Page images

again, and set open then, in compliance with nothing but an imperative royal order!

After all, therefore, fear of the King drew the bolts of a Quaker's dungeon but for a little while; and as we shall presently see, the same fear exempted him, but for a short time, from the old penalties of banishment and death. The mandamus not only forbade death, but also "other corporal punishment;" and required Massachusetts to send its criminals to England, "that," says Charles, "such course may be taken with them here, as shall be agreeable to our laws and their demerits."* Hutchinson affirms that the Puritans "prudently complied with this instruction, and suspended the execution of the laws against the Quakers, so far as respected corporeal punishment, until further order."+ On the same page, he says, "the laws were afterwards revived, so far as respected vagabond Quakers, whose punishment was limited to whipping, and, as a further favor, through three towns only!" But this is hardly a correct, it is most certainly not an exact account, of the position of things. Hutchinson blinks the fact, that the whipping "through three towns only," was the solitary exception, to the bloody and fiery laws of 1658 and 1661. The law of 1661, which allowed branding and death, though death not quite so quickly as the law of 1658, was revived, after the King's mandamus, viz., in 1662, (but a few months, probably, after its reception,) and ordained to "be henceforth in force, in all respects," with the nominal exception specified.‡

Oh, with what rueful reluctance, with what limping lenity, did Puritanism dole out the semblance of mercy to the victim of its execrations; and then, with the old scent of blood in its nostrils, again stretch out its arm to fasten him in its gripe of death! A Quaker was not to be whipped out of the Commonwealth as formerly, but if he returned,

* Sewel, p. 281.

Hutchinson, i. 188.

Hazard's Col. ii. 611.

Puritanism, as her prompter Endicott said, would be just as ready to take his life, as he to risk it. A bare temporary suspension of an act of extermination, is all the boon which can be granted him; even at the instance of One, on whose favor the very safety of chartered rights was hanging.*

Nevertheless, says Mr. Bancroft, as if Massachusetts were to become a life-preserver instead of a life-destroyer to the Quaker, after the release of Christison and his twentyseven companions, "the doctrine of toleration, with the pledges of peace, hovered like the dove at the window of the ark, waiting to be received into its rightful refuge."+ Rightful refuge? The historian of the United States had better enliven his memory about the revival of the law of death, and then look back upon one of his own pages, and read the solemn refutation of himself, and of all other special pleaders for the merciless. "It has been attempted to excuse the atrocity of the law, because the Quakers avowed. principles subversive of social order. Any government might, on the same grounds, find in its unreasonable fears an excuse for its cruelties. The argument justifies the expulsion of the Moors from Spain, of the Huguenots from France; and it forms a complete apology for Laud, who was honest in his bigotry, persecuting the Puritans with the same good faith, with which he recorded his dreams.”‡

* This apparent submission to King Charles, and virtual insubmission to him, and deception of him, when they supposed he might have forgotten his mandamus, happened, it must be recollected, during the last years of Endicott's administration and life. He died in 1665, æt. 75. I have already quoted Tacitus in connexion with his name, and he so strongly reminds me of another parallel, that I must quote again. "Jam Tiberium corpus, jam vires, nondum dissimulatio deserebat. Idem animi rigor."-Tac. Ann. Liber vi. sect. 50.

+ Bancroft, i. 458.

Bancroft i. 454. Mr. B. cannot give Laud his due, without a sneer at the notice of dreams in his Diary. The compliment might be repaid by a sneer at his own consistency. Will it be believed? His ink is

But my pen will stray on too far; and it is time to teach it the Quaker virtue of quiescence, and bring this letter to a close.

It was my intention to have given some of the details of the execution of Leddra, who, through an entire "very cold winter," and during" night and day," and "in an open prison," was chained to a log, as though he had been a hyæna, and not a man-to show also, in Sewel's own style, how he was attended with a Puritan father-confessor, who, though he mocked him not with beads and a cross, did mock him with misapplications of Scripture-how his solemn appeal to his mother-country for justice, was not so much as noticedhow he was dragged to the scaffold, after the lecture was duly ended, by the Governor and his guards, and how, to the end, he "continued cheerful, and died like Stephen, exclaiming, ' Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'"

It was also my intention, to have inserted some account of the tedious trial and fearless replies of Wenlock Christison; who was doomed to death, but saved through the fears of a day-dream somewhat more substantial, than the nightvisions of an old tormented Archbishop. For this I was the more disposed, since Chalmers says of him, in his Political Annals, "The spirit and talents displayed by Wenlock Christison on his trial, would have done honor to Sidney."* One little exquisite specimen of the logic of his judges is all, however, which I will specify.t Christison told them they

hardly dry, before he writes, on p. 455," America was guilty of the death of four individuals, and they fell victims rather to the contest of will, than to the opinion that Quakerism is a capital crime." Mr. B. forgot the revived laws. No wonder he should forget Laud's Diary. "I am not moved by dreams," says the Archbishop, " yet I thought fit to remember this." Troubles &c. p. 57. His Diary, too, was for his own eyes alone. And if Prynne had not robbed him of it, and garbled it, none of us might have been the wiser for these visions of a Churchman's sleep. However, when Puritanism would talk of Laud's harmless superstition, let it remember its life-taking witchcraft some sixty years later!

* Annals, p. 191.

+ Gough, i. 480.

could not hang Quakers by their new law, because it was repugnant to the laws of England; and their charter forbade the enactment of any such law whatever. "I appeal," said he, "to the judicatories of our common country: I never heard nor read of any statute that was in Old England to hang Quakers." Sound, statesmanlike reasoning. How was it answered? Why, they said, "there was a statute in England to hang the Jesuits." No wonder they were a fortnight in circumambulating to reach such a matchless. conclusion!

But I forbear. Time and space will not permit me to enlarge, and perhaps many will think I have offered enough already, from some of the darkest chapters of human history -have dwelt sufficiently on deeds which Turks, Monks, Inquisitors, and "Salvages," to let Laud and High Commission judges pass as samples of comparative innocence, will rise up in judgment to condemn. I am willing to let the awful and opprobious records before me be closed; and have purposely given much of this letter by reference or quotation; for the blood of Quakers flows in my veins, and perhaps too warmly, while I linger over the bitter tale of their wrongs and their woes.

And yet, strange to say, my Episcopal blood comes through the same channel; as, to put some readers in better humor before parting, I am quite willing to tell. I find the following account of my Quaker ancestor, who became a Churchman, in Deane's History of Scituate, and give it in his own words. "He left Scituate in 1704, and settled in Newport. He had previously married Ruth, daughter of Deacon J. B., senior. To this match there had been several objections : the Quakers disapproved of his marrying out of the Society, and the Congregationalists of his marrying into theirs; and moreover, the woman was very young. However, the sanguine temperament of was not to be foiled, and he is said to have addressed the young woman, in the presence of

her family, in the following words: 'Ruth, let us break away from this unreasonable bondage. I will give up my religion, and thou shalt give up thine, and we will go the Church of England, and go to the d-l together.' They fulfilled this resolution," adds my annalist, "so far as going to Church, and marrying, and adhering to the Church of England during life."

The anecdote shows that my worthy progenitor was somewhat rude, perhaps, in speech, “And little blest with the set phrase of peace." But I trust my fair readers, if I have any, will forgive him, for his devotion to his lady-love; and that sober Churchmen will excuse his language, as a true, if rough memento, of the opinions entertained of their communion by those, who once esteemed and avowed it a dear mother, from whom they had obtained all their hope and part in the common salvation.


My readers have now seen how the Puritans entertained Churchmen, Baptists, and Quakers. The present letter is to show, how they bore themselves towards Papists; whom, in a law against them, in 1647, they represent as the authors of "great combustions and divisions," and for whom,

* The exact language of the famous Arabella letter is, "ever acknowledging, that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received in her bosom, and sucked it from her breasts."

+ There is no evidence to show, that the Jesuits had given the Puritans in New England any trouble, or were likely to do so. (Mass. Hist. Coll. 1st ser. vi. 257.) Nevertheless, it was part of the orthodoxy of the day, to denounce Popery in the most unmeasured terms. For example,

« PreviousContinue »