Errands into the Metropolis: New England Dissidents in Revolutionary London (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: Errands into the Metropolis: New England Dissidents in Revolutionary London Francis J. Bremer Errands into the Metropolis: New England Dissidents in Revolutionary London By Jonathan Beecher Field. Hanover: Dartmouth College Press, 2009. One of the important developments in the study of Early America in recent decades has been the effort to place the story of England’s colonies in a broader Atlantic perspective. Jonathan Field Beecher makes a contribution to this perspective in his study of how various New England dissidents appealed to English audiences in their attempts to achieve greater security for themselves in America. He examines some of the same figures that featured in Philip Gura’s A Glimpse of Sion’s Glory: Puritan Radicalism in New England, 1620–1660 (1984), but whereas Gura was focused on how radicals such as Roger Williams and Samuel Gorton pushed the boundaries and reshaped the contours of New England puritanism, Field is interested in the radicals themselves and how they gained objectives such as the Rhode Island charter by appealing in print to English readers, including political leaders. Errands into the Metropolis offers individual chapters centered on Williams, Gorton, John Clarke, and Quaker dissidents. Within each chapter are to be found useful insights into how these individuals presented themselves and their cause, but the various parts of the book do not come together to form a coherent story. The concept of the book is very worthwhile. The story of how New England dissidents moved the debate over their situation to England is both important and neglected. However, there are two difficulties with the execution. One is that the author does not demonstrate a mastery of the complex nature of the English audience that may have read the arguments of the dissidents. During the decades of the 1640s through the 1660s England was divided between royalists and puritans and the puritan movement (which may be considered the target of individuals such as Williams and Gorton) was divided between supporters of various types of Presbyterianism, Erastians, Congregationalists, Baptists, and a variety of radical sectarians that included groups such as the Fifth Monarchists. Each of these groups had different views on what religious views should be tolerated and which should not. Furthermore, positions taken by these groups were influenced by the constantly changing alliances they entered into to gain their own objectives. In the mid-1640s, for instance, Congregationalists were less likely to criticize Baptists and other sects whose support they welcomed as they sought to prevent the establishment of a national Presbyterian establishment. Field does not draw on the extensive recent literature on the complexities of English views, and thus does nothing to inform his readers of which particular English audience was likely to embrace the colonial appeals. When he does address the issue of which puritan members of Parliament supported certain petitions (such as a chart identifying those who signed documents relating to Gorton) he does not explain their support in terms of their own religious and political views. And he fails to use an analysis of English divisions to explain why those who did not support the dissidents took the position they did. The second flaw in the execution of the approach is related to the first. The New England dissidents presented one side of an argument and in doing so initiated debates that engaged not only colonists who sent responses from New England, but also clergy who had returned to England such as Hugh Peter and Thomas Welde, and English ministers critical of religious radicalism such as Thomas Edwards. Again, the resultant debates took place in an evolving political and religious context that itself shaped the outcomes. There was an audience in England that both identified with the colonial dissidents and saw support for their cause as useful to their own English objectives. There were also always English puritans who were sympathetic to the Massachusetts authorities, even when the actions of those authorities jeopardized their own short-term objectives. In failing to examine the complexities of the English stage where his protagonists pursued their errand, Field misses the opportunity to realize the important possibilities present in his approach. Francis J. Bremer Millersville University of Pennsylvania Copyright © 2011 Francis...