Viewed from the standpoint of comparative history, the policy of theocratic Ma.s.sachusetts toward the Quakers was the necessary consequence of antecedent causes, and is exactly parallel with the ma.s.sacre of the house of Ahab by Elisha and Jehu. The power of a dominant priesthood depended on conformity, and the Quakers absolutely refused to conform; nor was this the blackest of their crimes: they believed that the Deity communicated directly with men, and that these revelations were the highest rule of conduct. Manifestly such a doctrine was revolutionary. The influence of all ecclesiastics must ultimately rest upon the popular belief that they are endowed with attributes which are denied to common men. The syllogism of the New England elders was this: all revelation is contained in the Bible; we alone, from our peculiar education, are capable of interpreting the meaning of the Scriptures: therefore we only can declare the will of G.o.d. But it was evident that, were the dogma of "the inner light" once accepted, this reasoning must fall to the ground, and the authority of the ministry be overthrown. Necessarily those who held so subversive a doctrine would be pursued with greater hate than less harmful heretics, and thus contemplating the situation there is no difficulty in understanding why the Rev. John Wilson, pastor of Boston, should have vociferated in his pulpit, that "he would carry fire in one hand and f.a.ggots in the other, to burn all the Quakers in the world;" [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 124.] why the Rev. John Higginson should have denounced the "inner light" as "a stinking vapour from h.e.l.l;" [Footnote: _Truth and Innocency Defended_, ed. 1703, p. 80.] why the astute Norton should have taught that "the justice of G.o.d was the devil"s armour;" [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 9.] and why Endicott sternly warned the first comers, "Take heed you break not our ecclesiastical laws, for then ye are sure to stretch by a halter." [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9.]
Nevertheless, this view has not commended itself to those learned clergymen who have been the chief historians of the Puritan commonwealth. They have, on the contrary, steadily maintained that the sectaries were the persecutors, since the company had exclusive ownership of the soil, and acted in self-defence.
The case of Roger Williams is thus summed up by Dr. Dexter: "In all strictness and honesty he persecuted them--not they him; just as the modern "Come-outer," who persistently intrudes his bad manners and pestering presence upon some private company, making himself, upon pretence of conscience, a nuisance there; is--if sane--the persecutor, rather than the man who forcibly a.s.sists, as well as courteously requires, his desired departure." [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p.
90.]
Dr. Ellis makes a similar argument regarding the Quakers: "It might appear as if good manners, and generosity and magnanimity of spirit, would have kept the Quakers away. Certainly, by every rule of right and reason, they ought to have kept away. They had no rights or business here.... Most clearly they courted persecution, suffering, and death; and, as the magistrates affirmed, "they rushed upon the sword." Those magistrates never intended them harm, ... except as they believed that all their successive measures and sharper penalties were positively necessary to secure their jurisdiction from the wildest lawlessness and absolute anarchy." [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. and its Early History_, p. 110]
His conclusion is: "It is to be as frankly and positively affirmed that their Quaker tormentors were the aggressive party; that they wantonly initiated the strife, and with a dogged pertinacity persisted in outrages which drove the authorities almost to frenzy...." [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 104]
The proposition that the Congregationalists owned the territory granted by the charter of Charles I. as though it were a private estate, has been considered in an earlier chapter; and if the legal views there advanced are sound, it is incontrovertible, that all peaceful British subjects had a right to dwell in Ma.s.sachusetts, provided they did not infringe the monopoly in trade. The only remaining question, therefore, is whether the Quakers were peaceful. Dr. Ellis, Dr. Palfrey, and Dr.
Dexter have carefully collected a certain number of cases of misconduct, with the view of proving that the Friends were turbulent, and the government had reasonable grounds for apprehending such another outbreak as one which occurred a century before in Germany and is known as the Peasants" War. Before, however, it is possible to enter upon a consideration of the evidence intelligently, it is necessary to fix the chronological order of the leading events of the persecution.
The twenty-one years over which it extended may be conveniently divided into three periods, of which the first began in July, 1656, when Mary Fisher and Anne Austin came to Boston, and lasted till December, 1661, when Charles II. interfered by commanding Endicott to send those under arrest to England for trial. Hitherto John Norton had been preeminent, but in that same December he was appointed on a mission to London, and as he died soon after his return, his direct influence on affairs then probably ceased. He had been chiefly responsible for the hangings of 1659 and 1660, but under no circ.u.mstances could they have been continued, for after four heretics had perished, it was found impossible to execute Wenlock Christison, who had been condemned, because of popular indignation.
Nevertheless, the respite was brief. In June, 1662, the king, in a letter confirming the charter, excluded the Quakers from the general toleration which he demanded for other sects, and the old legislation was forthwith revived; only as it was found impossible to kill the schismatics openly, the inference, from what occurred subsequently, is unavoidable, that the elders sought to attain their purpose by what their reverend historians call "a humaner policy," [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 134.] or, in plain English, by murdering them by flogging and starvation. Nor was the device new, for the same stratagem had already been resorted to by the East India Company, in Hindostan, before they were granted full criminal jurisdiction. [Footnote: Mill"s _British India_, i. 48, note.]
The Vagabond Act was too well contrived for compa.s.sing such an end, to have been an accident, and portions of it strongly suggest the hand of Norton. It was pa.s.sed in May, 1661, when it was becoming evident that hanging must be abandoned, and its provisions can only be explained on the supposition that it was the intention to make the infliction of death discretionary with each magistrate. It provided that any foreign Quaker, or any native upon a second conviction, might be ordered to receive an unlimited number of stripes. It is important also to observe that the whip was a two-handed implement, armed with lashes made of twisted and knotted cord or catgut. [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed.
1703, p. 357, note.] There can be no doubt, moreover, that sundry of the judgments afterward p.r.o.nounced would have resulted fatally had the people permitted their execution. During the autumn following its enactment this statute was suspended, but it was revived in about ten months.
Endicott"s death in 1665 marks the close of the second epoch, and ten comparatively tranquil years followed. Bellingham"s moderation may have been in part due to the interference of the royal commissioners, but a more potent reason was the popular disgust, which had become so strong that the penal laws could not be enforced.
A last effort was made to rekindle the dying flame in 1675, by fining constables who failed in their duty to break up Quaker meetings, and offering one third of the penalty to the informer. Magistrates were required to sentence those apprehended to the House of Correction, where they were to be kept three days on bread and water, and whipped.
[Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ v. 60.] Several suffered during this revival, the last of whom was Margaret Brewster. At the end of twenty-one years the policy of cruelty had become thoroughly discredited and a general toleration could no longer be postponed; but this great liberal triumph was only won by heroic courage and by the endurance of excruciating torments. Marmaduke Stevenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra were hanged, several were mutilated or branded, two at least are known to have died from starvation and whipping, and it is probable that others were killed whose fate cannot be traced. The number tortured under the Vagabond Act is unknown, nor can any estimate be made of the misery inflicted upon children by the ruin and exile of parents.
The early Quakers were enthusiasts, and therefore occasionally spoke and acted extravagantly; they also adopted some offensive customs, the most objectionable of which was wearing the hat; all this is immaterial.
The question at issue is not their social attractiveness, but the cause whose consequence was a virulent persecution. This can only be determined by an a.n.a.lysis of the evidence. If, upon an impartial review of the cases of outrage which have been collected, it shall appear probable that the conduct of the Friends was sufficiently violent to make it credible that the legislature spoke the truth, when it declared that "the prudence of this court was exercised onely in making provission to secure the peace & order heere established against theire attempts, whose designe (wee were well a.s.sured by our oune experjence, as well as by the example of theire predecessors in Munster) was to vndermine & ruine the same;" [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ vol. iv. pt. 1, p.
385.] then the reverend historians of the theocracy must be considered to have established their proposition. But if, on the other hand, it shall seem apparent that the intense vindictiveness of this onslaught was due to the bigotry and greed of power of a despotic priesthood, who saw in the spread of independent thought a menace to the ascendency of their order, then it must be held to be demonstrated that the clergy of New England acted in obedience to those natural laws, which have always regulated the conduct of mankind.
CHRONOLOGY.
1656, July. First Quakers came to Boston.
1656, 14 Oct. First act against Quakers pa.s.sed. Providing that ship-masters bringing Quakers should be fined 100. Quakers to be whipped and imprisoned till expelled. Importers of Quaker books to be fined. Any defending Quaker opinions to be fined, first offence, 40s.; second, 4; third, banishment.
1657, 14 Oct. By a supplementary act; Quakers returning after one conviction for first offence, for men, loss of one ear; imprisonment till exile. Second offence, loss other ear, like imprisonment. For females; first offence, whipping, imprisonment. Second offence, idem.
Third offence, men and women alike; tongue to be bored with a hot iron, imprisonment, exile. [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ vol. iv. pt. 1, p. 309.]
1658. In this year Rev. John Norton actively exerted himself to secure more stringent legislation; procured pet.i.tion to that effect to be presented to court.
1658, 19 Oct. Enacted that undomiciled Quakers returning from banishment should be hanged. Domiciled Quakers upon conviction, refusing to apostatize, to be banished, under pain of death on return. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 346.]
Under this act the following persons were hanged:
1659, 27 Oct. Robinson and Stevenson hanged.
1660, 1 June. Mary Dyer hanged. (Previously condemned, reprieved, and executed for returning.)
1660-1661, 14 Mar. William Leddra hanged.
1661, June. Wenlock Christison condemned to death; released.
1661, 22 May. Vagabond Act. Any person convicted before a county magistrate of being an undomiciled or vagabond Quaker to be stripped naked to the middle, tied to the cart"s tail, and flogged from town to town to the border. Domiciled Quakers to be proceeded against under Act of 1658 to banishment, and then treated as vagabond Quakers. The death penalty was still preserved but not enforced. [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ vol. iv. pt. 2, p. 3.]
1661, 9 Sept. King Charles II. wrote to Governor Endicott directing the cessation of corporal punishment in regard to Quakers, and ordering the accused to be sent to England for trial.
1661. 27 Nov. Vagabond Act suspended.
1662. 28 June. The company"s agents, Bradstreet and Norton, received from the king his letter of pardon, etc., wherein, however, Quakers are excepted from the demand made for religious toleration.
1662, 8 Oct. Encouraged by the above letter the Vagabond law revived.
1664-5, 15 March. Death of John Endicott. Bellingham governor.
Commissioners interfere on behalf of Quakers in May. The persecution subsides.
1672, 3 Nov. Persecution revived by pa.s.sage of law punishing persons found at Quaker meeting by fine or imprisonment and flogging. Also fining constables for neglect in making arrests and giving one third the fine to informers. [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ v. 60.]
1677, Aug. 9. Margaret Brewster whipped for entering the Old South in sackcloth.
TURBULENT QUAKERS.
1656, Mary Prince. 1662, Deborah Wilson.
1658, Sarah Gibbons. 1663, Thomas Newhouse.
" Dorothy Waugh. " Edward Wharton.
1660, John Smith. 1664, Hannah Wright. [Footnote: Uncertain.]
1661, Katherine Chatham. " Mary Tomkins.
" George Wilson. 1665, Lydia Wardwell.
1662, Elizabeth Hooton. 1677, Margaret Brewster.
"It was in the month called July, of this present year [1656] when Mary Fisher and Ann Austin arrived in the road before Boston, before ever a law was made there against the Quakers; and yet they were very ill treated; for before they came ash.o.r.e, the deputy governor, Richard Bellingham (the governor himself being out of town) sent officers aboard, who searched their trunks and chests, and took away the books they found there, which were about one hundred, and carried them ash.o.r.e, after having commanded the said women to be kept prisoners aboard; and the said books were, by an order of the council, burnt in the market-place by the hangman.... And then they were shut up close prisoners, and command was given that none should come to them without leave; a fine of five pounds being laid on any that should otherwise come at, or speak with them, tho" but at the window. Their pens, ink, and paper were taken from them, and they not suffered to have any candle-light in the night season; nay, what is more, they were stript naked, under pretence to know whether they were witches [a true touch of sacerdotal malignity] tho" in searching no token was found upon them but of innocence. And in this search they were so barbarously misused that modesty forbids to mention it: And that none might have communication with them a board was nailed up before the window of the jail. And seeing they were not provided with victuals, Nicholas Upshal, one who had lived long in Boston, and was a member of the church there, was so concerned about it, (liberty being denied to send them provision) that he purchased it of the jailor at the rate of five shillings a week, lest they should have starved. And after having been about five weeks prisoners, William Chichester, master of a vessel, was bound in one hundred pound bond to carry them back, and not suffer any to speak with them, after they were put on board; and the jailor kept their beds ...
and their Bible, for his fees." [Footnote: Sewel, p. 160.]
Endicott was much dissatisfied with the forbearance of Bellingham, and declared that had he "been there ... he would have had them well whipp"d." [Footnote: _New England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 10.] No exertion was spared, nevertheless, to get some hold upon them, the elders examining them as to matters of faith, with a view to ensnare them as heretics. In this, however, they were foiled.
On the authority of Hutchinson, Dr. Dexter [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p. 127.] and r. Palfrey complain [Footnote: Palfrey, ii.
464.] that Mary Prince reviled two of the ministers, who "with much moderation and tenderness endeavored to convince her of her errors."
[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ i. 181.] A visitation of the clergy was a form of torment from which even the boldest recoiled; Vane, Gorton, Childe, and Anne Hutchinson quailed under it, and though the Quakers abundantly proved that they could bear stripes with patience, they could not endure this. She called them "Baal"s priests, the seed of the serpent." Dr.
Ellis also speaks of "stinging objurgations screamed out ... from between the bars of their prisons." [Footnote: _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, i. 182.] He cites no cases, but he probably refers to the same woman who called to Endicott one Sunday on his way from church: "Woe unto thee, thou art an oppressor." [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ i. 181.] If she said so she spoke the truth, for she was illegally imprisoned, was deprived of her property, and subjected to great hardship.
In October, 1656, the first of the repressive acts was pa.s.sed, by which the "cursed" and "blasphemous" intruders were condemned to be "comitted to the house of correction, and at theire entrance to be seuerely whipt and by the master thereof to be kept constantly to worke, and none suffered to converse or speak with them;" [Footnote: _Ma.s.s. Rec._ vol.
iv. pt. 1, p. 278.] and any captain knowingly bringing them within the jurisdiction to be fined one hundred pounds, with imprisonment till payment.
"When this law was published at the door of the aforenamed Nicholas Upshall, the good old man, grieved in spirit, publickly testified against it; for which he was the next morning sent for to the General Court, where he told them that: "The execution of that law would be a forerunner of a judgment upon their country, and therefore in love and tenderness which he bare to the people and place, desired them to take heed, lest they were found fighters against G.o.d." For this, he, though one of their church-members, and of a blameless conversation, was fined 20 and 3 more for not coming to church, whence the sense of their wickedness had induced him to absent himself. They also banished him out of their jurisdiction, allowing him but one month for his departure, though in the winter season, and he a weakly ancient man: Endicott the governor, when applied to on his behalf for a mitigation of his fine, churlishly answered, "I will not bate him a groat."" [Footnote: Besse, ii. 181.]
Although, after the autumn of 1656, whippings, fines, and banishments became frequent, no case of misconduct is alleged until the 13th of the second month, 1658, when Sarah Gibbons and Dorothy Waugh broke two bottles in Mr. Norton"s church, after lecture, to testify to his emptiness; [Footnote: This charge is unproved.] both had previously been imprisoned and banished, but the ferocity with which Norton at that moment was forcing on the persecution was the probable incentive to the trespa.s.s. "They were sent to the house of correction, where, after being kept three days without any food, they were cruelly whipt, and kept three days longer without victuals, though they had offered to buy some, but were not suffered." [Footnote: Besse, ii. 184.]