Why the Puritans persecuted Quakers

Posted on July 2, 2008. Filed under: 17th century America, Puritans | Tags: , , , , , |

It seems simple enough: the Puritans believed Quakers were heretics. In fact, anyone who was not an Anglican was a heretic, including Catholics, Lutherans, Anabaptists, Antinomians, Quakers, Ranters… in short, anyone who was not Anglican.

Heretics were seen as blasphemers who put barriers in the way of salvation; they were also considered traitors to their country because they did not belong to the official state religion. This was true throughout Europe in the century following the Protestant Reformation: whatever religion the king chose became the official state religion of his country, and all other religions or sects were made illegal. In fact, the Puritans had left England because they had been considered heretics there, and had been persecuted by the government.


So when Quakers showed up in Boston in the 1650s, it’s no surprise they were persecuted. Puritan Congregationalism was the official—and only—religion of New England. But it wasn’t just about their religion. The persecution of Quakers was also part of the Puritans’ determination to rule themselves, independent of England.


The Puritans who had remained in England during the Great Migration to America of the 1630s drifted apart from their New England brethren. They were more inclined to allow toleration of other professions of Christian faith. The impossibility of reforming, or purifying, the Anglican Church in England was slowly rejected in favor of the much more doable task of simply confirming England as a Protestant nation by allowing any and all Protestants to worship relatively freely. The English Puritans also supported presbyterianism, a system in which the state governs the church and appoints a hierarchy to oversee all churches.


To the New England Puritans, both toleration and presbyterianism were unacceptable. They had spent painstaking years establishing a system of church government called the New England Way that was based on the independence and power of the individual congregation. The state in Massachusetts did not appoint clergy, nor was there one over-arching body that regulated churches. Each church was a sovereign unit. And only one church was tolerated in Massachusetts: the Puritan, or Congregational church.


Worried that the English government would try to force its new rules of toleration and presbyterianism on them, the Puritans of Massachusetts made preparations to fight for their independence. They elected their own governor and General Court (a combined legislature and judiciary). They built many forts to protect their harbor and drilled their militia men regularly. And they continued to persecute Quakers, who, determined to bring their version of the Gospel to New England, continued to trespass into Boston despite the harsh and often cruel punishments they knew they would receive.


The Quakers had no one to turn to for help until 1660, when the monarchy in England was restored, and Charles II came to the throne. One of his first acts as king was to send a letter to the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (the most powerful New England colony) ordering the persecutions of Quakers to stop. According to the “King’s Missive,” any Quaker accused of breaking the law in Massachusetts should be sent unharmed to England for trial.


Charles II issued his order for two reasons. First, it was a not too-well-kept secret that he was a Catholic sympathizer, and Quakers and Catholics were about the only groups who found absolutely no acceptance in England. If Charles could win tolerance for Quakers, perhaps he could win eventual tolerance for Catholics. Second, he cast a dark eye on Massachusetts’ independence. Disgruntled ex-colonists who left New England to return home told Charles the Puritans were rebels. It didn’t help that two of the judges who had condemned his father, Charles I, to death had fled to New Haven and received a hero’s welcome there.


The new king put Massachusetts in a bind: either they let the Quakers go free, or they give up the authority of their locally elected General Court. If they gave up the authority to prosecute Quakers, what other bit of their independence would they have to give up next? It was a slippery slope leading to direct English rule. Massachusetts made its choice. Slowly the persecution of Quakers came to an end.


This battle between king and colonies would go on until 1691, when Massachusetts’ charter was revoked and the powerful colony came at last under direct rule from England. By that time, toleration was the rule even in New England, and Quakers were no longer a dangerous and radical sect but commonplace members of society. But resentment of English rule did not die out amongst New Englanders; less than 100 years later, the descendants of the Puritans would buck off English rule in America for good.


(For more on the Puritans and Quakers, their differences, and their battles, see Puritans v. Quakers in the battle for our sympathies.)

Make a Comment

Make a Comment: ( 11 so far )

blockquote and a tags work here.

11 Responses to “Why the Puritans persecuted Quakers”

RSS Feed for The Historic Present Comments RSS Feed

That sounds sort of like the Southern states saying they were fighting for states’ rights, and that slavery was just a side issue.

Hello! I think it’s clear that I’m not excusing the Puritans. Persecution for whatever reason is persecution. What I’m interested in is establishing exactly why this persecution took place, and tying to the big picture of MBC concerns. Heresy and the need to maintain the autonomy and authority to decide their own laws were of pretty equal force to the Puritans, I think, and that fueled the response to the Quakers.

The subjects are certainly entwined. I’m not a researcher in the area, but I think I’ve also heard some evidence the Quakers did look to the King for relief.

The Quakers did indeed ask the new king for help as soon as he was on the throne. It was their first chance for government protection; before Charles II was installed, there was only the Puritan Parliament to turn to, and that was of course fruitless. So the Quakers in England appealed to the king specifically for help against the American Puritans, listing the atrocities those Puritans had committed. And the king, for his own reasons, decided to protect them. I think this first step toward tolerance in New England was one of the first steps toward creating the democracy we know and love, because it combined the desire for independence with the recognition of the need for justice for all.

Thanks for this brilliant post; I myself am sympathetic to the Puritans and while I can’t condone persecution either, I can’t help but think that the Quakers weren’t at fault as well in this tragedy. Out of curiosity, do you know whether there were any members of the Puritan clergy who spoke out against Endicott’s harsh methods?

Hello Colin; which methods are you referring to? I know Endicott—that strange guy—went in all manner of extreme directions on a few issues. Why don’t you fill us in on what you know?

Thanks for replying! I was actually referring to his methodology against the Quakers. Did any of the clergy ever protest against the extremism of his methods? I know a few of the people did, but Endicott was very good at suppressing outspoken criticism of his tactics. I was just wondering whether the clergy were unified and mobile in their full support of Endicott or whether there was some dissension amongst them as to a perhaps less ruthless though still stern treatment of the (often) lunatic Quakers and their invasion.

hey did you know one of the religios belifes of the quakers was that you can come back to life like jemima wilkson she suposengly said that god send her to preech his mesage

Hello John, and thanks for all your nice comments. I haven’t heard about Jemima Wilkson—can you tell us more?

Well, I will admit I don’t know what specific steps Endecott took against Quakers–let us know! But I would imagine that the General Court and the ministers would have been glad to see Endecott doing something orthodox. He was a strange character, at once almost obsessively passionate about Puritanism and a supporter of deviants like Roger Williams. He got so involved in the Salem controversy (over Williams) that he came close to banishment. After the Pequot War, he appears in the General Court records several times, brought up for adultery and other infractions, then offering tearful confessions and self-degredations. He finally settled down in later life, and ended his days at peace with the MBC. But during that rocky journey, persecuting Quakers would have been acceptable to the Court and church in Massachusetts.


Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...