights how the EIC responded to external events on the ground in the East, politicising religious freedoms to encourage migration to their territories. It examines how company officials developed ecumenical governance to encourage religious migration not only in opposition to European and Indian examples, but also through religious and commercial patronage.

The chapter then considers how the EIC in dealing with the behaviour of its own personnel acclimatised to the religiously cosmopolitan governments of the Indian Ocean. This is achieved by an examination of EIC officials and employees' struggles to adapt its ecumenical governance to deal with practical environmental factors of daily religious life in India. Furthermore, the chapter examines the development and importance of passive evangelism as a policy regarding the religious behaviour of the EIC following the company's territorial acquisition. Moreover, it places the role of passive evangelism in the wider politics of the EIC, claiming that the adoption of this policy was done to secure an effective relationship with various multi-faith communities of merchants, artisans and elites that made up Indian commercial society. Finally, the chapter also investigates the role of the company's ecumenical governance in securing favour

*Being the History of Ecclesiastical and missionary action of the East India Company in the Presidency of Madras*, 3 vols. (London, 1904).

<sup>4</sup> There have been several works on development of Indian political involvement in EIC governance: Stern, 'Institutional Transformations'; Balachandran, 'Of Corporations and Caste Heads'; Hasan, 'Indigenous Cooperation'; Joseph J. Brennig, 'Chief Merchants and the European Enclaves of Seventeenth-Century Coromandel', *Asian Studies*, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1977), pp. 321–340.

amongst religious communities by offering religious freedoms and political representation and power in company government in India, securing the political behaviour of the various religious groups under its control.

## Ecumenical Governance, Josiah Child and the Dutch Model

Catherine of Braganza's dowry, on her marriage to Charles II in 1662, brought England its first major jurisdictive acquisition of the English in the Indian subcontinent: Bombay. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, England had a modest foothold in India, controlling Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. These territorial acquisitions marked England's initial forays into governing a growing and religiously cosmopolitan population in the subcontinent. The company's religious concern no longer focused on its Protestant plurality, but it also came to rule over Muslims, Hindus, Parsi, Orthodox Armenians, Jews and Catholics. Considering this, its officials developed and adapted a policy to include these new populations to be able to police and govern over their religious and political behaviour. It was in the context of the cultural exposure of EIC officials to the religious world of the Indian subcontinent, as well as the pluralistically Protestant community that they had created over the previous 60 years, that it began to form a policy of religious governance that embodied ecumenicalism centred around sufferance. It was this policy that led to the future Governor of the Company, Sir Josiah Child, to comment in 1665 that although the company strived for uniformity in England, they allowed 'an Amsterdam of Liberty in our Plantations'.<sup>5</sup> The flexible ecumenical governance of the EIC allowed the company to secure its authority in India in the second half of the century. Having its foundations in early EIC interactions with Mughal and Maratha politics as well as growing out of the company's diverse community of Protestant personnel, it also was able to react to the demands of local religious groups to have a voice in English territories. Company officials were quick to present this policy of sufferance as their own invention of benevolence, which offered religious protection in the face of what they presented as Mughal and Iberian religious injustice. Although this dichotomy between EIC governance and others was a fallacy adopted by the company to

<sup>5</sup> Josiah Child, *A New Discourse on Trade* (London: 1693), p. 152.

secure its own position, it was widely believed by the English to also be true.

Throughout much of the century, EIC officials would seek to replicate and adapt the governmental methods of their European counterparts to establish an effective way to control the religious behaviour of those people who came under the EIC's expanding jurisdiction. Scholars have traditionally treated Child's assertion as a much broader English trend, suggesting that the success of the EIC was down to the company's willingness to adopt and adapt Dutch governing practices establishing 'an Amsterdam of Liberty in our Plantations'.<sup>6</sup> Child's interest in the Dutch lay in their commercial success and the ability of the Dutch to control territories, such as Batavia, from fortified positions in religiously cosmopolitan environments. From the middle of the century onwards, EIC officials increasingly looked at the Dutch 'policy of dominions' as the model to adopt and adapt to meet the strains of governing the company's religiously cosmopolitan territories.7 For Child, the establishment of a model of religious governance that effectively policed the behaviour of people would not only ensure the security of the company in Asia but also trigger a reformation in practical charitable behaviour in England. Ecumenical governance would spur the success of the EIC abroad, which according to Child had 'a tendency to public good' that would help the poor of England.<sup>8</sup> Child remarked that the Dutch, unlike the English, through the successful governance of trade in their territories abroad had established methods to 'provide for, and employ' their poor.<sup>9</sup> The Dutch at Batavia established a thriving commercial and cosmopolitan hub in Asia. In the land under their control, the religious behaviour of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Orthodox Armenians, Hindus, Muslims, Confucianism and Buddism was all policed through a policy of sufferance. For Child, this had been one of the reasons for the commercial success of

<sup>6</sup> Erik S. Reinert, 'Emulating Success: Contemporary Views of the Dutch Economy Before 1800', in Oscar Gelderblom, ed., *The Political Economy of the Dutch Republic* (Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2009), pp. 19–40, particularly p. 32; Gelderblom, 'The Organization of Trade in England and the Dutch Republic 1550–1650', in *The Political Economy*, pp. 223–254.

<sup>7</sup> K. N. Chaudhuri, *The Trading World of Asia and the English East India Company 1660–1760* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 117, 288.

<sup>9</sup> Ibid., p. 62.

<sup>8</sup> Child, *New Discourse*, pp. 61–77.

the Dutch East India Company (VOC) and the betterment of the Dutch nation.

It was the cosmopolitan environment of Batavia, rather than the religiously tolerant Amsterdam, that the VOC was forced to adopt as a form of governance that Child saw as embodying 'liberty'.<sup>10</sup> Not only intimately aware of the VOC's operation at Batavia, Child sought to explain the evolution of EIC governance in India as a characteristic that was in general common in English commercial expansion, in the East and West. EIC territories in India were a few of the many English 'Amsterdam[s] of Liberty' that were built on a model of religious sufferance that was as much English as it was Dutch. Child acknowledged that although uniformity was strived for in England, English territories abroad were a patchwork of religious identities and governance. In particular, he drew attention to the MBC; although noting it as England's 'most prejudicial plantation', Child also disingenuously hinted that its success lay in its government's recent willingness to accept Nonconformists of any kind.<sup>11</sup> Child goes on to say that the MBC by nature of the population and their religious politics had established an unprejudiced trade across the Atlantic that was ultimately to the benefit of England.12 Child's 'Amsterdam of Liberty', although a Dutch model, was not necessarily purely Dutch. It was more an example of a flourishing form of European corporate 'ecumenical' governance that evolved under both English and Dutch companies outside Europe, and by the end of the century, they could have easily been renamed 'Batavia', 'Boston' or 'Bombay' of liberty. It was in the religious cosmopolitan environments of India that the EIC's ecumenical governance evolved both in conversation with and parallel to Indian and European forms of governance.

<sup>10</sup> In relation to wider implications of Dutch religious governance in the East, see Even Haefeli, *New Netherland and the Dutch Origins of American Religious Liberty* (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013), pp. 129–134.

<sup>11</sup> Child, *New Discourse*, pp. 152, 160.

<sup>12</sup> Ibid., p. 163.

### Ecumenical Governance in Opposition to Mughal Religious Government

Although the influence of the Dutch on EIC officials' ideas towards religion and religious governance was considerable, the policy of sufferance was also shaped by sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century Indian leadership. As James Tracy in his investigation of the Dutch at Surat has highlighted, Europeans who operated in India and Asia had a sophisticated and lucid understanding of Asian politics.13 Conflict and religious turmoil in India provided the EIC with the setting to appear to offer themselves and their government as a 'benevolent other' to peoples fleeing what the English perceived to be persecution and conflict. From the late 1650s till the first decade of the eighteenth century, India became embroiled in a series of religious struggles and conflicts between the Mughal and Maratha states.14 By the middle of the seventeenth century, Mughal, leadership under Aurangzeb, provided the means for the EIC to advertise its governance as being a religiously benevolent alternative to the local Indian as well as Iberian governments.<sup>15</sup> The company's policy towards religious governance was not only fuelled by the external forces of Indian and European politics, or Protestant evangelical requirements, but by the internal pressures of Indian people who now fell under EIC jurisdiction. Moreover, during the seventeenth century, people of varying religious, national and cultural backgrounds influenced the direction of corporate governance in EIC India. Over the second half of the seventeenth century, Indian legal, social and political agency in English jurisdictions was secured by the power of religious and cultural groups. These groups conversely undermined and strengthened English attempts to police their religious and political identity and behaviour.

Following its territorial acquisitions, the EIC's model of ecumenical governance evolved to deal with the pressures of governing the religious behaviour of various peoples in religiously cosmopolitan environments. As the company gained control of both Madras and Bombay, its officials were faced with the new pressure of having to govern peoples who embraced numerous faiths and cultures. Both Hindus and Muslims made

<sup>15</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 70.

<sup>13</sup> Tracy, 'Asian Despotism', pp. 267–278.

<sup>14</sup> Stewart Gordon, *The Marathas 1600–1818* (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1993), pp. 59–113.

up significant proportions of the population of these settlements, whilst in Bombay there was, and Madras to a certain extent, a visible Catholic population, along with the followers of numerous other faiths including Jews, Jains and Armenians. At the time Madras was incorporated in 1687, Englishmen and women were an insignificant part of a population of over 10,000 people.<sup>16</sup> It has been estimated that at the time there were only 150 English people resident in the city, with the numbers in Bombay not being much better, especially when viewed in the context of mortality rates. Company estimates put the English population of Bombay between 1673 and 75 as being around 427 Englishmen, women, and children; however, in this period a massive 41% of that figure had died.17 As these figures show, the English presence in the EIC jurisdictions was minimal in comparison to local Muslim and Hindu populations. In response, company officials adopted the ecumenical model to secure their commercial aims by encouraging migration into their territories.

Through the adoption of ecumenical governance and sufferance, the EIC leaderships hoped to ensure religious, political and commercial success in territories. In 1684, the Governor of Bombay, Richard Keigwin, wrote *The Articles of Agreement between the Governor and Inhabitants of Bombay* guaranteeing 'the inhabitants the liberty of Exercising their Respective Religion'.<sup>18</sup> This statement had been part of a series of moves that had been initiated by both George Oxenden and Gerald Aungier from the late 1660s offering widespread religious suffrage; however, the timing of Keigwin's articles helps to illustrate the much wider reasoning for the EIC's religious policy. Although the articles formally publicised the EIC's government in Bombay, they also arose out of a policy of freedom as a 'direct result of diplomatic circumstances' that had been mandated through treaties with the Portuguese.<sup>19</sup> The Braganza treaty

<sup>16</sup> Om Prakesh, *European Commercial Enterprise in Pre-colonial India* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), p. 148.

<sup>17</sup> For Madras statistics, see Seren Mentz, *The English Gentlemen Merchant at Work: Madras and the City of London 1660–1740* (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2005), p. 244; for Bombay, see BL IOR E/3/36 'A List of all the English both men and Women on the Island of Bombay together with a List of what men and Women are Deceased and the time for the space years past taken this 30 August 1675'; Stern, *Company-State*, p. 37.

<sup>18</sup> BL IOR E/3/43, 'The Articles of Agreement between the Governor and Inhabitants of Bombay', December 29, 1683; February 8, 1684.

<sup>19</sup> Bulman, *Anglican Enlightenment*, p. 214.

had formally handed Bombay and Tangier over to the English and with it the English 'absorbed a portion of its population'.20 Following the English annexation of the territory, a substantial population of Catholics remained. Although their presence would be a source of contention for the EIC, the company was directed through the treaty to ensure that all Catholics resident in the ceded territory would have the freedom to practise their faith openly under the islands' English government. By the time Keigwin was publishing the articles, the policy of religious sufferance was well established in Bombay, although, having been drawn up during a time of religious dislocation encouraged by conflict, these articles are illustrative of the much wider post-Braganza EIC policy of religious sufferance, which was also being trialled in non-corporate jurisdictions elsewhere.21 Furthermore, their publication was an advertisement for the ecumenical governance of the EIC to Hindus and Muslims fleeing from the conflict between the Mughal and Maratha states.

The EIC entered an environment that had a long and conflicted tradition of Islamic and Hindu religious politics. The companies' leaders had to negotiate this complex context to build their own forms of religious control. It has previously been easy to fall into a trap in South Asian history of over-emphasising historical moments in India's religious and political past such as Aurangzeb's passing of the *jizya*, and thereby misrepresenting the reasoning behind what to modern readers would be an innocuous decision. Described by one historian as the only 'really exceptional act' of his reign, Aurangzeb's reintroduction of the *jizya*, a poll tax upon non-Muslims (which had been abolished by Akbar for being prejudicial) in 1679 is one such example where overemphasis has led to misrepresentation in the historical discussion.<sup>22</sup> Whether seen as financially forcing Hindus to convert to Islam, or a policy to encourage support from loyal Muslims in his empire, Aurangzeb's motivations to reintroduce the *jizya* have long been debated by historians examining its role in the conflicts of the Indian subcontinent in the late seventeenth century.23 However, despite its contested position in Indian politics during this

<sup>22</sup> Abraham Eraly, *The Mughal Throne: The Saga of India's Great Emperors* (London: Phoenix, 2004), p. 388.

<sup>23</sup> Jadunath Sarkar, *History of Aurangzeb*, 3 vols. (Calcutta, 1928), pp. 249–250; Satish Chandra, 'Jizyah and the State in India during the 17th Century', *The Journal of Economic*

<sup>20</sup> Ibid., p. 213.

<sup>21</sup> Ibid., pp. 212–219.

period, the *jizya* does conversely offer the intellectual space to see the adoption of religious sufferance by EIC officials as a tool of governance. The company as an olive branch offered religious freedom to Hindus who migrated to Bombay and Madras; religious sufferance became an integral part of the EIC response to Aurangzeb's reintroduction of the tax.<sup>24</sup> Religious sufferance actively encouraged Hindus to migrate to safety in land under EIC jurisdiction, fleeing the financial burden of the *jizya*, but also bringing with them, to the great benefit of the English and the company, their own financial and commercial links.

In the second half of the century, local conflicts amongst Indian leaders increasingly influenced the commercial, political and religious conversations and policies of EIC. Through the 1660s, relations between Aurangzeb and Shivaji became more and more acrimonious, as each launched small raids against the other and by 1669 the two were in full-blown conflict that would last for three decades. Exacerbated by the growing cultural divide between the two courts, the conflict between the two has been said to be fuelled by Aurangzeb's policy of 'Muslim sectarianism'.<sup>25</sup> In 1667, George Oxenden wrote back to London from Surat detailing the growing violence of Aurangzeb's government, describing how the Mughal government was 'now lying a heavy persecution, upon the Banians and Gentues… upon all that are not of his erroneous opinion'.<sup>26</sup> In the wake of the Mughal governor's 'furious zeal' and Aurangzeb's religious politics, the EIC leadership and lands and religious government began to be seen as an alternative. Company reports of the policies and actions of Aurangzeb and his court became the subject of concern, intrigue and misconception for Englishmen and Europeans in India.

*and Social History of the Orient*, Vol. 12, No. 3 (1969), pp. 322–340; Eraly, *The Mughal Throne*, pp. 401–405, 419–22.

<sup>24</sup> For company discussion on the tax, see Letter from Bassein to Surat, December 10, 1667, in Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 286.

<sup>25</sup> Gordon, *Marathas*, p. 79.

<sup>26</sup> President to Company, Surat 1667, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 284.

### Ecumenical Governance in Opposition to Iberian Religious Government

The ecumenical governance of the EIC and the policy of religious sufferance provided the leadership of the company with the governmental apparatus to present itself as being the compassionate alternative to other traditional European parties in the area, particularly the Catholic Portuguese. Although the presumed severity of the Catholic inquisition in Goa has come under scrutiny, its imposition was real in the mindset of the local population and EIC officials, who sought to use it to encourage resettlement to English-owned territory.27 As the religious administrative centre for the Portuguese, Goa had been a bishopric since 1534. The inquisition formally began in 1560 with the arrival of the first Archbishop Gaspar de Leao Pimental, although an outward policy of aggressive evangelism began in 1542 with the arrival of the Jesuit Francisco Xavier.<sup>28</sup> The most influential and long reaching policy began seventeen years after Xavier's arrival and involved the forcible conversion of Hindu orphans. By 1559, the law gradually became more wide-ranging, encompassing not just orphans but also children whose fathers had died; such children were taken, and in the process, the Church could confiscate the parents' property.<sup>29</sup> The religious governance of the Portuguese in India presented EIC officials with the opportunity to present their religious, commercial and political governance as an alternative to their European brethren. The taking of orphans by the Inquisition not only caused friction between the Portuguese and the Hindu communities, but also caused tensions between the Portuguese authorities and local Hindu rulers, in particular Shivaji, something that the leadership of the EIC were keenly aware of. EIC officials observed events unfold between the two powers, hoping to benefit from the dispute. In 1675, one Englishman wrote of how 'Sevagee and they [the Portuguese] daily quarrel' and in great detail wrote of its causes noting how the 'chiefest cause of his hatred to them' was the 'forcing' of 'orphans of his cast to turn Roman Catholics'.30 For

<sup>27</sup> Stephen Neill, *A History of Christianity in India: The Beginnings to AD 1707*, Vols. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), I: p. 231.

<sup>28</sup> Ames, 'Serving God, Mammon, or Both', p. 195.

<sup>29</sup> Priolkar, *The Goa Inquisition*, pp. 127–140.

<sup>30</sup> B.G. Paranjpe, ed., *English Records on Shivaji*, 2 vols. (Poona: Shiva Charitra Karalaya, 1931), II: p. 74.

the EIC this information was important in understanding the position of the Portuguese in India, but also integral to how the EIC would advertise its own ecumenical governance.

In Goa, the Portuguese and the Inquisition were also aware of the EIC actions and would express concern at the attempts made by the English to present their territories as being havens of religious tolerance. One year after the transferal of Bombay to the EIC, inquisitors in Lisbon presented a petition to Pedro II on the behalf of their counterparts in Goa.<sup>31</sup> Amongst several grievances was a complaint about the effects of the EIC's religious governance in Bombay on Goa. They argued that the EIC's ecumenical governance, which allowed 'everyone to live freely as they want', was impeding the ability of the Inquisition to govern in Goa. In response to this, the Lisbon Inquisition requested Pedro's 'favour and help' supporting their colleagues in Goa and lobbying the English to allow the Inquisition to continue its work in Bombay. The EIC's ecumenical governance was sufficiently effective at encouraging sizeable numbers of 'delinquents against the Catholic faith' to migrate to Bombay concerning Portuguese officials in Goa and drawing the attention of Catholic authorities in Europe.<sup>32</sup>

Following the acquisition of Bombay, further reports emerged that sought to point out the persecution that went on under Portuguese governance. These were to maintain the moral high ground; they detailed several horrific actions against the local Indian populations and placed the EIC as a benevolent other. George Oxenden explained the practice in the language of slavery, reporting that under the 'tyranny of the Jesuits' the children never returned to their families and were brought up Catholic, concluding this was a 'bondage very grievous to them'.<sup>33</sup> Reports painted a picture of whole families being whipped, and evicted for being unable to pay their rents, whilst others starved or fled, 'not having authority or justice to relieve them'.34 As Portuguese evangelism became ever more aggressive, it also became unpopular amongst the other Europeans who were in India, not only Protestants but also Catholics. Several letters

<sup>31</sup> António Baião, *A Inquisição de Goa: Tentativa de historia da sua origem, estabelecimento, evolução e extinção*, Vols. 2 (Lisbon: Academia das Ciências, 1945), I: p. 115.

<sup>32</sup> Ibid.

<sup>33</sup> TNA CO 77/9, f. 93, Sir George Oxenden to Lord Arlington, March 6, 1665.

<sup>34</sup> Sir Gervase Lucas to Lord Arlington, 1667, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 290.

during the early 1660s highlight this, as in the report of the presence of French Capuchin friar, Father Ephraim at Madras; he had repeatedly been imprisoned by the Portuguese in the 1650s.35 By encroaching upon both the religious and property rights of Indians and Europeans, the Portuguese provided the company with the perfect opportunity to portray themselves as the benevolent other, allowing Hindus to escape the Catholic inquisition in neighbouring Goa. In two letters to Surat, the Deputy Governor of Bombay, Henry Young, expressed his deep concern over the practices of Roman Catholics in forcibly converting Indians not just in Goa but also in Bombay, which he suggested was 'scaring off the island to their Inquisition'.36 However, the company was quick to ensure that non-Christians on the island understood that the EIC would 'not favour them [the Catholics] in the least', and would actively seek to prevent them from evangelising.37 The EIC responded by banning evangelism, passing orders that no one, whether Catholic or Protestant, was to 'christen nor punish' any 'Gentiles without a licence', in an attempt to prevent Catholic religious expansion in Bombay.<sup>38</sup> Moreover, it was an attempt to force Catholics to recognise the EIC's authority and the company's ecumenical governance.

However, the presence of Catholics in Bombay continued to be a problem for the company. One repeated concern was that 'our Servants and other English' were being married, buried and baptised by 'Romish Priests' and such a thing was 'so scandalous to the professors of the Reformed Religion'.<sup>39</sup> The company again ordered that all such practices in the city cease, going so far as to order that if any married couple 'do no educate the Children in the Protestant Religion' they were to 'be sent home'.<sup>40</sup> The EIC policy of sufferance was proclaimed as providing

<sup>35</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 92; X: pp. 402–406; XI: pp. 38–40.

<sup>36</sup> Henry Young, James Adams and Coates to Surat February 22, Foster, *English Factories,* XIII: pp. 13, 218.

<sup>38</sup> Ibid.

<sup>39</sup> General letter from the Court of Committees to the Agent and Council at Fort St. George 24, December 1675, in Richard Carnac Temple, ed., *The Diaries of Streynsham Master 1675–1680 and other Contemporary Paper Relating Thereto*, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1911), II: p. 260.

<sup>40</sup> Ibid.

<sup>37</sup> Ibid.

an alternative space for Indians to escape Indian and European governance. On top of this, it also provided the opportunity for the company to exaggerate and advertise English Protestantism evangelism, as a passive and benevolent counter to the aggressive and prejudicial ministry of the Portuguese Catholics. As one agent at Gombroon would write, 'I want not to daily solicit and encourage both Armenians and Banians of all sorts to embark' to Bombay, which had been made all the easier by Aurangzeb's religious policies leading to people 'imploring' the company in Bombay for 'assistance and protection'.<sup>41</sup>

### Ecumenical Governance and Religious-Commercial Patronage and Religious Migration

Following the acquisition of territory in India, EIC officials sought to secure their position by encouraging, through the company's ecumenical governance, Indian people of varying faiths and professions to migrate to areas under their jurisdiction. For the EIC to succeed in India, the company relied heavily upon its relationship with wealthy indigenous merchants, encouraging them to settle in their lands. These merchants not only assisted the company in its commercial endeavours but they were also valuable in securing the long-term aims of the company by throwing their support behind the EIC, attracting migrants and keeping the local population happy.42 From the mid-1650s, the local temples in Madras began to appear in company records, with the company dealing with wealthy local merchants to bankroll, build and maintain them. By the end of the century, Beri Timmanna, a future Chief Merchant of the Company, had funded both Chennakesava Perumal and Mallikesvarar Temples in Madras.43 Through this policy, EIC officials hoped to influence the control of funds from these religious sites, as well as encouraging their building, by absorbing traditional Indian forms of temple patronage, granting control of them to Indian chief merchants.<sup>44</sup> Similarly, following the death of Kasi Viranna in 1680, the company built a mosque for the

<sup>41</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, XII: pp. 191, 211.

<sup>44</sup> Mukund, *View from Below*, pp. 54–55.

<sup>42</sup> Mukund, *View from Below*, p. 52.

<sup>43</sup> Henry Love, *Vestiges of Old Madras 1640–1800*, 4 vols. (London: John Murray, 1913), I: pp. 90–93.

Muslim residents of Black Town in Madras.<sup>45</sup> By building these temples, the EIC hoped to encourage the migration of various Hindu worshippers from all over India, including worshippers of Vishnu from neighbouring Andhra, and Tamil-speaking followers of Shiva from further south.46 Furthermore, the EIC also built and maintained a Portuguese Catholic church within its fort in Madras prior to building St Mary's.47 Through the migration of Indian peoples of varying faiths, including wealthy merchants, weavers and numerous professions, EIC officials sought to cultivate the company's influence and power. By developing relationships (which were at times both advantageous and turbulent) with influential Indian merchants and migrants and their contacts, company officials sought not only to ensure their authority was imposed but also to encourage further migration.

The EIC's policy of temple building was part of a broader policy in its ecumenical governance that involved using temples to encourage migration, through the gifting of patronage to wealthy merchants. However, at times this policy caused disputes between the EIC's chief Indian merchants and local peoples, illustrating how the company's policies often misunderstood concepts of local religious control. It was at these temples in the 1650s that the local Brahmins seeking to show their support for company officials hired a witch to 'obtain the affections of governors' by performing a ritual to 'abase and destroy or hinder the proceeding of adversaries'.<sup>48</sup> Timmanna and his associates became embroiled in a local dispute with the people of Madras and those who lived in surrounding villages, who were disgruntled at being forced to pay taxes for the maintenance of the two temples.<sup>49</sup> Triggered by the EIC's involvement, this marked a considerable shift in local governance concerning the maintenance of temples, where funds went from being raised by

<sup>45</sup> R. V. Dikshitar, 'Around the City Pagodas', in *The Madras Tercentenary Volume* (Madras, 1939), p. 365.

<sup>46</sup> For EIC temple building policy and its role in encouraging migration, see Joanna Punzo Waghorne, *Diaspora of the Gods: Modern Hindu Temples in an Urban Middle-Class World* (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 37–41.

<sup>47</sup> Love, *Vestiges*, I: pp. 44–48.

<sup>48</sup> Charges against the Brahmans, Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 239.

<sup>49</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 259.

local communities levying voluntary taxes on themselves to companysponsored elites and families controlling the temples.50 However, the complaints of the local painters, weavers and Brahmins also shed light on how the EIC, through their Indian chief merchants, sought to expand control of the company's jurisdiction by acquiring control of temples outside its jurisdiction. For example, in their complaint, they expressed concern that the temple at Triplicane, which had gradually come under the control of local company merchants like Timmanna (who was a trustee of the temple), and like those in Madras, he was seeking to gain substantial revenues from it.<sup>51</sup> The local Brahmins wished to see the company punish its chief merchants for their transgressions, writing that those who procure honour for 'our nation' and the company should 'be honoured, and those who on occasion dishonour [it] should be punished'.<sup>52</sup> The Brahmins' letter highlights the success of EIC officials in establishing the company's governing authority over the people of Madras, for although the reference to 'our nation' may be seen as a subtle jibe at the EIC, the company's influence is recognised. The success of both the company and the local religious and mercantile elite was intertwined. Any attempt to dishonour the company was also an attempt to undermine the nation, and so the company rewarded or punished those who did so.

EIC officials were initially unwilling to take on the task of governing over Bombay in addition to its other outposts in Madras and Surat, seeing it as a financial drain. Company leadership quickly realised, both in India and England, that only by attracting substantial levels of Indian migration would the newly acquired territory be commercially viable and English authority in the region secured. The company made attempts to encourage English people to settle in Bombay as they had in their Caribbean or New England colonies, offering land to 'persons as shall be willing to come'; this also included free passage to those men who wished to leave England and have families.<sup>53</sup> The company also encouraged those 'whether in the Company service, freemen, as also all others

<sup>50</sup> Mukund, *View from Below*, p. 53.

<sup>51</sup> Ibid., p. 52; Kanakalatha Mukund, *Merchant: Evolution of Merchant Capitalism in the Coromandel* (Orient Blackswan: Telangana, 1999), pp. 70–71.

<sup>52</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 262.

<sup>53</sup> BL IOR H/ 49 London to Surat, March 19, 1669; Stern, *Company-State*, pp. 36–7.

of the reformed religion' to stay in India, by attaching indentures to marriage licences.54 Company leaders believed that by forcing people to stay they were acting like 'the successful examples of New England, Virginia, Barbados & Jamaica', which would lead to the establishment of good, reformed Christian governance in India through plantations and investment in company land.<sup>55</sup> However, this failed, and despite aspirations to increase the English population through resettlement and marriage, the English population's unwillingness to leave England in large numbers and settle in India ensured that their population remained fairly small. Unable to establish an English population like that of Massachusetts in India, company leadership turned instead to populating its jurisdictions with 'itinerant South, Central and East Asian artisans, soldiers, merchants, and laborers'.56 In a letter from London in the previous year, the company ordered its officials in Surat, for the organising of 'better settling of commerce' and 'good government' in Bombay, to 'endeavour to encourage the natives that are there and invite others to come thither'.57 To do so the company sought to promote its ecumenical governance, encouraging local artisans, merchants and labourers to resettle on their lands and be 'under our own Government'.<sup>58</sup> By encouraging a variety of peoples and faiths to settle in Bombay, the company adopted sufferance as its key characteristic, offering religious freedoms in return for labour, loyalty, taxes and commercial knowledge.

Indigenous migration and the commercial wealth that came with it were intrinsically linked to the EIC's introduction of sufferance, which provided English officials with the authority to offer substantial religious freedoms. Henry Gary wrote to Lord Arlington of the economic benefits of granting religious liberty to the people of Bombay. Proclaiming that by building Indians 'pagodas and mesquitas to exercise their religion publicly', the English would transform Bombay into a 'very famous

<sup>54</sup> George Forrest, ed., *Selections from the Letters, Despatches, and Other State Papers preserved in Bombay Secretariat* (Bombay: Government Central Press, 1887), I: p. 56.

<sup>55</sup> E/3/32 Surat to London, November 7, 1671.

<sup>56</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 262.

<sup>57</sup> Company to Surat Council on Bombay, March 27, 1668, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 56.

<sup>58</sup> BL IOR H/49 London to Surat, March 19, 1669.

and opulent port'.59 The building of places of worship was an important element of company officials' policy of religious sufferance. Company officials saw it as a way to physically advertise a developing policy targeting Catholics, Hindus, Jews and Muslims in Bombay and Madras, whereby the company would 'suffer them to enjoy the exercise of their own religion without the least disruption or discountenance'.60 Gary suggested that there would be a benefit to the company in building temples and mosques, as the funds 'reaped by it would be so considerable' that even if only 'by a voluntary tribute everyone would give', the company would be able to maintain the garrison of the city.<sup>61</sup> In 1654, Timmanna was acquiring five pagodas a month on duty from just one of the temples, a value of roughly £24 a year, which would have had significant purchasing power in the Indian market.<sup>62</sup> Furthermore, it was certainly enough to cover the cost of maintaining temples. More importantly, though, control of the temples gave the EIC greater influence and administrative power in the area. Hindus and Muslims were not the only faiths that the EIC leadership sought to encourage to resettle on company lands by building places of worship. Christian communities that included Catholics and Armenians, alongside Jews, were highly sought after in order to provide company interpreters and middlemen. Even as some advocated building temples and mosques, the Lieutenant Governor of Bombay also wrote to Surat to suggest that land could be given to the Armenians for them to move to and build a 'church for the service of God'.<sup>63</sup> Whether it was a figment of their imagination or reality, the fact was that EIC officials perceived the company's ecumenical governance as an incentive for varying religious communities to migrate and escape the presumably dogmatic local and European regimes that surrounded the company's territories. By offering religious freedoms in addition to financial incentives, EIC officials hoped to encourage the migration of Hindu, Muslim,

<sup>59</sup> Gary to Arlington. February 16/26, 1665, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: pp. 51–52.

<sup>60</sup> Ibid., XI: p. 128.

<sup>61</sup> Gary to Lord Arlington, March 22, 1665, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 53; for the opposite view, which argues the company was ambivalent to the building of temples, see Dikshitar, 'Around the City Pagodas', pp. 355–370.

<sup>62</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 262.

<sup>63</sup> Lieutenant Governor of Bombay to Lord Arlington, December 23, 1665, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 63.

Armenian, Jewish and Catholic merchants, traders and artisans into the company's territory to secure its commercial mission.

## Ecumenical Governance and Regulating Behaviour of English Personnel

As EIC officials dealt with establishing the broad religious policies, they also had to ensure that their ecumenical governance was observed practically through the good behaviour of company personnel and the permanent and practical presence of a church. During the first half of the seventeenth century, the EIC had to a greater or lesser extent tried to ensure that on its ships and in its factories, its religious governance was observed through congregational meetings. In 1661, Oxenden declared it was his 'chiefest care to promote his [God's] service and worship', whereas one of Aungier's first acts in Bombay was to ensure that the Sabbath was observed.<sup>64</sup> However, company officials found it progressively difficult to do so, due to the lack of designated spaces for worship. The company's policy of encouraging temple building is made even more startling by the fact that in 1663 Madras still lacked an Anglican church. Company officials were not unobservant of the irony of this, writing that they found it 'very preposterous', which was made all the worse by the fact that local Catholics had a church along with a churchyard to bury their dead, whilst the English were 'forc't to carry our dead corpses out of the town'.<sup>65</sup> The lack of allocated space for Protestant worship in the company's new territory presented company officials with problems in observing religious life as well as enforcing the company's ecumenical governance.

For much of the seventeenth century, company officials in India were tasked with either designating specific rooms in factories for worship or building chapels and churches. A complaint arrived from Fort St. George in 1660 that the English had helped two French friars build a church to 'boldly perform their idolatrous rites', rather than building one to 'serve God in a better manner'.<sup>66</sup> After some anti-Catholic rhetoric, the

<sup>66</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, X: pp. 402–406.

<sup>64</sup> BL IOR H/48 Commission and Instructions to Sir George Oxenden, March 19, 1661/2; BL Add. Ms 29/255 'The Establishment of English Law on Bombay', December 30, 1672.

<sup>65</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, XI: p. 58.

writer goes on: 'Twill be better for person that profess the Protestant religion… to serve God in some public place… that so strangers may see and hear we do it orderly, reverently and decently'.67 Likewise, Streynsham Master, the EIC agent in Madras, would later describe the 'irreverence and disregard of religion' that had been shown to their faith shown by his predecessor, who had refused to build a church.68 Master also commented on the 'French Padrys Church', suggesting that they had been much more successful in converting the local Indian populations and that the French had 'enlarged' their congregation to the detriment of the EIC.69 The reason for the success of Catholics in Madras, as well as other towns in India, was that the EIC were slow to build a 'church for the Protestants'.70

Until St. Marys church was completed in Madras in 1680, church services were conducted within the confines of the company's factories, often taking place in small rooms that had multiple functions. In Madras, the chapel was often used as a 'dining roome', leading one commentator to state that 'nothing can be more Scandalous' in India.<sup>71</sup> Such use of these areas was not only a danger to the reputation of the EIC but also Protestant faith amongst the local populations. Similarly, in Balasore, one EIC agent wrote that there was no place to entertain local dignitaries or hold events other 'than the hall' which, for the need of space, 'must be our Church'.<sup>72</sup> As areas that had various roles, chapels in factories were communal spaces that were shared between English Protestants, converts, dignitaries and Indian workers. Although in some factories such as in Bengal there was a 'very beautiful chapel for divine service', in general, there was no area where 'at prayer we may not be disturbed or gazed on

<sup>67</sup> Ibid.

<sup>70</sup> Ibid.

<sup>71</sup> BL IOR EUR Mss E/210/1, The Character of the Government at Fort St. George from 1672 to 1677 Sir William Langhorne Agent; Haig Z Smith, 'The East India Company, English Protestants, and the Wider Christian Community in Seventeenth-Century Surat, Bombay and Madras' in Supriya Chaudhuri, ed., *Religion and the City in India* (London: Routledge, 2021).

<sup>72</sup> BL IOR E/3 Bridges to Hall, Ballasore, May 12, 1669.

<sup>68</sup> Temple, Streynsham Master, I: p. 65.

<sup>69</sup> Ibid.

by the Workmen and Coolies that are continually about the factory'.<sup>73</sup> Factories were areas in which space was shared between English company servants and indigenous workers, meaning that private worship was either difficult or impossible to conduct.

Even when company officials had come to terms with the religiously cosmopolitan environment, and eventually established a space for worship, EIC officials had to find practical solutions to deal with environmental issues that affected the governance of its ecumenically diverse English and European employees. An essential element of most Protestant sects was the active observation of group worship; however, like all aspects of life in India, this raised practical problems due to denominational divisions that often flared into arguments between factors. After being accused by Joseph Hall of disobeying the company's orders, by only observing divine worship on the Sabbath and not every day, Shem Bridges, the local company chief, eloquently observed that in India it was difficult to find a religious direction that pleased all, writing 'it will be difficult to calculate an Ephemerides that will serve all Meridians'.74 This observation astutely recognised the difficulty the EIC's leaders and the company's ecumenical governance faced in trying to cater for the religious sentiments of the broad Protestant communities that had been established by the company earlier in the century. But as he points out, navigating one's way through religious life in the English factories in India could be difficult, just as with choosing the right course at sea. Bridges' language more broadly highlights the geographic separation from daily religious life and governance that company personnel underwent in its service.

Shared space was not the only issue facing religious worship in the EIC factories in India: company personnel also had to deal with the climate. As is so often the case, temperature presented northern European Protestants with a problem, as Englishmen and women struggled to cope with the heat and humidity of living in India. Bridges pointed out that only one service on a Sunday could be expected 'in these hot countries, for neither a man's spirits nor voice can hold touch here with

<sup>73</sup> William Gifford to Company, January 6, 1664, Foster, *English Factories*, XI: p. 284; BL IOR E/3 Shem Bridges to Joseph Hall, Ballasore, May 12, 1669.

<sup>74</sup> BL IOR E/3/Bridges to Hall, May 12, 1669.

long duties'.75 These environmental impracticalities encouraged ministers and company servants to adapt their methods, encouraging shorter sermons, which even then according to some were still 'thought to be too much by some'.76 The effect of this, according to Bridges, was that despite company orders for all 'men or company to hear divine service', many refused to turn up to church, with one individual even breaking the Sabbath to work.<sup>77</sup> Bridges's comments highlight how travelling to India not only put geographic distance between the company's personnel and the religious government of England, but also through the environmental, practical and geographic factors of the subcontinent complicated the company's ecumenical governance on the ground.

#### Ecumenical Governance and Passive Evangelism

Following its territorial acquisitions in India, passive evangelism continued to be the mainstay of the EIC's Protestant propagation in India. During the latter half of the century, the company's policy of passive evangelism was to be placed at the heart of its ecumenical governance. As the jurisdiction of the EIC expanded over a substantial multi-ethnic and multi-religious population, its policy of sufferance became an important element in continuing the spiritual mission of the company. Unlike the aggressive evangelism of Jesuits and Portuguese Catholics who had gone before them in Bombay and Madras, the EIC continued to maintain its policy of passive evangelism.<sup>78</sup> Having set it up in direct opposition to the Roman Catholic conversion methods, EIC officials were acutely aware of and quick to prevent the continuation of any such practices. The Deputy Governor of Bombay, Henry Young, in 1669 expressed concern and a need to be 'more cautious and circumspect' regarding the Portuguese Catholics and their methods, if the company was to succeed in Bombay.79 Furthermore, he warned of the practices of Catholic ministers, complaining that they 'use compulsion' in converting

<sup>75</sup> Ibid.

<sup>76</sup> Ibid.


local Indians, which was damaging relations with the local population.80 A month later, Young and some associates continued to complain about the effects of Catholic practices in Bombay, suggesting that they were forcibly baptising Indians.<sup>81</sup> The effect of this on the company was twofold. Firstly, it immediately caused the company serious problems as it directly undermined the EIC's policy of encouraging migration. Not only did the Catholics' actions directly oppose the EIC's use of sufferance, but they also acted to 'keep people from coming on' to the islands.<sup>82</sup> Secondly, Young questioned the conversion itself, and as such both the eternal soul of the individual and the evangelical aim of the company were placed at risk. For the Protestant Young and his associates, 'no Christian' was made through being 'forcibly [mock] baptized', as the act did not include the 'confession of faith… or profession to forsake the Devil… or to fight under [the] Christian banner'.<sup>83</sup> In response to the actions of the Catholic priests, Young ordered that they cease, pointing out that it was damaging relations with the local Indian population. Moreover, he commanded that all who came into the jurisdiction of the EIC in Bombay were 'not to christen nor punish' any 'Gentiles without a licence'.<sup>84</sup> In doing so, Young not only forced the Catholic community to concede the supremacy of the company's Protestant government and its policy of sufferance, but also ensured that the EIC's method of passive evangelism would have priority when trying to convert local Indian peoples.

More often company officials complained of the presence of both Portuguese and Indian Catholics converts in Bombay, whom they feared undermined the company's position as they secretly rejecting their authority, and remained loyal to the King of Portugal. With the acquisition of Bombay, a substantial population of Catholics fell within the jurisdiction of the EIC. English officials' fears seemed to be initially realised when Governor Gervaise Lucas was forced to take away land from Portuguese settlers in Bombay for refusing to swear an oath of allegiance

<sup>84</sup> Ibid.

<sup>80</sup> Henry Young and James Adams, to Surat, February 22, 1669, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 218.

<sup>81</sup> Young, Adams and Coates, March 17, 1669, ibid., p. 219.

<sup>82</sup> Ibid.

<sup>83</sup> Ibid.

to the English Crown.<sup>85</sup> The actions of Lucas and the practice of forcibly annexing Portuguese catholic's land led Oxenden to complain in 1668 that the former Governor had caused serious issues for the company in the long run. He still wished that 'the island were free of them all', going on to describing the Portuguese as 'a proud, lazy nation' and that he wished to 'have better commonwealthsmen in their rooms'.<sup>86</sup> Aungier complained that the Portuguese Jesuits in Bombay had been refusing to marry Catholics to Protestants, and had openly been trying to encourage bad blood between the English and the Indians. The governor argued that there was no doubt the 'villainous obstinacy' that had been caused was done so by the 'pitiful, ignorant malicious politicians, the Inquisitors of Goa'.<sup>87</sup> Although the EIC had always been wary of the Catholic presence in the Far East, its acquisition of Madras and Bombay aggravated traditional opinions and mistrust of Catholics that had their origins in England and Europe. Furthermore, it also forced company personnel and the structure of the EIC's ecumenical governance to deal with the political and religious inclusion of European and Asian Catholics into company life.

As far as the EIC was concerned, being Catholic alone was enough to place one under suspicion, no matter an individual's nationality. From 1660, the company reputedly received complaints that two French priests were working 'within a Protestant's jurisdiction' to subvert company authority.88 Despite this, no action was taken against the priests, as company agents seemed to be divided on the issue of the priests' loyalty. According to Thomas Chambers, one of the company factors at Madras, the priests had remained there in his opinion honestly offering 'to take an oath to be true and loyal to the King and Company, as Catholics used to do in England'.89 In India, just as in England, Catholics were an ever-present threat in the minds of the population. However, unlike in England, concerns about their presence were often outweighed by the benefits they brought to the English territories in India. According to


<sup>89</sup> Chamber's reply to a request by the Surat President Andrews and colleague Lambton to expel two French Padres, May 24, 1661, Foster, *English Factories*, XI: p. 40.

<sup>85</sup> Gary to Lord Arlington, 1667, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 304.

<sup>86</sup> Oxenden to Company, November 2, 1668, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 77.

one factor, these priests served the Portuguese Catholic community in Madras, and if the priests were forced to leave so would the Catholics, he feared, and the company would lose a percentage of its military manpower, not to mention their commercial knowledge.<sup>90</sup> However, the issue came to a head when agents in Madras suggested that the two priests had tried to instigate a violent rebellion by influencing the Portuguese living under the company's government.<sup>91</sup> This in particular draws attention to the complex attitudes English officials had regarding the presence of Catholics in England's territories abroad. This manifested itself in a perplexing combination of suspicion fuelled by religious discrimination and religious and political acceptance instigated by the demographic pressures of controlling seventeenth-century Bombay and Madras. Likewise, the story highlights the complicated relationship that Catholics, both in England and abroad, had with English expansion during the seventeenth century.92 Although company agents were divided amongst themselves in discussions on the loyalty of non-English residents, overall, the EIC ensured that their officials remained wary of religious and national loyalties, whilst at the same time, they tried to ensure the local populations' loyalty to the company.

For the religious and secular leadership of the EIC, Protestant evangelism was perceived to be an important factor in securing the company's relationship with the Indian community and was presented as a positive alternative to other European commercial companies. For the company in India, the Portuguese provided them with a European contemporary who accentuated the difference between the Catholic evangelism taking place in Goa and their own passive evangelism. The EIC's primary objective was to demonstrate their difference through its religious governance, which was unlike the zeal and heavy-handed evangelism of Catholic religious government; to this end, the chaplain would establish a well-governed, Protestant, godly society.

<sup>90</sup> Ibid.

<sup>91</sup> The agents reported that the priests had worked 'privately' to 'persuade such of the Portuguese soldiers whom they [the EIC] can't trust of such treachery of this Business'. Agent to Masulipatam factors, January 16, 1669, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII*:* p. 235.

<sup>92</sup> For involvement of Catholics in overseas expansion, see Glickman, *The English Catholic Community, 1688–1745: Politics, Culture and Ideology* (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell, 2009), particularly chapter 2.

The evangelical mission of the company that sought to establish English civility in India through the conversion of Indian peoples to Protestantism struggled in the face of South Asian theological flexibility. Company agents often wrote of their fascination and frustration with the doctrinal malleability of Indians, able to assimilate certain Christian practices and teaching into their wider faith. Just as with the MBC and the Native Americans, the subject of the appropriation and adaptation of Protestant doctrines within indigenous religions became a matter of concern for the EIC as well as a possible tool for the evangelical aims of the company's religious governance. For the company, it was bewildering that 'by the principles of their own religion they [Hindus] are allowed our sermons (though not our prayers)'.<sup>93</sup> However, one EIC agent believed this religious flexibility provided the company with an opportunity. He advocated that the company should utilise the ecclesiastical openness of Hinduism to passively evangelise, through the effective policing of its personnel's behaviour, indigenous population. By the good behaviour of its personnel, bolstered by the hope that some local people would attend church and hear sermons, agents hoped that the company through this 'true pious fraud' would 'deceive (or rather undeceive) them into our profession', converting them to Protestantism.94 For EIC leaders, this 'pious fraud' was the backbone of their passive proselytising agenda and a core element of the company's ecumenical governance. By at first ensuring the good behaviour of EIC personnel, and then slow exposure of Indians to the practices of the Protestant faith, the company's officials believed themselves to be involved in some form of religiously true and sanctioned trickery where they would encourage the local people to believe they had fallen rather than been pushed into the Christian embrace. Despite the problems Protestant interaction with native faiths posed, it was the aim of the EIC to ultimately through evangelical chicanery or as one contemporary described it by 'guile catch them in the net of the Gospel', and through this cunning method it was believed Hindus, Muslims, Parsis and numerous other peoples in India were to be brought into the fold of English Protestant civility.<sup>95</sup> However,

<sup>95</sup> Ibid.

<sup>93</sup> Bombay to Surat, October 18, 1668, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 72.

<sup>94</sup> Ibid.

this doctrinal flexibility also posed problems for the company, as the adoption of Protestant religious practices by Hindus did not necessarily mean complete conversion. Perceived by company officials as pretending 'to have become a voluntary Christian', those who 'relapsed' back to their old faiths were a troublesome repercussion of the company's ecumenical governance and its evangelical policy, which like these converts had 'not as yet been perfected'.<sup>96</sup>

For some, these incidents were compounded by the Protestant plurality that was represented in EIC's personnel. As in England, there was a diversity of Protestant denominations represented in the company's operations in India, so much so that factors did complain that officials in London were sending out ministers who did not conform to their beliefs. Although the Protestant plurality of the EIC had been well established by the middle of the century, many governors and officials continued, with limited success, to try and establish uniformity. Aungier bemoaned the factionalism of denominational and doctrinal differences in the company, relating it to issues in London. Aungier suggested that the religious division in England over the years had contributed to the onset of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Warning the members of company that it risked a similar fate, Aungier declared, 'nothing hath proved more fatal to Commonwealths than confusion in matters of religion'.<sup>97</sup> Following the appointment of four ministers to Surat and the Coromandel Coast in 1668, the factors at Bombay wrote back to the General Court, vexed that prior to ministers being sent out the council had recognised that 'that the principles of religion owned and practised by your servants in Surat and at Bombay differ much from the opinions professed by the gentlemen you have sent us'.98 Again, one year later, several of the factors were so bemused by the company's attitude towards its religious responsibility and the selection of ministers sent out to uphold it that they advised the company that in the future all ministers should carry the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury.99 Aungier ordered that it was everyone's duty in the company to treat its chaplains 'with all civility and due respect' and

<sup>96</sup> Bombay to Surat, February 22, 1669, ibid., p. 218.

<sup>97</sup> BL IOR H/49 Surat to London, November 26, 1669.

<sup>98</sup> Surat General Letter, November 25, 1669, in Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 248.

<sup>99</sup> Bridges, Sambrok, Clavell, Smithson and Herries to the Company, January 22, 1669, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 160.

to 'embrace them with the arms of brotherly love'.100 However, despite Aungier's pleas, sometimes the denominational differences in the EIC's religious government flared into arguments, highlighting the difficulties in policing its personnel's behaviour.

After his yearlong residency at Masulipatam, the Rev. Walter Hook (one of the four ministers mentioned above) was sent to Fort St. George, where his refusal to read from the Book of Common Prayer or follow the traditional Church of England liturgy caused dissension in the factory.101 The argument that took place over two days concluded with the chief factor, Mr. Jearsey, walking out of church and establishing his own prayer meetings in his house. Despite that argument and any ecclesiastical differences initially reported in earlier letters, Smithson writes that the minister, Hook, 'had gained very much the affections of most English here'.<sup>102</sup> Externally, the altercation was practically dealt with by the president at Madras, George Foxcroft, who pointed out that Hook could not be dismissed and that all sides were to blame, ordering peace and unity through a group meeting and essentially instructing all parties to 'deal with it'. Despite his despair at denominational confusion in the English community, even Aungier seemed to resign himself to its existence.<sup>103</sup> He acknowledged that the differences between them were 'in outward Ceremony only' and that they were 'one body of the Christian congregation'.<sup>104</sup> Although some had bemoaned the Protestant plurality that had been established in India, those who had been its detractors had to come to terms with the diversity of Protestantism represented in the company, in order to establish unified support for the company's ecumenical governance and its aims.


<sup>100</sup> BL IOR E/3 Surat General Letter, November 25, 1669.

<sup>101</sup> Diary of Smithson, August 21, 1669, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: pp. 284–287. <sup>102</sup> Ibid.

## Ecumenical Governance and Local Political Engagement

Not only did the ecumenical governance of the EIC attempt to unify English Protestants abroad, it also worked towards solidifying the political ties of Indian groups to the company. In the lead-up to the handover of Bombay, EIC intelligence reported that groups of local inhabitants had offered to 'deliver up the island in spite of the Portingals'.<sup>105</sup> These local inhabitants on several occasions continued to vocally exercise themselves politically under English rule, both within and across their religious communities, reinforcing as well as pushing the boundaries of the EIC policy of religious sufferance. One year before King Charles II signed the charter handing over control of Bombay to the company in 1667, 123 Christians, 84 Hindus and 18 Muslims presented the King with a petition outlining the abuses of the Portuguese. It detailed that under Portuguese rule, there was no religious toleration and only Roman Catholicism was acceptable. The petition then goes on to ask the King to prevent the government of Bombay from allowing any discussion to 'alienate us from your government'.106 Under the governorship of Gerald Aungier, in 1673 the council of Bombay proposed that for the better regulation of government, encouraging migration and appeasing religious groups, they should offer them their own councils. Aungier wrote that Muslims, Hindus and Portuguese should have their own chief and council and 'may be impowered to have a peculiar regard and care of their own cast to accommodate and quiet all small differences and quarrels which may happen amongst them'.107 By politically solidifying religious sufferance in the governance of Bombay and other towns that came under the EIC's jurisdiction, company officials not only secured their own aims but also met those of local Indian and European peoples.

In April of 1685, the company, fearful that Catholics in Bombay would leave their territories, and after repeated request from leading members of the Portuguese Catholic community, reinstated legal rights concerning

<sup>105</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, XI: pp. 143–144.

<sup>106</sup> Full document in S. A. Khan, *Anglo-Portuguese Negotiations Relating to Bombay, 1660–1677* (London: Oxford University Press, 1922), pp. 451–454.

<sup>107</sup> BL IOR G/3/2 Council to the East India Company, November 10, 1673.

the care of orphans in Bombay to the chamber of the Portuguese.<sup>108</sup> The 'chamber of the Portuguese' wrote to company officials in Bombay arguing that the EIC had neglected their responsibilities, and that no one had taken 'due care' of the 'Orphans or their affairs' in the port.<sup>109</sup> To rectify the issue, and ensure the better care of orphans, Portuguese leaders in the city requested that 'all Orphans together with an account of their estates' be put in the care of the chamber.<sup>110</sup> Under their protection, the chamber would find the orphans suitable guardians, whilst protecting their estates, and ensuring they were not embezzled from. Furthermore, the chamber would find marriage partners of 'suitable breeding according to their birth and quality' when the orphans came of age.<sup>111</sup> With no structure in place to deal with the issues being raised by the Portuguese, EIC officials agreed to reinstate all previous rights concerning the care of orphans to the city's Portuguese chamber. However, they limited the chamber's authority on the condition that each year on 'Thursday in Easter week' the orphans would be required to appear before the chamber and be permitted to raise 'just complaints against their guardians'.112 Conscious that an exodus of Portuguese Catholics from the territory would destabilise the company's position in Bombay, EIC officials treated the community as it did the Hindus and Muslims, offering limited legal and governmental rights and incentives in order to ensure that they continued to remain under English jurisdiction.

Again, the EIC officials utilised stories of persecution emerging from the subcontinent to publicise the company's ecumenical governance and the political representation it offered. Reports from Surat informed the company officials across India of the 'insufferable tyranny the Bannians endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors on account of their religion'.113 The level of persecution that the letters paint suggests it was quite extensive, including accounts of forced circumcision and conversion to Islam, bribery, racketeering and 'pulling down the

<sup>108</sup> BL IOR G/3/3 Proclamation following a consultation of the Company, April 9, 1685.

<sup>109</sup> Ibid.

<sup>110</sup> Ibid.

<sup>111</sup> Ibid.

<sup>112</sup> Ibid.

<sup>113</sup> Bombay to Surat, Surat, November 26, 1669, Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 191.

places of their idolatrous worship, erecting muskeets in their room'.<sup>114</sup> Even the company seems to not have escaped the growing pervasiveness of Aurangzeb's religious policies. In 1667, an Englishman named John Roach was imprisoned in Surat and the authorities there unsuccessfully tried to convert him, whilst a Persian scribe and former employee of the company was also forcibly circumcised for eating 'part of a watermelon' that belonged to a local religious leader.<sup>115</sup> Influenced by reports such as these, company officials across India, in particular at Bombay, sought to proclaim that they would 'treat all that shall come to them with civility and kindnesses' by offering religious and political safety and rights, which would encourage migration to company territories.116 For the company, its ecumenical governance offered it the best way to liberty of conscience for encouraging Hindus and Muslims to migrate to Bombay and Madras, whilst at the same time opening up the opportunity to draw them into Protestant 'civility'.

Migration did not necessarily have to mean long-term relocation, but also included encouragement for religious pilgrimages and the lucrative financial as well as religious endorsement that came with support for pilgrims who travelled through their territories. English officials very quickly after acquiring Bombay noticed the financial possibilities that pilgrims offered the company. Once again, Gary rushed to bring the company's attention to the financial possibilities that came with pilgrims, observing that a pilgrimage was not 'accomplished without the expense of an offering'.117 This was to not only be accomplished by building temples but also by protecting the ones that were already in existence. One example arose in Bengal in late 1685, when the EIC council ordered that they would not 'suffer any prejudice to be done to Churches, Mosques, [or] Pagodas' where 'God is worshipped, or pretended to be worshipped'.<sup>118</sup> By legislating for the building and protection of places of worship and holy sites, company officials hoped that pilgrims could be further encouraged into EIC lands. The connection between the EIC's ecumenical governance and its profit-making mission was further knitted

<sup>116</sup> Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 218.

<sup>114</sup> Ibid.

<sup>115</sup> Ibid.; President to Company, Surat 1667, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 284.

<sup>117</sup> Gary to Lord Arlington, March 22, 1665, Foster, *English Factories*, XII: p. 53.

<sup>118</sup> BL IOR E/3/91 Instructions to Bengal, January 14, 1685.

together through policies to protect religious buildings and sites, as well as financially exploiting religious pilgrims. Links between pilgrims and profitability had long been common knowledge.<sup>119</sup> In 1671, the council in Bombay would further legislate to ensure the safety of pilgrims in its lands, providing them with security sanctioning the Muslim pilgrimage to the tomb of Makhdum Fakih.120 Although EIC officials sought to encourage pilgrimages into and through its territories, the company did not, however, amount to total religious freedom. For the company's leaders, its policy of religious sufferance maintained and ensured that whilst pilgrims had the freedom to go on a pilgrimage, the authority of the Protestant company and its ecumenical governance would always hang over them.

As much as the EIC responded to the international and multi-religious dimensions of seventeenth-century India, this also meant it encompassed the paranoia that surrounded religious faith and national loyalty. The presence of both Catholicism and Islam presented EIC officials with a double-edged sword. In dire need of people to populate Bombay and its other cities, the company could ill afford to turn away people, whilst at the same time, the English were fearful that these populations held covert Portuguese or Mughal sympathies, and so consistently questioned their loyalty. Fearful of Muslim support for Aurangzeb over English interest, EIC officials in Bombay debated whether Muslims should be able to buy any more land, as it 'would be hazardous to the Island to suffer too many of one Cast of people'.121 The fear was that since there were 'but a few English' on the island, it would place the islands at risk of Mughal intervention.122 However, they were cautious not to damage the commercial mission of the company, ordering that skilled Muslim 'weavers' and their families could still settle.<sup>123</sup> On several occasions in 1673, the Bombay council even suggested that Muslims should be employed as soldiers in

<sup>119</sup> John M. Theilman, 'Medieval Pilgrims and the Origins of Tourism', *Journal of Popular Culture*, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1987), pp. 96–97.

<sup>120</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, p. 103; M. D. David, *History of Bombay 1661–1708* (Bombay: University of Bombay Press, 1973), pp. 438–439.

<sup>121</sup> BL IOR G/3/1 'A Motion being made weather it were consistent with the Company's interest or noe to suffer any Mooremen to buy any more Lands on Bombay ten what they already do', June 3, 1673.

<sup>123</sup> Ibid.

<sup>122</sup> Ibid.

the garrison of the city. Indeed, the loyalty of these groups was not even questioned but expected, the council arguing that unlike the Portuguese soldiers, it was upon the 'courage and good inclinations' of Muslims and Hindus that they 'may better rely'.<sup>124</sup> However, despite company officials' willingness to employ Muslims as soldiers, they remained deeply suspicious of them. In Bombay, company officials not only ordered that Muslim pilgrims be disarmed on their pilgrimage through the territory but also attempted to place a noise restriction on the call to prayer.125 The policy of sufferance ensured that the religious governance of the company was relatively successful, although it was susceptible to the influence of seventeenth-century Indian politics and English religious bigotry and mistrust.

Similarly, as local elites, both Hindu and Muslim, whom the EIC had previously supported in obtaining power, began to accumulate religious and political influence, company officials grew increasingly paranoid. In one case in 1696, the Governor of Madras, Elihu Yale, initiated steps to curb Beri Timmanna (Pedda Venkatadri's brother) and his temple management of both the Mallikesvarar and Triplicane temples. Yale was fearful that Timmanna was using the holy sites to build relations with Indian nobles in the interior. By removing some of Timmanna's privileges as one of the company's chief merchants in Madras, Yale hoped that the authority of the company's ecumenical governance would be suitably imposed.126 This was not to be the case, as Timmanna utilised his position to combat Yale's accusations, drawing upon his family's role in building the temples and his position in Madras, thus successfully maintaining his hold on the temples. Although unsuccessful and at times half-hearted, the attempts by EIC officials to try and assert the company's authority and its position as the highest governing body in clerical matters highlight that the company was concerned about how local Indians perceived its religious policies and ecumenical governance.

<sup>124</sup> BL IOR G/3/1, November 17, 1673.

<sup>125</sup> BL IOR G/3/10 Orders by William Aislaby, Bombay Diary, November 12, 1694; Stern, *Company-State*, p. 104.

<sup>126</sup> Tamil Nadu State Archives Chennai, Records of Fort St. George, Consultations (PC). April 10 and 18, 1696; Mukund, *View from Below*, p. 55.

### Ecumenical Government and the Exportation of English Customs and Prejudices

Religious sufferance in the company's ecumenical governance did not, however, translate into religious understanding. Rather, the EIC desired to assert the authority and dominance of the English Protestant faith, thereby giving a governmental platform for English religious prejudices and fears to be acted out in a multi-religious environment that only inflamed them. From the late 1650s onwards, the transportation and enactment of English religious superstition and prejudices in the company's religious governance can be traced through a series of sporadic but nonetheless frequent references by company officials to witchcraft. English ideas and concepts around witchcraft were exported around the globe, with the earliest known execution for witchcraft outside of the British Isles, taking place in New England in 1647 and culminating with the infamous Salem trials between 1692 and 1693.<sup>127</sup> Similarly, the arrival of semi-permanent English religious policy in India brought with it occasions in which company agents, as well as local people, accused or made accusations of witchcraft. In 1650, the president and agents at Surat informed the company in London of the behaviour of Captain Durson. Of all the grievances that had been levelled against him, the most serious was the fact that his chaplain, Robert Winchester, when docked at Moka refused to go back on the ship due to his 'familiarity with witches and sorcerers'.<sup>128</sup> Accusations of witchcraft in India during this period took on much the same format as those in the previous decades in England. These accusations illustrated the arrival of English prejudices into the company's ecumenical governance, especially paranoia surrounding its authority. As the company's jurisdictional authority increased, so too did the need to mark its governmental identity, which under these new pressures straddled the religious worlds of both England and India.

Although the company's ecumenical governance tried to be inclusive, paranoia and fear of a substantial (and possibly hostile) population meant that EIC officials' fear of witchcraft was magnified by ignorance

<sup>128</sup> President Merry and Messrs. Tash, Pearce and Oxenden at Swally Marine to the Company January 25, 1650, Foster, *English Factories*, IIX: p. 283.

<sup>127</sup> Justin Windsor suggests that between 1647 and 1662, 11 individuals were executed in New England for witchcraft: see Windsor, *The Memorial History of Boston including Suffolk County Massachusetts 1630–1880*, 4 vols. (Boston: Osgood, 1881), II: p. 133.

of local religious customs as well as local social animosity. Unfamiliarity with local religious customs no doubt played its part in accusations of witchcraft, like in England where it was usually triggered by the allegation of '*maleficium*', in which animosity between the English and the natives and acts of social and physical malevolence often manifested as allegations of witchcraft.129 Furthermore, a growing sense of jealousy amongst the local Indian population towards powerful elites whom the company supported also provided the perfect environment for witchcraft allegations to be made. In 1654, EIC officials in Madras received 51 charges against the Brahmins from local 'painters, weavers &c', the 36th of which accused the Brahmins of conducting harmful 'charms, spells, roots and other witchcrafts' against any who spoke out against them.130 Although exacerbated by religious ignorance, the emergence of English witchcraft trials in India had more to do with the EIC's ecumenical governance and the animosity it created by empowering certain groups' elites through both commercial and religious patronage.

A decade after local painters and weavers accused the Brahmins of witchcraft, Madras was still the centre of further witchcraft trials. These accusations seemed to reach their climax during a court case presided over by Aungier and John Child in Bombay, where a 'noted wizard' was accused of murdering four people.131 Interestingly, the letters about the court case also seem to suggest that there were four more people imprisoned at the time for the same accusations, and that the 'country people bring in daily their complaints of their losses and abuses recorded by them'.<sup>132</sup> The jury was also informed by the man found guilty of murder and sorcery that there were 'several as guilty as himself', at which he gave the court their names.133 The author of the letters described the incident bluntly, stating that to send a message and cement, the authority of the

<sup>129</sup> Keith Thomas, *Religion and the Decline of Magic* (London: Penguin, 1971), pp. 862–867.

<sup>130</sup> Charges against the Brahmins, given by the painters, weavers, &c. inhabiting Chanapatam, December 25, 1654, Foster, *English Factories*, IX: pp. 241–242.

<sup>131</sup> BL IOR G/36/105 Bombay to Surat, May 18, 1671; Bombay to Surat, June 8, 1671; Bombay to Surat, June 24, 1671; Appendix B, 'Burning of a Wizard', April 23, June 14, 1671, in John Anderson, *English Intercourse with Siam in the Seventeenth Century* (London: Trübner & Co., 1890), pp. 90, 403–404; see also Stern, *Company-State*, p. 109.

<sup>132</sup> BL IOR G/36/105 Bombay to Surat, June 8, 1671.

<sup>133</sup> Anderson, *English Intercourse*, p. 404.

company that 'burning would be far the greatest terror', concluding, 'so we burnt him'.134 William Jearsey, a company agent at Madras, paranoid about Beri Timmanna's growing power, accused him of being involved in witchcraft and employing 'people to bewitch me to death'.<sup>135</sup> Either religiously paranoid about Timmanna's weight amongst the religious community in Madras, or wishing to prey upon the fears of others, either way, Timmanna's religious dealings with the Brahmins placed him in a central position to face allegations of witchcraft. However, despite the fact that Jearsey wished him hanged, Timmanna's connections were too substantial, a fact that even Jearsey had to admit: 'But I know him so serviceable to them [i.e. the company] that I would not, for any selfinterest out him'.136 The accusations and trials around witchcraft in this period highlight domestic responses of English ecumenical governance to religious paranoia. Furthermore, they also show how English mechanisms of governance were instituted abroad, which in multi-faith environments often did more to aggravate local animosities towards leaders than subdue them. The accusations of witchcraft and the effects of religious paranoia were also mirrored in Portuguese Goa, whose records similarly highlight moments when the authorities made accusations of 'magic' and punished local peoples.137 Through its ecumenical governance, the company tried to control the behaviour and at times constrict or enhance the power of local leaders to ensure the governmental authority of the EIC in its new jurisdiction.

Throughout the second half of the seventeenth century, the company took steps to ensure that wealthy Indians could secure prestige through religious means; however, they had to fall in line with the company's ecumenical governance. Following Timmanna's death, his brother took control of the temple complex, during which time EIC officials made moves to ensure that the grievances of the local Indian population were being addressed by the company's ecumenical governance. In 1678, both of Timmanna's brothers, Pedda and Chinna Venkatadri, were forced to appear before a court in Madras. The latter was accused, imprisoned and

<sup>134</sup> Ibid.

<sup>135</sup> Accusations levelled by William Jearsey against a Mr. Winter, January 10, 1665, Foster, *English Factories*, IX: p. 388.

<sup>136</sup> Ibid.

<sup>137</sup> Priolkar, *The Goa Inquisition*, pp. 30, 35, 43, 52–53.

fined for extorting substantial sums out of the local population under the pretext of 'maintaining' the temples.138 Even though he was later released and the fine waived, the company maintained the ban on his activities.<sup>139</sup> The company's policy of supporting the building of temples to encourage local migration not only highlights one element of its ecumenical governance but also links the relationship between English officials and the company's wealthy native merchants. In 1676, one of Timmanna's associates, Kasi Viranna, would obtain total control of Triplicane from the Golconda government, amounting to a substantial income for Viranna each year.140 Viranna built the first mosque in Madras in 1680 and despite being a Hindu continued to maintain and receive finances from it for the rest of his life.<sup>141</sup> Like many other merchants in Southern India, Viranna utilised his position in the company to develop financial portfolios that would merge their commercial aspirations with the local religious and political authorities in India.142 In doing so, they were able to accumulate substantial wealth and gain influence both amongst the company and the local Indian population. Although wary of their local merchants wielding too much control, seeing this as possibly damaging to its authority, the EIC at the same time also sought to keep the merchants happy to foster the company's commercial objectives.

The company built upon the ideas of contemporaries, such as Abel Boyer, aiming to secure its commercial relationships with local Indian peoples by ensuring that they infused 'credit with a greater sense of surety and constancy' through moral and religious ties.<sup>143</sup> According to Boyer, credit, whether for the individual or the state, was the 'opinion

<sup>138</sup> Tamil Nadu State Archives, Chennai Records of Fort St. George (PC), November 25, 1678; Mukund, *View From Below*, p. 53.

<sup>139</sup> PC. November 25, 1678.

<sup>140</sup> For more on the importance of Kasi Viranna as a merchant, see Brennig, 'Chief Merchants', pp. 334–340; Stern, *Company-State*, p. 95.

<sup>141</sup> Dikshitar, *Around the City*, p. 365.

<sup>142</sup> Sanjay Subrahmanyam and C.A. Bayly, 'Portfolio Capitalist and the Political Economy of Early Modern India', *Indian Economic Social History Review*, Vol. 25, No. 4 (1988), p. 412.

<sup>143</sup> Abel Boyer, *An Essay towards the history of the last ministry and Parliament: containing seasonable reflections on I. Favourites. II. Ministers of state. III. Parties. IV. Parliaments. And V. Publick credit* (London: 1710); Carl Wennerlind, *Casualties of Credit: The English Financial Revolution, 1620–1720* (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), pp. 178–180.

or confidence we have in another's Ability, Honour, and Punctuality to Discharge or Pay a Debt'.<sup>144</sup> It was an individual or group of individuals' ability, honour, punctuality and honesty that ensured a mix of reputation and expectation in dictating terms of credit. As such, the prestige of local merchants in obtaining control and building temples encouraged the positive perception of individuals associated with the company, which according to officials 'increased the credit in local trade' and thus was seen as beneficial to the company.<sup>145</sup> By ensuring that the local Indian merchants who associated with the company had moral and religious connections, the company anticipated that the so 'ingrained moral virtues might stabilize public opinion' towards the company and its credit.<sup>146</sup> This, however, was by no means to suggest that company officials did not take steps to ensure that local merchants such as Timmanna and Viranna and their associates did not supersede the authority of the company.

The company's ecumenical governance was not only concerned with empowering local merchants and individuals, but also influential religious groups. Officials were incredibly keen to project the company's policy of religious sufferance amongst the Armenian community, hoping that it would encourage their support and thereby provide the EIC access to the overland silk trade to the Levant that they monopolised. An agreement was reached between Josiah Child, John Chardin and Khwaja Panous Callender after protracted negotiations in London, in which the Armenians were offered liberties 'as if they were English born', whereby they were to have 'free and undisturbed liberty of the exercise of their own Religion'.147 The company's actions towards Armenians highlight how its ecumenical governance in many ways foreshadowed events towards religious freedom in England, as it would be another year before such a formal act allowed such religious freedoms to Protestant Nonconformists. Company leaders such as Gary, Cooke and Childs continued to hope that offering religious freedom and allowing space for the building of

<sup>146</sup> Wennerlind, *Casualties of Credit*, p. 179.

<sup>144</sup> Boyer, *An Essay Towards the history*, p. 60.

<sup>145</sup> Mukund, *View from Below*, p. 54.

<sup>147</sup> BL IOR H/634 'Agreement of the East India Company with the Armenian Nation', June 22, 1688; see also Ferrier, 'Agreement of the East India Company with the Armenian Nation 22nd June 1688', *Revue des Etudes Armeniennes*, Vol. 7 (Paris, 1971), pp. 427–443; Ferrier, 'The Armenians', pp. 49–50.

places of worship would make the EIC territories more appealing for religious and commercial migrants. Churches offered visual representation of the company's policy of religious sufferance, whilst also underlining the aims of the company's ecumenical governance to offer further freedoms and assurances to encourage influential religious groups to migrate to company lands.

Throughout this period, EIC's ecumenical governance evolved both in opposition to and in tandem with local religious politics. Despite moments of criticism, English officials often wrote describing the religious freedom in Indian society and how this could be mirrored within the newly acquired jurisdictions of the EIC. The religious governance of the subcontinent had long-established precedents that European travellers often commented on; although for many EIC officials, this was not relatable to any significant extent until the company acquired territory following the Braganza treaty.<sup>148</sup> In a letter drafted but unsent whilst he was Agent and Governor of Fort St. George, Streynsham Master went into great detail to inform its unknown recipient of the extent of sufferance in matters of Indian governance.<sup>149</sup> Master recalled his initial misconceptions and fears upon leaving England, writing that he believed the English (along with other Christians) in India 'did not live agreeable to any rules of Religion'.150 However, through his observations, he moves swiftly on to not only describe how his fears were ill-founded but also suggest that Indian religious governance had something to offer his readers in England and Europe. Reinforcing Jahangir's remarks to Roe some 60 years earlier, Master declared that all faiths in India, not just Christians, were allowed to worship and perform an 'outward show of Sanctity'.<sup>151</sup> Particularly interested in Christians in India, Master described how Protestant, Catholic and Armenian communities all had 'assemblies of their own Nations', going on to briefly outline the individual ways in which these communities met.<sup>152</sup> By connecting the

<sup>152</sup> Ibid.

<sup>148</sup> See Chapter Three for more on Mughal, Maratha and Ottoman religious governance.

<sup>149</sup> BL IOR EUR Mss E/210 Streynsham Master's draft letter.

<sup>150</sup> Ibid.

<sup>151</sup> Ibid.

denomination to nation, Master at once highlighted the religious diversity of the Christian community in Madras and India (as a whole). In doing so, Masters called attention to the unjustified fear that diversity would mean disloyalty, and that in India it was just the opposite, with all religious communities being considered loyal enough to be granted some level of autonomy.153

Furthermore, the multi-national and multi-religious dimensions of life in India defined not only Indian religious governance but also how the company would govern in the region. By the 1690s, the company had effectively established ecumenical governance that mirrored the traditional religious autonomy of India. In Madras, the English mayor of the town was supported by numerous aldermen and burgesses, several of whom were from different Indian religious and ethnic groups: one Armenian, one or two Jews, Portuguese, Hindus, and one Muslim.154 In Bombay, the governors Cooke, Lucas and Gary, as well as presidents Oxenden and Aungier, adopted de facto religious tolerance, fuelled by the need for the company to appease religious groups within the port. Between 1672 and 1700 the company at Bombay received from many Hindus, Muslims and Catholics 50 petitions relating to political and legal representation, and territorial and business disputes. In the incidents involving political representation, the company often ruled in favour of the religious communities, ensuring that Muslim and Hindu communities in Bombay were afforded a certain amount of autonomy in company held jurisdictions.155

At one moment, Master in his observations on religious governance in India paradoxically goes on to question European cultural superiority, whilst reinforcing the growing necessity for the English to emulate Indian practices whilst imposing their governmental authority in India. With a hint of respect and even admiration, Master wrote that under the customs and laws of India, Christians lived more comfortably 'than in Europe'.156 India was not only noticeably different from Europe, being far more pragmatic in many ways, but according to Master, the devotion of Indians to their faiths far exceeded that of the English. Ironically, Master concludes


<sup>153</sup> Balachandran, 'Of Corporations and Caste Heads.'

<sup>154</sup> BL IOR E/3/92 East India Company to FSG, January 22, 1692.

his discussion by suggesting that by mirroring the practices of Indian religious governance along with Indians' devotion to religion, the English would once again gain cultural superiority as they who 'serve God most & best'.<sup>157</sup>

### Conclusion

The EIC's ecumenical governance evolved, in the years following 1661, out of a necessity to deal with the religious cosmopolitanism of the company's newly acquired territories in India. Unlike the MBC's theocracy, the EIC was obliged to adopt a broad, religiously inclusive ecumenical model that ensured the company's commercial and governmental success in its territories. This was done by offering graduated levels of political inclusion to various religious communities in its territories in India. Through the company's ecumenical governance, EIC officials hoped that Protestant 'piety and morality' would be observed in its territories and that ultimately the consequences of this piety and morality would not only 'refashion settlers into obedient and productive subjects' but also the local Indian peoples.158 In Bombay, where the minister was congratulated for his help in establishing 'sobriety, religion, peace', the effect of such ecumenical governance had been 'the rooting out of sin and prophaneness and the encouragement of piety and virtue among us'.159 Although this remained a long-term goal of the company's ecumenical governance, it also had an immediate role in securing the commercial and political aims of the company leadership.

The peaceable securing of territory and trade was a priority for company officials in Bombay and Madras; and ecumenical governance, although remaining distinctly Protestant, would encompass the diverse religious groups that were represented in Indian society. This model not only offered EIC officials the means to achieve this goal, but its creation and evolution in India highlight the flexibility of companies in establishing forms of governance that expanded traditional ideas of the English government. Faced with ruling over a religiously cosmopolitan jurisdiction, the EIC's religious and secular leadership was forced to adapt the

<sup>157</sup> Ibid.

<sup>158</sup> Stern, *Company-State*, p. 108.

<sup>159</sup> General Letter, November 25, 1669, in Foster, *English Factories*, XIII: p. 249.

religious governance of the company to meet the new civic, ecclesiastical and evangelical needs of English government in India. Just as in the first half of the century, the role of religious governance in policing EIC personnel was considered vital. However, following the acquisition of new territory containing multi-religious populations, the policing of company personnel developed more overtly than before in relation to passive evangelism. Company leadership continued to be obsessed with the behaviour of company personnel and how their behaviour would affect both religious and commercial relations with local Indian people.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Conclusion

Out of a desire to regulate the behaviour of their personnel and people in their jurisdictions across the world, overseas trading companies developed models of religious governance that connected and divided the formation of English government outside England. These models highlight the similarities in the experiences and expectations of the development of English corporate governance across the globe, connecting England's overseas companies from Bombay to Boston. They also emphasise the impact local circumstances and changing priorities had on dividing corporate identity and the character of English expansion in differing geographies. Each company sought to police the daily behaviour of those under their jurisdiction, with the members and leaders devising varying models of religious governance to secure their religious, commercial, diplomatic and political missions. Through figures such as the company chaplain, England's overseas companies shared a desire for basic religious care across the globe. However, they would autonomously develop governmental identities using pastoral, theocratic or ecumenical models to deal with the local challenges that affected each company, in doing so illustrating how religious governance, although sometimes divisive, also connected them. Through these models, they aimed to maintain their autonomy and achieve their individual missions, by policing the religious

© The Author(s) 2022 H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4\_7

249

and political behaviour of not only their English personnel but also the numerous peoples, cultures and faiths that fell under their expanding jurisdictions. Over the seventeenth century, the diverse models of overseas government that policed the character of English global expansion were connected through shared corporate frameworks. The variety of models of religious governance that England's seventeenth-century companies adopted and the methods they employed have been explored in this book to examine the early formation of governmental identity in the English expansion.

Companies established religious, social and political identities for non-English communities that would lay the foundations for imperial perceptions of indigenous peoples and their governmental positions for centuries to come. Through the overseas companies, Native Americans, Hindus, Muslims, Armenians and Catholics, along with many other faiths, developed an intimate understanding of the English legal and governmental frameworks. This knowledge provided these communities with the ability to strengthen their positions in support for, or opposition to, the models of governance that companies adopted. One repercussion was the weakening of the companies' autonomy, as by the end of the century they either faced growing criticism from England for being too theocratic or began neglecting their duty through a policy of religious sufferance.

Overseas companies, through religious governance, framed the character of English government abroad by attempting to regulate the political and religious behaviour of English and indigenous peoples. Tracing the development of religious governance in several companies highlights the connectivity of attempts to monitor behaviour by English corporations through an assessment of the evolution of pastoral, theocratic and ecumenical models of corporate governance. From preventing English peoples from becoming apostates in the Ottoman and Mughal Empires, to monitoring the conversion of Native Americans such as Matoaka and James Printer, English overseas companies sought to both secure and expand their governmental control by regulating religious behaviour.

Influenced by multiple factors, including internal denominational pressures, a desire to evangelise, or promote religiously cosmopolitan environments abroad, religious governance helped form models of governance that developed distinct governmental identities to control religious and political life in the jurisdiction of the companies. Whether through the theocratic imposition of the MBC's strict moral codes and aggressive annexation of indigenous peoples' lands, or the policies of political and legal and ecumenical inclusion of Hindu, Muslim and Catholic peoples under the EIC, the models of religious governance established by companies abroad regulated the behaviour of various religious groups and individuals within them.

Trading corporations were vehicles that not only advanced religious governance but also created it. In doing so, the models they established impacted the character and identity of English overseas expansion in the seventeenth century. Although at opposing ends of the spectrum, the MBC's theocratic governance and the EIC's ecumenical governance connect the character of English corporate expansion. They exemplify the importance of religious governance as a foundational tool in regulating and advancing the companies' authority over peoples who came under their governmental control. In the case of the MBC's theocratic governance, not only enforced religious uniformity, but also justified its leaders' aggressive expansion into other English Quaker and Baptist, as well as Native American, settlements. For the EIC, its ecumenical governance through the moderate use of political and legal inclusion regulated the religious and political behaviour of numerous peoples of varying faiths, and through it was also able to encourage migration and secure the corporation's commercial and governmental aims in the subcontinent. Both companies illustrate how the same driving principle of regulating behaviour developed distinctive forms of governmental identities, based in corporate ideas of exclusivity and inclusivity. However, this not only emphasises the varietion of English corporate governance in the seventeenth century but also how the various forms were connected. Notwithstanding the differences in their finished governmental structures, this assessment of religious governance underlines the shared aims of England's overseas companies, focusing on how they developed models of governance to ensure governmental and commercial success through monitoring religious and political behaviour.

An investigation into the involvement in the development of religious governance of individuals such as John Winthrop, Patrick Copland and Streynsham Master as well as communities such as Narragansett petitioners, Armenian middlemen, Arabic Tutors and Hindu merchants illustrates the connected development of models of governance in England's emerging colonial empire. This firstly helps us to understand how communities, both inside and outside the corporate sphere, English and indigenous, helped to influence the development of these models of governance. For example, in the EIC, Muslim, Hindu, Catholic and orthodox and cultural Armenian communities obtained inclusion in the government of Bombay, ensuring their autonomy by employing English legal and political means, whilst conversely reinforcing the ecumenical governance of the company. At the same time, the development of theocratic governance in the MBC was influenced by the religious necessity to not embrace diversity, but instead enforce uniformity. This provided further justification for the company's Congregationalist community to support aggressive territorial evangelism, forcing English settlers and indigenous communities to either adopt their theocratic governance or face persecution and ostracism from their government. Secondly, the influence of corporate individuals in connecting the development of religious governance across the English world in the seventeenth century is highlighted. The role of corporate chaplains in establishing networks of knowledge exchange influenced political, religious and academic debates across the Atlantic and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean. Chaplains such as Patrick Copland, through their evangelical aims and experiences, developed connections across companies, influencing the evolution of religious governance in multiple corporate environments. However, influential individuals who were not chaplains but were connected to the geographic development of religious governance, such as Henry Vane Jr, Thomas Roe and Josiah Child, have also been assessed in order to illustrate the connectivity and far-reaching implications of corporate religious governance.

By the end of the seventeenth century, England's overseas companies had adapted various models of religious governance to stamp their authority over peoples and faiths across the globe, thereby securing their governmental autonomy. However, as a new century approached, the English metropole took steps to centralise the role of religion, evangelism and overseas expansion. Consequently, this changed the character of English imperial expansion and the relationship between English corporate governance and religion forever. Despite the success of England's overseas companies at establishing visible forms of English religious governance from Cape Cod to the Coromandel Coast, there was mounting pressure within England to do more to advance English Christian government abroad.

In 1687, John Dryden commented dryly, 'with my country's pardon, it's said, "Religion is the least of all our Trade"'.1 Eight years later, Humphrey Prideaux, the future dean of Norwich, decried the fact that the EIC 'had done nothing to instruct' the many Hindus and Muslims within their jurisdictions in the Christian faith and they had not been given the 'means whereby they may be sav'd.'2 Prideaux would also go on to state, in a report of religion in the company's factories in India, that the company had 'failed to propagate the Gospel among the Natives', whilst claiming that it was in the 'secular interests' of the company 'as well as Spiritual' for them to focus on evangelism.3 As criticism mounted over the EIC's corporate religious governance, and its 'inability' to actively evangelise, Parliament, the Crown and leaders in the established Church took steps to formally impose strict codes for religious governance in these companies, through their charters. Moreover, the establishment of evangelical corporations such as the NEC, SPCK and the Society for Promoting the Gospel in Foreign Parts weakened the incentives to establish forms of corporate religious governance in England's commercial companies, as it transferred much of the religious responsibility away from them. By removing this responsibility, corporations were unshackled from the constraints of having to be religiously mindful in their government, allowing a new era of aggressive imperial expansion to take shape that differed greatly from the corporate overseas expansion of the seventeenth century.

<sup>1</sup> John Dryden, *The hind and the panther a poem, in three parts* (London: 1687), p. 63.

<sup>2</sup> Humphrey Prideux to Thomas Tenscion, March 27, 1695, Lambeth Palace Library Archives (LPRA) MS 933, no. 1; Stern, *The Company-State*, p. 116.

<sup>3</sup> Lambeth Palace Archives, MS 933, no. 2.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

## Bibliography

#### Manuscript and Archival Sources (Abbreviations Used in the Text Follow in parenthesis)

Bodleian Library, Oxford (Bod) Rawlinson Mss (Rawl) Selden Mss Topographical Collection for Oxfordshire (Top. Oxon) British Library (BL) Manuscripts Additional MSS Egerton MS Lansdowne Mss India Office Records (IOR) B/3, Court Minutes, 1606–1611 B/5, Court Minutes, 1613–1615 B/6, Court Minutes, 1617–1620 B/8, Court Minutes, 1623–1624 B/9, Court Minutes, 1624–1625 B/11, Court Minutes, 1626–1627 B/12, Court Minutes, 1627–1628 B/13, Court Minutes, 1628–1629 B/19, Court Minutes, 1639–1641 B/21, Court Minutes, 1643–1646 B/29, Court Minutes, 1666–1680 E/3, Original Correspondences 1602–1700

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022 H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4

255

G/3, Factory Records Bombay, 1669–1700 G/12, Factory Records China & Japan, 1600–1700 G/19, Factory Records Fort St. George (Madras), 1655–1700 G/21, Factory Records Java, 1595–1671 G/36, Factory Records Surat, 1668–1671 G/40, Factory Records Miscellaneous, 1608–1700 H/48–56, State Papers relating to Bombay, 1661–1693 EUR Mss E210, Streynsham Master Papers Dorset Record Office DC/DOB/8/1, Dorchester Borough Records and Court Book Lambeth Palace Library Archives (LPRA) Manuscripts MS 933, Miscellaneous Papers, 1605–1714 London Metropolitan Archives (LMA) New England Company (CLC/540) Ms. 07908, Charter of incorporation by Charles II, 7 Feb, 1662 Ms. 07942, List of governors, treasurers, clerks and members, 1668–1700 Ms. 07943, Account of moneys received and disbursed 1649–55 Ms. 07952, Loose court and committee minutes 1655–1700 Magdalene College, Cambridge Manuscripts Ferrar Papers (FP) The National Archives, Kew (TNA) Colonial Office Series CO 5/902 New England Council CO 77 East Indies Original Correspondence State Papers Domestic SP 14 James I SP 16 Charles I SP 25 Council of State: Books and Accounts 1639–1660 State Papers Foreign SP 63 Ireland SP 97 Turkey SP 99 Venice SP 105 British legations SP 107 Confidential SP 110 Levant Company Tamil Nadu State Archives, Chennai Records of Fort St. George Public Department Consultations (PC) 1672–1699 Oxford Record Office (ORF)

PAR/207/4/F1/1 St Martin's Church, Oxford: Churchwardens' Accounts, 1540–1680

#### Online Resources

*Early English Books Online* (www.eebo.chadwyck.com).


#### Calendars and Printed Records


*Winthrop Papers*, 5 vols. (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1944).


#### Primary Printed Materials


Anonymous, *New England's First Fruits* (London: 1643).


Charles I, *Eikon Basilike* (London: 1648).

Child, Josiah, *A New Discourse on Trade* (London: 1693).


*his masters absence revived, and now thus re-acting in Nevv-England. Or, the combate of the united colonies, not onely against some of the natives and subjects but against the authority also of the kingdom of England, ... Wherein is declared an act of a great people and country of the Indians in those parts, ... in their voluntary submission and subjection unto the protection and government of Old England* (London: 1646).


Morton, Nathaniel, *New England's Memorial* (Cambridge, MA: 1669).

Morton, Thomas, *New English Canaan; or New Canaan* (London: 1632).

*Mercurius Britanicus* 60 (London: 2–9 December 1655).


#### Secondary Sources


## Index

#### **A**

Abbot, George, Archbishop of Canterbury, 4, 57, 93, 117, 118, 138, 144 Abbot, Maurice, 117, 138 Abbot, Robert, Bishop of Salisbury, 117 Adams, William, 130 Agra, 121, 125, 141 Akbar, 127, 215 Relationship with Portuguese, 15 Aleppo, 30, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 143, 145, 147, 149 Algonquins, 37, 43, 46, 49, 51, 67 Conversion, 37, 49, 50–63 Language, 171 Religious practices and customs, 50, 65–67 compared to Catholics, 64–65 Altham, Emmanuel, 81 Andros, Edmund, 198–199 Selling Metacom arms, 199

Anglicanism (Anglican), 21–22, 63, 87–89, 95, 101, 117, 120, 124, 156, 163, 168, 184, 225 Antinomian controversy, 102–9 Apostasy, 7, 28, 115–14, 118–23, 141–42 Blackwell, Joshua, 121–23 Conversion to Catholicism, 121, 123 Effect on Identity, 140 Islam, 120–23, 140, 141 Mughal & Ottoman Law, 122, 140 National image, 120–21 Preventing, 113–14, 118–23 Armenian, 26, 144, 154–56, 214, 220, 224, 225, 244, 252 Orthodox, 13, 139, 141, 208, 210, 211 Churches, 245 Petition, 155 Relationship with EIC, 154–55, 244, 247, 252 Silk Trade, 155, 244

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022 H. Z. Smith, *Religion and Governance in England's Emerging Colonial Empire, 1601–1698*, New Transculturalisms, 1400–1800, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70131-4

Aungier, Gerald, 214, 225, 229–30, 233, 235, 241, 246 Aurangzeb, 209, 215–16, 236–8, 238 EIC response to leadership, 213, 215–16, 220, 236–37 *Jizya*, 209, 215–16

#### **B**

Bargrave, John, 63–64 Batavia, 211–13 Bertie, Robert, Lord Willoughby, 49 Biddulph, William, 30, 125, 136 Bombay, 9, 159, 183, 208, 210, 212, 214–16, 218, 223–24, 228–30, 233, 241, 247, 249 Catholics, 214–15, 218–20, 228–31, 235–36 English population, 214 migration to, 215–16, 220–25, 231–32, 237–38 Orphans, 235–36 Petitions, 235, 246 religious councils, 235 Religious diversity, 214, 224, 235 Boston, 8, 33, 96–97, 102, 106, 163, 172, 176, 195, 197, 198, 212, 249 Boston martyrs, 8–9, 191 Boyer, Abel, 243 Boyle, Robert, 178–80, 192–93 Bradford, William, 76–77, 81–83, 87, 88–89 Relationship with Morton, Thomas, 86–90 Braganza, Catherine, 210 Braganza Treaty, 154, 156, 214, 245 Breton, Thomas, 121–23 Brewster, William, 81, 84 Bridges, Shem, 227–28 Broadgate, John, 103, 106, 156–58

#### **C**

Calcutta, 210 Canonicus, 169, 187 Castell, William, 171 Catholic (Catholicism), 5, 91, 117, 124–32, 154, 208, 210, 211, 214–15, 217–20, 225–26, 228–29, 235, 238 Expansion (Iberian), 13–16, 119, 124–32, 174, 217–20 forced conversion to, 218–219, 229 *Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide*, 124 Chanco, 68 Cave, William, 156–57 Chapel, 158–59, 225–26 Chaplain, 7–8, 26–34, 113–15, 116, 118–24, 127–29, 130, 133–40, 142–49, 154, 156–58, 159, 231, 233, 249, 252 Behaviour, 25, 29, 30, 135–36, 139, 156–58, 240 Denomination affiliation, 23, 29, 33, 62, 116, 233 Education, 27, 31–32 incentives and motivations, 32–34, 142–54 Mortality rate, 29 Pay, 33, 114, 137 Selection, 27–29, 30, 31–32 Charles I, 90–93, 96, 101, 104, 107, 169 Charles II, 152, 163–64, 183–184, 185–87, 188, 189–90, 191, 192, 210, 235 Child, Josiah, 209, 210–13, 244, 252 Child, Robert, 165 Churches, 28, 68, 79, 124, 132, 138, 221, 224, 225–26, 237, 245. *See also* Chapel

governing organisation, 18–19, 31–32, 45, 79, 99–102, 134–35, 144 St Mary's (Fort St. George), 226 Clapham, Henoch, 77 Clarke, John, 108–9, 170 Cocks, Richard, 129, 131 Coke, Edward, 18–19 Copland, Patrick, 23, 46, 48, 60–61, 115, 116, 135–39, 251, 252 Congregationalist (Congregationalism), 20, 22, 23, 32, 72–77, 82–83, 87, 90, 94, 99, 110, 116, 138, 163, 171, 173, 179, 193, 202–3, 252 as governing structure, 90, 99, 100–2 Corporations, 6–8, 10–11, 13, 16–20, 39, 43, 69, 73, 80, 90–91, 94, 100, 172, 204, 205, 250–51, 253 Religious origins and language, 18–20, 94 Coryate, Thomas, 127–28 Cotton, John, 101, 103, 104, 109 Council of New England (CNE), 78, 82 Craddock, Matthew, 96, 98, 107 Crashaw, William, 42, 50 credit, 243–44 Cromwell, Oliver, 176, 178 Cromwell, Richard, 185

#### **D**

Deer Island, 197–98 Donne, John, 1–6, 48 Downing, George, 23, 108 Dryden, John, 253 Dutch, 155, 209, 210–13 Dutch East India Company (VOC), 212

#### **E**

East India Company, 9, 19, 24, 25–26, 30–31, 33, 71, 73, 80, 91, 98, 102, 110, 113–60, 179, 180, 205, 207–48, 251, 252, 253 Chapels, 225–226 Chaplains, 27, 29–32, 60, 113–15, 116, 122, 133–42, 233–34 knowledge exchange, 142–54 preventing Apostasy, 118–23, 140–42 commercial relationship with local communities, 154–56 Evangelism, 8, 133–42, 213, 228–34, 253 In Japan, 129–32 local trade, 221–25, 243–44 political engagement and representation, 234–39, 246 Protestant plurality, 116–18 religious and cultural prejudice, 127, 217–20, 239–46 religious freedoms, 208–9, 214–15, 223–25, 235 territorial acquisition, 207–8, 213–14 migration, 208, 209, 215, 220–25, 231–32, 237–38 plantation model, 222–23 Eliot, John, 105, 171, 174–75, 178, 181, 192, 197 Elizabeth I, 42 Endicott, John, 105 English Expansion, 3–4, 10–11, 23–25, 75, 91, 177, 180, 183, 204, 212, 231, 249–53 In opposition to Catholicism, 5, 13–16, 39–43, 95–96, 225–26, 129–34, 228–231 *Estado da Índia*, 14, 209

Evangelism, 1–4, 7, 25, 37–42, 48, 50–61, 64–68, 94–95, 109–10, 119, 124, 129–30, 132–133, 138, 141, 150–52, 159, 161–62, 170–184, 193, 196, 200–1, 209, 213, 217–220, 228–34, 248, 250, 252, 253

#### **F**

Factories, 11, 19, 21, 25, 116, 119, 123, 226–27, 234 Finch, Heneage, 156–57, 158 Fort St. George, 119, 123, 225–26, 233–34, 245. *See also* Madras Foxcroft, George, 234 Frampton, Robert, 3, 28, 115, 121, 125–26

#### **G**

Gaeldom, 40 Gates, Thomas, 44–45, 49, 56 Gibson, William, 155 Glover, Thomas, 136 Goa, 14, 126, 217–20, 230, 231, 242 Inquisition, 209, 217–19, 230 confiscate property, 217 Orphans, 217 Gookin, Daniel, 196 Gorges, Fernando, 168, 185, 186 Gorton, Samuel, 107, 169–70, 188 Governance, 1–5, 6–13, 16–20, 34–35, 249–50, 252–53 Corporate, 10–13, 16–18, 250–51, 253 Religious, 7–13, 21–25, 38–39, 43, 249–53 Models of religious governance, 7–10, 249–52 **Ecumenical**, 9–10, 207–48

as opposed to Mughal and Iberian governance, 210, 213–16, 217–20, 230 customs and prejudices, 239–46 Dutch model, 210–13 encourage migration, 208, 209, 220–25, 231–32, 237–38 passive evangelism, 209, 220, 228–34 political engagement, 234–39, 246 regulating behaviour, 225–228 religious observance, 225–26 sufferance, 207, 215, 217, 221–22, 239–40 **Pastoral**, 7–8, 113–60, 207 Behaviour, 154–58 Chaplains role, 114–15, 118–23, 124, 126, 133–42 Church service, 134–35 Enforcement, 133–34 knowledge exchange, 142–54 **Theocratic**, 8–9, 20, 22, 73– 112, 113, 115, 161–205, 207, 208 autonomy, 82, 84, 163–64, 184–93, 198–204 evangelism, 170–84 governing religious behaviour, 85–90, 102–9, 162–63, 167–68, 185–93, 195–97 origin, 72–73, 75–79, 90–96, 99–102 territorial expansion, 164–70, 193–204 origins, 18–20, 39–41 **in Virginia**, 38–39, 41, 43–46, 49–59, 69–70 enforcement, 61–64 role in company demise, 67–69 Gray, Robert, 41, 42–43 Greek Orthodox, 26, 115, 118, 144

#### **H**

Hakluyt, Richard, 3–4, 40 Hall, Joseph, 227 Hall, Thomas, 137 Harvard College, 32 Heigon, Mogg, 198 Hideyoshi, Toyotomi, 130–31 Hinduism (Hindus), 141, 149–53, 208, 210, 211, 214–16, 217–20, 221–22, 224, 232, 235, 237–39, 243, 246, 251, 252–53 compared with Catholicism, 151, 153 doctrinal flexibility, 231–32 forced conversion of, 217–18, 228–29 Hook, Walter, 233–34 Hooke, William, 92–93 Howes, Edward, 107 Hudon's Bay Company, 179 Huntington, Robert, 33, 145 Hutchinson, Anne, 102–109 Trail, 105–106 Hutchinson, William, 102

#### **I**

Ieyasu, Tokugawa, 130–31 India, 9, 14–15, 20, 26, 29, 113–60, 207–49, 253 climate, 227–28 government, 209, 211, 213–16, 217–20, 238, 246 religious diversity, 10, 119–20, 127–29, 139–42, 207, 209, 210, 211, 221, 228–34, 235, 246 religious toleration in India, 127–29, 246

Indian merchants, 220–25 Isaacson, William, 122 Islam, 28, 117, 141, 215, 238. *See also* Muslim conversion to, 121–23, 140, 215, 236 Ivy, Thomas, 123

#### **J**

Jahangir, 127–128, 245 James VI and I, 40, 41, 42, 47, 55, 58, 60, 63, 69, 71, 76, 89 James VII and II, 163, 183 James, Edward, 77 Jamestown, 37, 56, 66, 68, 78 Japan, 129–32 Catholics banished from, 130 Jearsey, William, 234, 241–42 Jesuits, 15, 30, 124, 125–26, 130–32, 141, 217, 218, 228, 230 *Padroado*, 15 Jewish (Jews), 127, 139, 145, 146, 183, 208, 210, 211, 214, 224, 225, 246 Joint–stock, 12, 19, 33, 76, 80, 82, 83, 94, 96–97, 99–101, 110, 204 Johnson, Edward, 97

#### **K**

Keigwin, Richard, 214–15 Kerridge, Thomas, 125, 135, 141 King Philip's War, 163, 193–204 Atrocities committed, 195–96 Attacks against religious centres, 194–95 Reasons for, 193–95 Royal intervention, 198–203

#### **L**

Language learning, 143–46, 148–49, 171, 180

Lannoy, Benjamin, 123 Laud, William Archbishop of Canterbury, 74, 93, 118, 144, 148 Lello, Henry, 124, 136 Levant, 28, 113–160 religious diversity, 139 Levant Company (LC), 11, 24, 26, 27–29, 33–34, 98, 102, 103, 113–60, 204 Chaplains, 27–31, 33–34, 106, 113–15, 116, 122, 133–42, 179 knowledge exchange, 142–54 policing behaviour, 133–42 preventing apostasy, 118–23, 140–42 London, 2, 39, 65, 77, 80–81, 93, 96, 98, 106, 108–109, 133, 138, 154–55, 158, 171, 173, 180, 216, 223, 233, 240, 244 Lord, Henry, 33, 116, 149–54 *A display of two forraigne sects*, 150–154 Lucas, Gervaise, 229, 246 Lucaris Cyril, Patriarch, 146

#### **M**

Madras, 19, 208, 210, 214, 216, 220–22, 225, 226, 230–31, 234, 236–37, 239, 240–43, 246, 247. *See also* Fort St. George Catholic presence, 214, 219, 230–31 English population, 214 Merchant disputes, 221–22, 241 religious diversity, 214, 224 temple building, 220–22, 239, 242–43 Maine, 82, 87, 167–68, 185–86, 198, 199 Manship, Henry, 17

Massachusetts, 24, 31, 71, 92, 94, 97–99, 161–62, 164, 169–72, 175, 177–78, 180, 182, 185–86, 189, 191, 196, 198–99, 201–3, 223 Massachusetts Bay Company (MBC), 2, 8–9, 22–24, 31–33, 69, 71– 112, 113, 116, 159, 161–205, 208, 232, 247, 250–51, 252 Charter, 72–75, 89–96, 162, 190 Evangelism, 94–95, 162, 170–72, 193–204 financial gain, 175 Finances, 96–97, 165 Halfway covenant, 189 Investors, 96, 98 Relationship with local Native Americans, 163, 169, 185, 187–89, 193–204 Relationship with crown, 90–96, 106–7, 184–90, 199 Royal Commissioner, 187–91, 193 Religious and Political persecution, 73–74, 75–79, 92–94, 165–67, 169, 189–93, 200–2, 203 Revocation of charter, 164, 200–4 reasons for, 203–4 Territorial expansion, 162–64, 165–84, 193–204 Trade, 96–99, 181–82 Masters, Streynsham, 19, 226, 245–46, 251 Maratha empire, 210, 213, 215 Mather, Increase, 194, 196 Mather, Richard, 100 Matoaka, 52–55, 250 Agent of English Protestantism, 53 Conversion, 52–53 *Mayflower*, 76, 78, 79, 81, 100 Mayflower Compact, 79 Maypole, 87, 88

Merchant Adventurers, 80–81, 82 Merrymount, 85–86 Metacom, 188, 193–95, 197–200 Methwold, William, 126 Miantonomi, 169 Mohegans, 188 Monmouth, Geoffrey, 13 Morton, Thomas (Colonist), 33, 85–90 Anglicanism, 88–89 Atheism, 88 *New English Canaan*, 85 Trade with native Americans, 86–87, 89 *See also* Bedford, William Morton, Thomas (Dean of Gloucester), 2, 3, 48 Mosely, Samuel, 195–96 Mosque, 220–21, 223, 224, 237, 243 Mughal Empire, 15, 117, 123, 127–28, 137, 140, 154, 210, 213–16, 238, 250 Muslim, 13, 122, 136, 140–41, 145, 147, 208, 210, 212, 214–16, 220–21, 224, 232, 235–39, 246, 250–51, 253. *See also* Islam

#### **N**

Narragansett, 169, 177, 186–89, 251 Kings Province, 188 Relationship with English crown, 187 Petitions, 187–88 Relationship with MBC, 1987–89 Native American, 2, 27, 39, 41–44, 49–61, 64–70, 75, 86–87, 162– 63, 169–76, 181–82, 184–89, 193–204, 232, 250 Origins, 51–52 'Praying Indians', 182–83, 193, 196–98, 200–1

Imprisonment on Deer Island, 197–98 Towns, 195 Religious Practice, 65–67 *Huskanaw*, 65–67 *Okee*, 50, 65 *Powwow*, 65, 66 Navigation Act, 97, 201 Nonconformist, 21–23, 29, 31, 72, 74, 75–77, 82, 93, 94, 98, 101, 156, 192, 193, 203, 212, 244. *See also* Puritan North, Dudley, 156–57 New England, 2, 24–25, 32–33, 69, 71–112, 161–206, 207, 222–23, 240 Migration from, 165–66, 175 Migration to, 24, 32, 74, 77–79, 93, 96 New England Company (NEC), 161–62, 172–184, 205, 253 Commerce, 175–76, 180–82 Cromwell's Support, 176 Funding, 173, 177 Irenicism, 179 New England Confederation, 167 *New England's First Fruits*, 32, 171–72 New Hampshire, 105, 167, 168, 186, 199, 201 New York, 198–99

#### **O**

Opechancanough, 54–55 Oxenden, George, 214, 216, 218, 225, 230, 246 Oxford, 27, 31, 88, 118, 142–44, 146, 148

#### **P**

Paranoia, 84–85, 87–90, 124, 167, 191, 196, 200–1, 238, 240–42 Parliament, 16, 17, 18, 88, 90–91, 97, 157, 160, 162, 163, 164–65, 168, 170–72, 177, 183, 253 Percy, George, 66 Perkins, William, 59–60 Persia, 11, 140, 154–55 Pessacus, 169, 187–88 Peter, Hugh, 105, 171 Phillips, Edward, 17 Plymouth Company, 11, 73–90 Finances, 80–81 'Second Pierce Patent', 78 Laws, 78–79 Plymouth Colony, 75–90, 92, 167, 194 Pocahontas *See* Matoaka Pococke, Edward, 33, 142–49, 179–80 Pope, Peter, 60, 138–39 Portuguese, 14–16, 123, 125, 126, 129, 132, 141–42, 155, 209, 214, 217–20, 221, 228–30, 231, 235–36, 238, 242, 246 Powhatan, 52, 54–55, 64, 65, 87, 187 Presbyterianism, 22, 73, 76, 90, 99, 116, 156–157, 165 Prideaux, Humphrey, 253 Printer, James, 197, 250 Protestantism, 1–6, 8, 14, 16, 19, 20–25, 38, 39–43, 50, 52, 53, 58, 60, 65, 70, 95, 102, 105, 109–10, 116–18, 121–23, 124, 126, 129–30, 132, 134–35, 139–40, 153, 155–57, 158, 165, 177–79, 181, 211, 213, 219–20, 225–27, 228–34, 238, 240, 244, 247 'civility', 9, 13, 41, 43, 47, 64, 175, 181–82, 237

Diversity/Plurality, 21, 24–26, 29, 116–18, 155–57, 163, 210, 227, 233–34, 244 Purchas, Samuel, 3, 13, 40, 54, 100 Puritan, 19, 21–23, 59, 60, 72, 74, 75–76, 82, 84, 88, 90–92, 95–96, 98–101, 116, 167, 174, 178, 193. *See also* Nonconformist

#### **Q**

Quaker, 8, 9, 22, 84, 101, 165, 168, 184, 189, 190–91, 251

#### **R**

Randolph, Edward, 200–2 Rastell, Thomas, 126 Rhode Island, 108, 167–70, 183–89, 186, 187, 189 Charter, 184 Rihelio, Georgio, 125–26 Robinson, John, 77, 83, 100, 102 Robinson, William, 9, 191 Roe, Thomas, 116, 118, 127–29, 137, 245, 252 Rogers, Peter, 135 Rolfe, John, 52–53 Rolfe, Thomas, 52, 55 Rowlandson, Mary, 200–1 Royal African Company, 179

#### **S**

Salem, 33, 107, 240 Sandys, Edwin, 59, 117 Sassamon, John, 194 Selden, John, 143, 149 Shepard, Thomas, 172, 175 *The clear-sunshine of the gospel*, 172 Sheppard, William, 19 Shivaji, 216, 217

Smith, John, 37, 44, 52–53, 64–65, 67 Smyrna, 28, 33, 156, 157 Smyth, Thomas, 116–17, 125 Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK), 34, 253 Spain, 14, 40–41, 97, 131 Stoughton, Israel, 105 Strachey, William, 51–53 Surat, 30, 122, 125, 126, 127, 152, 213, 216, 219, 222, 223, 224, 233, 236, 240 Symonds, William, 46–47, 49

#### **T**

Tangiers, 9, 183, 215 Temples, 220–22, 223, 224, 225, 237, 239, 242–43 Terry, Edward, 116, 127, 140, 150 Timmanna, Beri, 220, 221–22, 224, 239, 242 dispute with Brahmins, 221–22 dispute with William Jearsey, 241–42 Timmanna, Pedda, 242 Totomomocke, 193 Tynley, Robert, 48–49

**U** United Colonies, 188 Uttamatomakkin, 53–55

#### **V**

Vane, Henry, 104–5, 169, 252 Vassell, Samuel, 98 Virginia, 1–4, 37–70, 71, 78, 80, 107, 124, 139, 176, 187, 195, 223 Virginia Company (VC), 1–6, 37–70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 119, 139, 157, 159, 171

Chaplains, 46–47, 48–50, 58 Role, 61–64 Charters, 41–42, 91–92 Revocation, 69 Downfall, 67–69 Laws, 44–45, 61–64 Punishments, 62–63 Military Leadership, 43–44 Mortality rate in territories, 37 Population, 43–47 Relationship with Native Americans, 50–61, 65–67, 67–69 Abduction of Native American Children, 56, 57, 61 Evangelism, 37, 39, 41–42, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58, 59–61 **Education**, 55–61, 138–39 East Indian School, 58, 60 Henrico, 58, 60, 61, 68 Sermons, 48–49 Venkatadri, Chinna, 242 Viranna, Kasi, 220–21, 242–43

#### **W**

Wampanoag, 188, 193–94 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, 92, 97, 110, 159, 166, 175, 233 Ward, Nathaniel, 166 Waterhouse, Edward, 68 Weld, Thomas, 105, 171 West, Thomas, Lord Delaware, 45, 49, 56 Whitfield, Henry, 174 Whitaker, Alexander, 23, 51–52, 64, 66 Wickham, Richard, 129, 132 Willard, Samuel, 202–3 Winslow, Edward, 83, 85, 172, 176 Winthrop, John, 69, 71, 94, 97, 104–5, 108, 109, 167, 170, 251 Winthrop, John Jr, 107, 165, 181

Williams, Roger, 108, 169–71 witchcraft, 84, 239–42 India, 221, 249–242 Salem, 240 Wright, Nathan, 98

**Y** Yale, Elihu, 239 Young, Henry, 219, 228–29