Thomas Prince (May 15, 1687 – August 22, 1758) was an American Puritan clergyman, historian, and scholar who ministered at Boston's Old South Church from 1718 until his death, co-pastoring with Joseph Sewall after initial ordination as colleague to Sewall.[1] Born in Sandwich, Massachusetts, to Samuel Prince and Mercy Hinckley, he graduated from Harvard College in 1707 before traveling to England and continental Europe for theological study and preaching, experiences that shaped his commitment to orthodox Calvinism and New England traditions.[2]Prince's most enduring contribution was his scholarly chronicle A Chronological History of New-England, in the Form of Annals, the first volume of which appeared in 1736, detailing events from ancient explorations to the colony's founding up to 1630 with meticulous reliance on primary documents like Winthrop's journal and Bradford's history.[3] A projected multi-volume work, it emphasized providential interpretations of history, portraying New England's settlement as divinely ordained for gospel propagation amid hardships, though incomplete due to his stroke in 1755, which halted the second volume's revisions.[4] As a pastor, he advocated experiential piety, publishing sermons on election and repentance, and during the 1730s–1740s Great Awakening, he supported revival preaching by figures like George Whitefield while critiquing excesses, founding The Christian History in 1743—the first American religious periodical—to document transatlantic awakenings through letters and accounts from ministers.[5][6]His legacy endures in early American historiography for prioritizing archival evidence over legend, collecting manuscripts that preserved colonial records, and modeling intellectual rigor in clerical scholarship, though his works reflect the era's confessional biases toward covenant theology without modern secular detachment.[1] Prince's efforts also included meteorological observations and anti-inoculation advocacy during the 1721 Boston smallpox outbreak, prioritizing empirical caution over unproven medical interventions.[7]
Early Life and Education
Family Background and Childhood
Thomas Prince was born on May 15, 1687, in Sandwich, Massachusetts Bay Colony (then part of Plymouth Colony), the fourth child and son of Samuel Prince, a local merchant and civic leader, and Mercy Hinckley.[7][8] Samuel Prince, originally from Hull, Massachusetts, descended from early Puritan settlers, including his father Elder John Prince, who had emigrated from England in the mid-17th century and served as a religious and community figure in the colony.[9]Mercy Hinckley brought notable colonial prestige to the family as the daughter of Thomas Hinckley, the final governor of Plymouth Colony (1680–1692), whose tenure marked the transition to consolidated royal governance under the Dominion of New England.[8] The Princes maintained a household steeped in Puritan piety, with Samuel and Mercy raising their children under rigorous religious discipline and exposure to evangelical preaching characteristic of late-17th-century New England Congregationalism.[10]Little detailed record survives of Prince's early childhood beyond this familial context, though his upbringing emphasized moral and intellectual preparation for clerical life, aligning with the era's expectations for sons of prominent families. By age 16, he had advanced sufficiently in classical studies to enter Harvard College in 1703, indicating a focused education likely facilitated by private tutors or local grammar schooling in Sandwich.[7][11] The family's relative affluence and connections—bolstered by Hinckley's governorship—afforded Prince stability amid the colony's post-King Philip's War recovery, though Sandwich's rural setting exposed him to agrarian Puritan community norms rather than urban Boston influences until later years.[8]
Harvard College Years
Thomas Prince entered Harvard College on July 6, 1703, at the age of sixteen.[12] The institution was then under the acting presidency of Samuel Willard, following Increase Mather's tenure, and emphasized classical liberal arts education rooted in Puritan theology, including studies in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, logic, rhetoric, and divinity. During his undergraduate years, Prince demonstrated an early aptitude for scholarship, particularly in historical and theological texts, beginning a personal collection of books focused on New England history that would later form the basis of a significant library.[6]Prince completed the standard four-year course of study and received his Bachelor of Arts degree in 1707, the same year Willard died and John Leverett assumed the presidency.[13] His class included notable figures such as future ministers and civic leaders, reflecting Harvard's role in training New England's intellectual elite amid ongoing debates over orthodoxy and enlightenment influences. Following graduation, Prince remained at the college for additional study in divinity, pursuing advanced preparation for the ministry under the institution's tutelage before departing for further ecclesiastical training in England.[9] This period solidified his commitment to preserving historical records, as evidenced by annotations in his early book acquisitions dating to his student days.[12]
Clerical Career
Ordination and Ministry at Old South Church
Prince returned to Boston in 1717 after studies abroad and was soon called to serve at the Old South Church (Third Church), where he was ordained as co-pastor on October 1, 1718, alongside the existing minister, Reverend Joseph Sewall, his Harvard classmate.[14][2] The ordinationsermon, delivered that day, emphasized Prince's commitment to pastoral duties in a Congregationalist framework rooted in New England Puritan traditions.[14]As the fifth senior minister of the congregation, Prince shared preaching and leadership responsibilities with Sewall for the next four decades, until his death on August 22, 1758.[6][15] His ministry emphasized orthodox Calvinist doctrine, providential interpretations of events, and the preservation of ecclesiastical records, reflecting the church's role as a center of Boston's intellectual and religious life.[1] Prince's tenure coincided with growing urban challenges, including epidemics and moral debates, during which he delivered sermons addressing community piety and divine sovereignty.[16]The partnership with Sewall proved stable and collaborative, with the two ministers alternating pulpit duties and jointly overseeing churchgovernance, baptisms, and admissions—core functions that sustained the congregation's membership, which numbered several hundred by mid-century.[6][17] Prince also contributed to the church's library by donating his extensive personal collection of over 3,500 volumes upon his passing, ensuring resources for future pastoral and scholarly work.[18]
Theological Writings and Sermons
Thomas Prince's sermons, delivered primarily during his co-pastorship at Boston's Old South Church from 1718 to 1758, emphasized core Puritan doctrines such as divine providence, God's sovereignty over natural and historical events, human mortality, and the necessity of faith and obedience for salvation.[9] These works often linked biblical exegesis to contemporary occurrences, interpreting phenomena like earthquakes and droughts as tokens of divine judgment or mercy to exhort moral reform.[9] Prince's preaching style, described by contemporaries as delivering "the great truths and doctrines of the Gospel" with inward conviction, prioritized scriptural authority over rhetorical flourish.[9]A prominent example is his 1730 Massachusetts Election Sermon, titled The People of New-England Put in Mind of the Righteous Acts of the Lord to Them and Their Fathers, and Reasoned With Concerning Them, preached before the governor, council, and assembly on May 29.[19] Drawing from 1 Samuel, Prince reminded listeners of God's specific interventions in New England's settlement and preservation, urging rulers and populace to acknowledge these acts through covenant fidelity rather than complacency.[20] This sermon exemplified his recurrent theme of providential history as a call to national repentance and gratitude.Prince addressed natural calamities theologically in works like Earthquakes the Works of God, and Tokens of His Just Displeasure (1755), two sermons occasioned by Boston's seismic events on November 19 and December 28, 1755, which he portrayed as divine warnings against sin, citing precedents from scripture and colonial annals.[9] Similarly, The Natural and Moral Government and Agency of God in Causing Droughts and Rains interpreted weather as instruments of God's moral governance, blending empirical observation with Calvinist causality.[9] Funeral sermons, such as Christ Abolishing Death and Bringing Life and Immortality to Light in the Gospel (preached on a dignitary's death), underscored redemption through Christ's victory over mortality, a motif echoed in The Grave and Death Destroyed, and Believers Ransomed and Redeemed from Them.[3]Earlier publications included a 1717 ThanksgivingSermon, God Brings to the Desired Haven, celebrating deliverance from perils, and God Destroyeth the Hope of Man, a 1727 discourse on sudden death amid King George's passing.[9] Posthumously, in 1785, Scottish minister John Erskine edited and published Six Sermons from Prince's manuscripts, covering topics like sovereign acknowledgment of God in prosperity and adversity.[21] These writings, totaling over two dozen printed items, reinforced orthodox theology against emerging rationalist challenges, prioritizing empirical signs of providence to foster piety.[9]
Historical Scholarship
Development of Historical Interests
Prince's engagement with history originated during his undergraduate years at Harvard College, where he entered on July 6, 1703, and promptly began assembling a personal collection of books, pamphlets, and manuscripts pertinent to New England's civil and ecclesiastical affairs.[22][9] This initiative, later formalized as the "New England Library," reflected an early zeal for preserving primary sources to "enlighten our history," as he later described it, amid a broader Puritan tradition of documenting events to trace divine providence.[7][23]A key influence was Cotton Mather's extensive library, which Prince accessed and emulated, fostering his bibliophilia and commitment to sourcing from original texts rather than secondary accounts for accuracy.[8] His pursuits were inseparable from his ministerial aspirations, viewing historical compilation as an extension of clerical duty to edify the church by evidencing God's hand in colonial settlement and trials, rather than a detached scholarly endeavor.[24]By the time of his graduation in 1707, Prince had established a foundational archive, including rare imprints like multiple copies of the Bay Psalm Book, which he systematically cataloged and expanded over decades.[7][25] This methodical approach anticipated his later emphasis on chronological annals grounded in verifiable records, countering what he perceived as deficiencies in prior narratives.His interests intensified during travels abroad from 1709 to 1717, including preaching in England and Europe, where he lamented the "want of a regular history" of New England and actively sought out archival materials in libraries and repositories to bolster his collection.[7][26] These efforts, combining empirical gathering with theological interpretation, solidified his dedication to a comprehensive, providence-oriented chronicle that would safeguard the Puritan legacy against oblivion.[24]
A Chronological History of New England
Thomas Prince initiated the compilation of A Chronological History of New-England, in the Form of Annals around 1728, driven by a commitment to document the region's founding events using original records to counter potential losses from fires and neglect.[7] The work adopted an annalistic structure, presenting events in strict chronological order as terse summaries of key transactions, emphasizing factual precision over interpretive narrative, which aligned with seventeenth-century historiographical traditions rather than emerging modern analytical methods.[24]The first volume appeared in 1736, printed in Boston by Kneeland and Green, spanning an introduction that epitomized global events from Biblical creation through the Reformation and European discoveries of America, followed by detailed annals of New England from Captain Bartholomew Gosnold's 1602 voyage to September 7, 1630, including the arrival of Governor John Winthrop.[4] Prince drew extensively from primary sources such as governors' records, church documents, and explorers' logs, incorporating verbatim excerpts where possible to ensure fidelity to originals, while interpreting occurrences through a providential lens that attributed colonial successes to divine favor.[27] This volume, dedicated to Governor Jonathan Belcher, totaled 254 pages and highlighted material events like early settlements, Native American interactions, and ecclesiastical developments, with increasing granularity as it neared contemporary times.[28]In 1755, Prince published three pamphlet numbers constituting the initial installment of a projected second volume, titled Annals of New-England, printed by Samuel Kneeland and sold for six pence each, extending the chronology beyond 1630 toward 1755 with continued focus on political, religious, and natural occurrences.[29] These supplements maintained the annal format but adapted to periodic issuance amid Prince's ongoing ministry and collecting efforts, which amassed manuscripts from Europe and local archives to support verifiability.[2]Though Prince envisioned a multi-volume series chronicling up to his era, only these portions materialized before his death in 1758, leaving the full scope unrealized despite subscriptions and appeals for materials.[30] The published sections gained repute for their archival rigor, serving as a foundational reference for subsequent historians like Thomas Hutchinson, who relied on Prince's sourced compilations for accuracy in reconstructing early colonial timelines, though critics noted the rigid chronology limited causal analysis.[31]
Other Historical Contributions
Prince's commitment to historical preservation extended beyond authorship to the meticulous accumulation of primary sources, commencing during his Harvard years around 1705–1707, when he was inspired by accounts of renowned European repositories like the Cottonian Library. He actively sought out rare books, pamphlets, and manuscripts documenting New England's settlement, governance, and religious life, often acquiring them through personal networks, auctions, and travels to England in 1707–1711 and 1714–1717.[7] This effort resulted in a collection exceeding 1,000 volumes by the time of his death, emphasizing original texts to counter reliance on secondary narratives prevalent in earlier works like Cotton Mather's Magnalia Christi Americana.[23]Upon his passing on August 22, 1758, Prince bequeathed the library to the Old South Church, where it functioned as a lending collection accessible to scholars; it later transferred to the Boston Public Library in 1914, preserving it as one of the few substantially intact colonial American libraries. The holdings, cataloged in detail by the church in the 19th century, feature extensive imprints from colonial presses, theological tracts, and records of indigenous interactions, providing indispensable evidence for studies in early American printing, Puritanism, and regional development.[32][23] British occupation during the Revolution led to the scattering of some manuscripts stored in the Old South Meeting House steeple, yet the bulk survived, underscoring Prince's foresight in safeguarding artifacts against potential loss.[7]His methodological rigor—prioritizing verifiable chronology and source criticism—influenced subsequent historians such as Jeremy Belknap, whose History of New Hampshire (1784–1792) echoed Prince's documentary approach, and Thomas Hutchinson, the colonial governor and author of History of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay (1764–1767), who drew on similar empirical standards amid partisan debates.[7] This legacy positioned Prince as a foundational figure in transitioning American historiography from providential narrative to evidence-based inquiry, though his collections' accessibility was initially limited by church oversight and later wartime disruptions.[6]
Engagement with Science and Public Debates
Views on Natural Philosophy and Providence
Thomas Prince integrated natural philosophy, the precursor to modern science, with a theological framework emphasizing divine providence as the governing force behind natural phenomena. He contended that the laws of nature, including those articulated in Newtonian mechanics, reflected God's orderly general providence, whereby secondary causes operated consistently under divine ordination to sustain the material world. However, Prince maintained that extraordinary events—such as earthquakes or storms—signaled particular providence, direct interventions by God to execute judgment, mercy, or moral instruction upon humanity. This perspective aligned with Puritan traditions but was informed by his engagement with contemporary scientific texts, which he collected extensively in his personal library, viewing empirical inquiry not as a challenge to faith but as a tool to reveal providential design.[33]In his 1727 sermon Earthquakes the Works of God, and Tokens of His Just Displeasure, occasioned by the New England earthquake of that year, Prince explicitly linked seismic activity to divine agency, describing it as "the Works of God" that pierced the earth's foundations in accordance with biblical precedents like Psalm 18:7. He rejected purely mechanistic explanations that divorced natural causes from moral purpose, arguing instead that such disasters served as providential calls to repentance amid societal sins, including moral decay and impiety. This work, published in two editions and reprinted after the 1755 Lisbon earthquake, underscored Prince's belief that natural philosophy illuminated but did not supplant theological interpretation, as the "natural government" of elements remained subordinate to God's "moral government" over human affairs.[33]Prince's views contrasted with emerging deistic tendencies that emphasized impersonal natural laws, as he insisted in sermons and writings like his 1730 election sermon that providence encompassed both the uniformity of secondary causes and God's sovereign interruptions, fostering a worldview where scientific observation reinforced religious duty. He critiqued overly speculative philosophies that obscured divine causality, prioritizing empirical data—such as eyewitness accounts of natural events—only insofar as they corroborated scriptural truths about God's active role in history and nature. This synthesis positioned natural philosophy as subservient to providence, ensuring that knowledge of the cosmos ultimately directed attention to moral and spiritualreform.[34][33]
Smallpox Inoculation Controversy
During Boston's 1721 smallpox epidemic, which originated from a ship arriving from the West Indies and ultimately claimed 844 lives among approximately 5,759 reported cases, physician Zabdiel Boylston introduced variolation (inoculation) on June 26, 1721, by inoculating his own son and slaves, achieving a mortality rate of about 2.5% among his 248 patients compared to the natural disease's 14-15%.[35] This practice, learned from African and Ottoman traditions and advocated by Cotton Mather based on his slave Onesimus's accounts, ignited fierce debate. Opponents, led by physician William Douglass, condemned it as experimentally unproven, medically reckless, and a violation of divine providence by artificially inducing disease, fueling public riots, threats against practitioners, and a temporary halt to inoculations by town selectmen in July 1721.[36]Thomas Prince, then 34 and co-pastor at Old South Church with Joseph Sewall, aligned with pro-inoculation advocates amid accusations that the method defied God's will or tempted fate. On July 27-31, 1721, he co-signed a public letter in the Boston Gazette with Increase Mather, Cotton Mather, Benjamin Colman, John Webb, and William Cooper, defending Boylston's character, experience, and successes as divinely blessed outcomes of diligent study and observation rather than mere chance.[37] The missive urged restraint in polemics, portraying inoculation as compatible with humility and charity toward fallible human efforts under providence, countering portrayals of supporters as irreligious innovators. Prince's stance reflected his broader affinity for empirical inquiry in natural philosophy, distinguishing him from clerical skeptics who prioritized submission to epidemics as judgments.[26]Prince's endorsement contributed to resuming inoculations after the selectmen's ban lifted, with over 6,000 Bostonians eventually variolated by 1722, reducing the epidemic's toll and paving empirical groundwork for later vaccination acceptance. His later publications, including 1752 observations on a subsequent outbreak and an edited manuscript detailing inoculation techniques from the late physician Nathanael Williams, underscored sustained advocacy for evidence-based prophylaxis over unmitigated reliance on prayer alone.[38] These efforts highlighted tensions between providentialism and mechanistic causality in colonial discourse, where Prince favored secondary causes like inoculation as instruments of divine order.[39]
Earthquake Interpretations
Thomas Prince interpreted earthquakes primarily as divine interventions, viewing them as manifestations of God's sovereignty and potential judgments on human sin, consistent with Puritan providential theology. In response to the significant New England earthquake on October 29, 1727—which struck at approximately 10 p.m., caused widespread alarm, and was felt from New York to Nova Scotia—Prince delivered two sermons at Boston's Old South Church during a day of fasting and prayer appointed by colonial authorities.[40] These were published as Earthquakes the Works of God, and Tokens of His Just Displeasure, drawing on Psalm 18:7 ("Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations also of the hills moved and were shaken, because he was wroth").[41] Prince compiled a historical appendix summarizing prior earthquakes in New England since English settlement, including events in 1638, 1663, and 1705, to underscore their rarity and divine significance rather than natural inevitability.[42]Prince emphasized causal realism in attributing earthquakes to God's direct agency, rejecting purely mechanistic explanations while acknowledging subterranean fires or explosions as secondary instruments of providence. He argued that such events served as calls to repentance, citing biblical precedents like the earthquake at Christ's crucifixion (Matthew 27:51) and warning against moral complacency amid New England's spiritual declension.[43] Empirical observations from the 1727 event—such as ground waves, chimneys toppling in Boston, and reports of livestock disturbances—were framed not as random geological phenomena but as targeted divine rebukes, with Prince noting the quake's intensity spared no social class, reinforcing egalitarian accountability before God.[44]Following the more destructive Cape Ann earthquake on November 18, 1755—which registered around magnitude 6.0, damaged buildings in Boston, and prompted another fast day—Prince reprinted his 1727 sermons with a new appendix exploring electricity's role in seismic activity.[45] Influenced by contemporary natural philosophy, including Benjamin Franklin's experiments, he proposed that "electrical substance" accumulated underground or via atmospheric conduction could ignite vapors, producing shocks as part of God's ordained natural order.[46] This interpretation maintained providential causality—electricity as a tool of divine displeasure—while critiquing human interference, such as excessive lightning rods, which he hypothesized might concentrate electrical fluid and provoke greater upheavals; however, this claim lacked empirical validation and drew skepticism from scientific contemporaries.[47] Prince's blend of theology and proto-scientific reasoning reflected his broader engagement with Enlightenment ideas, prioritizing scriptural authority over speculative geology.[48]
Role in the Great Awakening
Support for Revivalism
Thomas Prince, serving as co-pastor of Boston's Old South Church from 1718 until his death in 1758, became a prominent advocate for the religious revivals of the Great Awakening, interpreting them as a genuine work of divine grace sweeping through New England in the 1730s and 1740s.[6] He actively facilitated the movement by inviting key itinerant preachers, including George Whitefield, who arrived in Boston on September 14, 1740, and delivered sermons at Prince's church and other venues to audiences numbering in the thousands, thereby accelerating local evangelical activity.[49] Similarly, Prince welcomed Gilbert Tennent to preach in December 1740, contributing to sustained revival momentum in the city.[49]Prince defended the revivals as fulfilling scriptural prophecies, likening phenomena such as congregational outcries, trembling, and conversions to the events of Pentecost in Acts 2:37 and earlier historical precedents, rejecting critics' charges of unbridled enthusiasm in favor of viewing them as evidence of the Holy Spirit's conviction.[50] In sermons and writings, he highlighted observable fruits of the awakening, including moral reforms like decreased tavern patronage, the emergence of around 30 new prayer societies in Boston, and broader social improvements such as reduced public rudeness among youth and enslaved individuals, which he attributed to God's providential intervention.[50]To chronicle and promote these developments, Prince authored An Account of the Revival of Religion in Boston, in the Years 1740-1-2-3, published in 1743, which detailed the progression of conversions and communal transformations under divine influence while emphasizing the role of ordained ministers in guiding the process.[49] Although supportive of itinerancy when conducted by credentialed clergy like Whitefield, Prince maintained a measured stance, urging discernment to separate authentic spiritual renewal from potential disorders, thereby aiming to sustain the revival's credibility amid growing divisions.[50]
The Christian History Periodical
In 1743, Thomas Prince, alongside his son Thomas Prince Jr., established The Christian History, the first religious periodical published in the American colonies, as a weekly publication issued every Saturday in Boston.[5][51] The periodical consisted of eight-page issues and ran for two years, from March 5, 1743, to February 23, 1745, compiling accounts of religious revivals and conversions across New England, Great Britain, and other regions.[52]The primary aim of The Christian History was to document and promote the ongoing religious awakenings, presenting them as evidence of divine intervention and spiritual renewal amid the Great Awakening.[53] Prince solicited letters, narratives, and testimonies from ministers and lay observers, including notable contributions such as Jonathan Edwards's detailed account of the Northampton revival published in issues from January 1743.[54] These materials emphasized extraordinary outpourings of the Holy Spirit, conversions, and moral reforms, while countering skepticism from opponents who viewed the revivals as emotional excess rather than authentic piety.[55]By aggregating regional reports into a unified narrative, the periodical fostered a sense of transatlantic religious momentum, portraying the awakenings as a cohesive historical event orchestrated by Providence.[53] This editorial framing helped solidify the concept of a singular "Great Awakening" in colonial consciousness, influencing subsequent historiography despite Prince's own reservations about certain revival excesses, such as itinerant preaching.[50] Circulation reached subscribers in multiple colonies, amplifying pro-revival sentiments among clergy and laity, though it ceased after 104 issues amid waning enthusiasm and internal debates over revival methods.[6]
Internal Divisions Among Supporters
Thomas Prince sought to bridge fractures within the pro-revival coalition through The Christian History, a periodical he co-edited with his son starting in March 1743, which documented accounts of religious awakenings to affirm their divine authenticity while emphasizing ecclesiastical order.[53] However, submissions revealed persistent tensions between moderate supporters, who prioritized controlled revivals aligned with established Congregational hierarchies, and radicals who endorsed disruptive enthusiasm and itinerant preaching that undermined settled ministries.[56] These moderates, including Prince and allies like Jonathan Edwards, viewed radical excesses—such as bodily agitations and lay exhortations—as threats to social stability, whereas radicals interpreted them as authentic signs of spiritual regeneration.[53]A pivotal flashpoint occurred during the Plymouthrevival in winter 1742, where preacher Andrew Croswell's February 13 all-night meeting devolved into chaotic outcries, fainting spells, and unauthorized lay preaching, prompting a churchschism and alienating moderate observers who contrasted it with orderly conversions.[56] Similarly, James Davenport's March 6, 1743, public book-burning in New London, Connecticut—targeting "unconverted" ministers' works—exemplified radical zeal that moderates condemned as fanaticism, further eroding unity among revival advocates.[53] Prince's editorial strategy involved curating narratives to mitigate such reports, incorporating historical precedents from past awakenings to frame current events as providential yet restrained, but the scarcity of moderate accounts meant radical submissions comprised about 69% of revival content, inadvertently amplifying divisive elements.[56]Efforts to reconcile these factions faltered at ministerial conferences, such as the May 25, 1743, gathering in Massachusetts that repudiated radical itinerancy and enthusiasm, followed by a July 7 session where only around 45 of 90 attendees fully endorsed pro-revival attestations, signaling lukewarm support even among sympathizers.[53] Prince's irenic approach, avoiding direct attacks on critics and promoting ecumenical narratives, failed to quell radicals or persuade skeptics, as the periodical's reliance on unfiltered radical testimonies—despite Prince's subtle toning down—polarized Congregationalists and contributed to its discontinuation in 1745 amid waning submissions and heightened opposition.[56] This schism within supporter ranks, pitting establishment defenders against anti-hierarchical enthusiasts, underscored the Great Awakening's internal volatility, where shared commitment to revival masked irreconcilable views on its proper expression and societal implications.[53]
Controversies and Criticisms
Opposition to Lightning Rods
Thomas Prince, pastor of Boston's Old South Church, viewed lightning as a manifestation of divine providence, often serving as judgment or warning from God, and expressed reservations about human inventions that might circumvent such acts.[57] Following the Cape Ann earthquake of November 18, 1755—which registered approximately 6.0 on the modern Richter scale and caused widespread alarm in New England—Prince appended a postscript dated December 5, 1755, to his pamphlet Earthquakes the Works of God, intensifying his critique of Benjamin Franklin's lightning rods, referred to as "iron points."[57][48]In this postscript, Prince argued that the increasing installation of lightning rods in Boston, more numerous than in surrounding areas, could exacerbate earthquakes by channeling electrical fire into the earth, thereby "charging" it with volatile substance.[57] He wrote: "The more Points of Iron are erected... the more the Earth must needs be charged with it," suggesting this artificial accumulation might provoke subterranean convulsions akin to those observed in the recent seismic event.[57] Prince further cautioned that such devices risked divine retribution, positing that God might transform trusted safeguards into instruments of destruction: "Least... the offended Deity make that in which we trust for Safety to be the very Means of our Destruction."[57] This stance reflected his broader theological framework, wherein electricity operated under God's sovereign control rather than independent natural laws, rendering human interventions presumptuous and potentially counterproductive to moral and spiritual reform.[57][33]Prince's position sparked a public exchange with Harvard professor John Winthrop, who advocated for lightning rods as compatible with providence and grounded in empirical observation.[57] In letters published in the Boston Gazette on January 26 and February 23, 1756, Prince defended his interpretation, accusing scientific rationalizations of veering toward atheism by diminishing God's direct agency in natural phenomena.[57] Winthrop countered by affirming that protective measures like rods honored God's appointed means, much as medicine addressed disease without denying providence, but Prince maintained that overreliance on such tools could foster complacency toward sin, the true root of calamities.[57] This debate underscored emerging tensions in colonial America between orthodox Calvinist views of divine sovereignty and Enlightenment-era empiricism, with Prince prioritizing scriptural and historical precedents over mechanistic explanations of electricity.[57][33]
Conflicts with Contemporaries like Thomas Fleet
Thomas Fleet, a Boston printer and editor of the Boston Evening Post, emerged as one of Thomas Prince's principal adversaries during the public controversies surrounding the Great Awakening in the 1740s. Fleet, who had established his printing business in 1712 and began publishing his weekly newspaper in 1735, frequently used its pages to critique the perceived excesses of revivalism, including itinerant preaching and emotional displays that Prince and other supporters deemed signs of genuine spiritual renewal.[58] Fleet's opposition positioned him against moderate revivalists like Prince, who sought to document and defend the movement through publications such as The Christian History (1743–1744), a periodical co-edited by Prince and his son that compiled accounts of revivals across New England and beyond.[53]A notable flashpoint occurred in 1743, when Fleet's Evening Post carried articles challenging Prince's endorsement of evangelist George Whitefield, including allegations that Whitefield had mismanaged funds intended for his Bethesda orphanage in Georgia. On May 30, 1743, Fleet published a piece questioning the financial transparency and motives behind Whitefield's tours, implicitly targeting Prince's prior defenses of the preacher in sermons and writings. Prince's son, Thomas Prince Jr., responded swiftly in the May 31, 1743, edition of the Boston Gazette, rebutting the claims and affirming the revival's providential authenticity, thereby escalating the exchange into a broader print dispute over revivalist credibility.[53]Fleet's newspaper also featured multiple commentaries deriding The Christian History itself, portraying it as biased propaganda that exaggerated revival successes while ignoring disorders like the 1742 burning of books by radical revivalist James Davenport in New London, Connecticut. These critiques reflected Fleet's broader antirevivalist stance, which emphasized social stability and skepticism toward enthusiastic conversions, contrasting Prince's view that the awakenings represented a divine outpouring warranting historical documentation. The feud underscored the role of colonial print media in amplifying theological divides, with Fleet's shop producing antirevivalist pamphlets alongside his periodical, while Prince relied on allied printers for pro-revival materials.[50][58] Despite the intensity, no formal ecclesiasticalcensure resulted, and the disputes waned as the Awakening's fervor subsided by the mid-1740s.[53]
Theological and Methodological Critiques
Prince's integration of providential theology into historical methodology drew criticism for prioritizing divine causation over empirical analysis. In works like A Chronological History of New-England (1736), he framed colonial events through a lens of moral providence, interpreting occurrences such as epidemics and conflicts as divine judgments or mercies, a approach later deemed by historians as confessional rather than objective, embedding theological presuppositions that obscured secular causes.[59] This method reflected Puritan orthodoxy but was faulted for lacking critical detachment, as Prince's annals, while pioneering in source compilation, halted abruptly at 1633 due to his interpretive commitments, leaving subsequent history undertheorized.[7]Theologically, Prince's advocacy for revivalism as a supernatural effusion of the Holy Spirit faced rebuke from rationalist clergy like Charles Chauncy, who in Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New-England (1743) lambasted supporters including Prince for fostering enthusiasm over doctrinal sobriety, arguing that such views risked antinomianism by undervaluing church order and human agency in conversion.[60] Prince's Calvinist emphasis on predestination and divine sovereignty, while standard among New England divines, was critiqued within emerging Arminian circles for rigidity, potentially stifling moral effort and exacerbating sectarian divides during the Awakening.Methodologically, Prince's editorship of The Christian History (1743–1745), the first American religious periodical, aimed to document and moderate revivals but was faulted for selective curation that amplified radical itinerants like James Davenport, failing to excise "excesses" such as bodily agitations and doctrinal irregularities despite Prince's intent to define authentic revival by scriptural marks like humiliation and love.[53] Scholars note this editorial laxity—stemming from reliance on unverified reports amid printing constraints—constructed a unified "Great Awakening" narrative retrospectively, yet inadvertently highlighted fractures among Congregationalists, undermining Prince's goal of theological cohesion and exposing vulnerabilities in his source-validation process.[53] Such critiques underscore a broader tension in Prince's work between empirical documentation and providential hermeneutics, where methodological tools served theological ends without sufficient safeguards against bias.
Legacy and Influence
Bibliophilic Collections and Donations
Thomas Prince amassed one of the most significant private libraries in colonial America, comprising approximately 3,500 volumes of printed books and manuscripts, with a particular emphasis on early New England history, theology, and Puritan literature.[18] His collecting began during his education at Harvard College and travels to England and Europe in the early 1700s, where he acquired rare imprints, including multiple copies—up to five—of the 1640 Bay Psalm Book, recognizing its historical value even in his lifetime.[61] Prince's library served as a foundational resource for his own historical writings, such as A Chronological History of New-England, and reflected his commitment to preserving primary sources on colonial religious and civic developments.[62]The collection's survival as one of the few intact colonial American libraries underscores Prince's deliberate curation, including efforts to solicit and copy manuscripts from contemporaries to safeguard regional records.[18] In 1733, he published a catalog of his holdings to document and publicize its contents, facilitating scholarly access and further acquisitions.[63] This bibliophilic endeavor positioned Prince as an early Americanantiquarian, prioritizing empirical preservation over mere personal ownership, though his selections were shaped by orthodox Calvinist perspectives that favored providential interpretations of history.[62]Upon his death in 1758, Prince bequeathed the entire library to the Old South Church in Boston, where he had served as associate pastor since 1718, stipulating that it remain intact for the congregation's use and the benefit of future researchers.[63] This donation ensured the collection's longevity as a public resource, later deposited with the Boston Public Library in 1866 to protect it from dispersal or loss.[64] The bequest exemplified Prince's vision of libraries as communal repositories for truth-seeking inquiry into America's providential origins, influencing subsequent historiographical efforts despite the era's limited institutional frameworks for preservation.[6]
Impact on American Historiography
Thomas Prince's A Chronological History of New-England, in the Form of Annals (1736–1755), covering events from European discovery to 1633, advanced American historiography through its rigorous use of primary documents and chronological precision, diverging from the providential narratives of predecessors like Cotton Mather.[7] Prince compiled the work from manuscripts, letters, and records, prioritizing factual annals over interpretive storytelling, with entries noting exact dates such as the arrival of the ship White Angel on July 22, 1631.[7] This methodological emphasis on verifiable sources and avoidance of unsubstantiated tradition marked him as a pioneer in scientific historical writing, influencing the development of evidence-based standards in colonial-era scholarship.Prince's approach elevated historiography by treating history as a cumulative record of authenticated events rather than moral allegory, setting a precedent for later documentary compilations.[65] His annals served as a reference for subsequent scholars, demonstrating the value of systematic source criticism amid the era's limited archival access.[7] This focus on empirical detail contributed to a gradual professionalization of historical inquiry in America, bridging amateur antiquarianism and more structured 19th-century practices.The work directly shaped key figures in early republican historiography, including Jeremy Belknap, whose History of New-Hampshire (1784–1792) echoed Prince's commitment to primary evidence and who credited colonial collectors like Prince in establishing the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1791.[7] Similarly, Thomas Hutchinson drew on Prince's framework for his History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts-Bay (1764–1828), incorporating annals-style chronologies while expanding analytical scope.[7] Prince's legacy thus fostered a tradition of source-driven regional history, with his volumes remaining cited into the late 18th century for their reliability on early New England settlements.
Modern Assessments of His Work
Modern scholars recognize Thomas Prince's A Chronological History of New-England (1736) as an early effort in American historiography, valued primarily for its compilation of primary documents and commitment to factual accuracy drawn from original sources, though its annalistic structure and heavy providential interpretation limit its analytical depth.[24] John van de Wetering, in a 1961 analysis, notes that Prince's methodology emphasized chronological precision and Reformation-era optimism, portraying New England's settlement as the Reformation's apex, but critiqued the work's rigidity as aligning more with seventeenth-century chronicle traditions than emerging critical scholarship.[24] This providential framework, which interpreted events through divine causation, reflects Prince's clerical perspective but has drawn modern criticism for subordinating causal analysis to theological narrative.[66]Prince's The Christian History (1743–1744), a periodical documenting the Great Awakening, is assessed as a vital primary source for understanding revivalist dynamics, offering firsthand accounts that shaped subsequent interpretations of the movement's scope and fervor.[53] However, historians like Richard L. Bushman argue it inadvertently amplified divisions among revival supporters rather than fostering the moderate unity Prince intended, revealing unexpected coalitions between revival opponents and highlighting social order concerns over doctrinal consensus.[53] Its editorial selections, while biased toward evangelical reports, provide empirical data on itinerant preaching and conversions, influencing studies by scholars such as Michael J. Crawford and Frank Lambert.[53]Overall, Prince's legacy endures through his bibliophilic endeavors and influence on later historians, including Jeremy Belknap and Thomas Hutchinson, who drew on his documentary rigor for their own works, establishing him as a foundational figure in preserving colonial records despite methodological constraints.[7] The Prince Society, founded in his honor, underscores this recognition as a meticulous antiquarian whose collections advanced empirical approaches in early American historical writing.[67] Contemporary evaluations prioritize his role in sourcing over interpretive innovation, viewing his output as transitional from medieval providentialism to Enlightenment-era historiography.[65]