A History of the Episcopal Church (Third Revised Edition). Robert W. Prichard

ranging from seven to thirty years. See Bernhard, Slaves and Slaveholders in Bermuda, 51.

54. Rugemer, “The Development of Mastery and Race,” 433.

55. Anthony S. Parent, Jr., Foul Means: The Formation of a Slave Society in Virginia, 1660–1740 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2003), 243.

56. Bernhard, Slaves and Slaveholders in Bermuda, 51.

57. Pettigrew estimated that the company transported 150,000 enslaved persons between 1672 and the early 1720s. See William A. Pettigrew, Freedom’s Debt: The Royal African Company and the Politics of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1672–1752 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2013), 11, 22–23.

58. Rugemer, “The Development of Mastery and Race,” 429–30, 438, 451.

59. Parent, Jr., Foul Means, 112–13, 115.

60. Carolina did not initially follow the example of Virginia in excluding Native Americans from permanent servitude. While the South Carolina slave act of 1691 was based on precedent from Jamaica, it altered the Jamaica act in one important way; it added “Native Americans” to the category of those that were treated as in perpetual servitude. It should also be noted that the Virginia legislation, interpreted as excluding Native Americans from perpetual servitude, contained an ambiguity. It specified servants who “come by land” should serve a twelve-year indenture, and that children should serve until the age of thirty. Not all enslaved Native Americans came by land; however; the English sometimes took Native American prisoners of war by ship to other colonies away from their homes to limit the possibility of escape. See Kathleen M. Brown, Good Wives, Nasty Wenches, and Anxious Patriarchs: Gender, Race, and power in Colonial Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press for the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1996)., 136; Parent, Foul Means, 113–14; and Rugemer, “Development of Mastery,” 452.

61. Richter, Before the Revolution, 265–74.

62. Morgan, Slave Counterpoint, 15.

63. Bernhard, Slaves and Slaveholders in Bermuda, 52, 62.

64. Rugemer, “Development of Mastery,” 446–47.

65. Pettigrew, Freedom’s Debt, 11.

66. Campbell, Church in Barbados, 115–16.

67. Morgan Godwyn, The Negro’s and Indians Advocate, Suing for their Admission to the Church: or A Persuasive to the Instructing and Baptizing of the Negro’s and Indians in our Plantations. Shewing, that as the Compliance therewith Can Prejudice No Man’s Just Interest; so the Wilful Neglecting and Opposing of it, is no Less than a Manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith. To which is Added, a Brief Account of Religion in Virginia (London: Printed for the author, by J.D., 1680), 143, 154.

68. James Hugo Johnston, Race Relations in Virginia and Miscegenation in the South 1776–1860 (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1970), 173.

69. Betty Wood, “Godwyn, Morgan (bap. 1640, d. 1685x1709).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10894 (accessed February 22, 2014).

70. Demographics in the middle colonies began to change about 1720, however. See Francis Jennings, The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire: The Covenant Chain Confederation of Indian Tribes with English Colonies from its Beginning to the Lancaster Treaty of 1744 (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1984), 8–9.

71. Alan Gallay, The Indian Slave Trade: The Rise of the English Empire in the American South, 1670–1717 (New Haven: Yale, 2002), 328–29 and 338–41.

72. Bernard J. Lillis, “Forging New Communities: Indian Slavery and Servitude in Colonial New England, 1676–1776” (Bachelor of Arts thesis, Wesleyan University, Connecticut, 2012), 101; Morgan, Slave Counterpoint, 15.

2

       The Age of Reason andthe American Colonies(1688–1740)

The Glorious Revolution

      In 1688, the Parliament invited James II’s Protestant son-in-law and daughter from Holland to assume jointly the British throne as King (1688–1702) William III and Queen (1688–94) Mary II. Mary’s younger sister Anne supported their accession and succeeded them as monarch (1702–14). Collectively, the reign of the three marked an important turning point in the religious life of England and her colonies. Well aware of the turmoil that preceded them, the monarchs sought to quiet the tempers of English subjects by adopting a series of practical compromises (retention of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and the Thirty-nine Articles; adoption of an Act of Toleration for Protestant dissenters; and granting of broader authority to Parliament). In Scotland (a separate kingdom with a shared monarch until united with England in 1707), they abandoned their predecessors’ attempt to conform the church to that in England; the Church of Scotland would thereafter be Presbyterian. These measures were successful in maintaining the peace; the Glorious Revolution was the last revolution of the English people.

The peace in England was due not only to specific legislation but also to those who advanced new ways of thinking about English religion and society. The impact of this shift would be felt by English colonists in the New World. While it is impossible to point to all those involved in bringing the “Moderate Enlightenment” to England following the Glorious Revolution, it is possible to single out two important groups: the Royal Society and the latitudinarian bishops.¹

The Royal Society

In 1649, a group of scholars at Oxford University began to meet informally in order to gain what one member called “the satisfaction of breathing a freer air, and of conversing in quiet with one another, without being ingag’d in