session at Boston, under the presidency of Endicott. Their last proceeding before they parted was to pass the following vote: Sept. 2-23. "Whereas there is an accursed and pernicious sect of heretics lately risen up in the world who are commonly called Quakers, who take upon them to be immediately sent of God and infallibly assisted; who do speak and write blasphemous things, despising government and the order of God in church and commonwealth, speaking evil of dignities, reproaching and reviling magistrates and the ministers of the Gospel, seeking to turn the people from the faith, and to gain proselytes to their pernicious ways;- and whereas the several jurisdictions have made divers laws to prohibit and restrain the aforesaid cursed heretics from coming amongst them, yet notwithstanding they are not deterred thereby, but arrogantly and presumptuously do press into several of the jurisdictions, and there vent their pernicious and devilish opinions, which being permitted tends manifestly to the disturbance of our peace, the withdrawing of the hearts of the people from their subjection to government, and so in issue to cause division and ruin, if not timely prevented; it is therefore propounded and seriously commended to the several General Courts, upon the considerations aforesaid, to make a law that all such Quakers formerly convicted and punished as such, shall (if they return again) be imprisoned, and forthwith banished or expelled out of the said jurisdiction, under pain of death; and if afterwards they presume to come again into that jurisdiction, then to be put to death as presumptuously incorrigible, unless they shall plainly and publicly renounce their cursed opinions; and for such Quakers as shall come into any jurisdiction from any foreign parts, or such as shall arise within the same, after due conviction that either he or she is of that cursed sect of heretics, they be banished under pain of severe corporal punishment; and if they return again, then to be punished accordingly, and banished under pain of death; and if afterwards they shall yet presume to come again, then to be put to death as aforesaid, except they do then and there plainly and publicly renounce their said cursed opinions and devilish tenets." 1 Massachusetts, alone of the four Colonies, carried this advice into full effect. The General Court of that Colony, which met three weeks after the adjournment of the Commissioners, received a memorial from twenty-five leading citizens of Boston, urging the necessity of more efficient measures of protection against the Quakers. "Their incorrigibleness," say the petitioners, "after so much means used both for their conviction and preserving this place from contagion, is such as, by reason of their malignant obdurities, daily increaseth rather than abateth our fear of the spirit of Muncer or of John of Leyden renewed, and consequently of some destructive evil impending." And they formally present the question, whether it be not necessary, after the example of other Christian commonwealths infested with pests not more perilous than these are, and the common and universally approved argument of se defendendo, upon the sad experience that the remedy hitherto applied is not only not effectual, but contemned and abused with the highest hand, if, after the sentence of banishment added thereunto, they shall still presumptuously obtrude themselves upon this jurisdiction, whether, 66 1 Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 399, 400. -It was the practice of the Commissioners to append to the record of each meeting the following entry, with their names attached, namely, "These foregoing conclusions were agreed and subscribed by the Commissioners the day of -"The record of the present meeting, as printed by Hazard, was thus certified by all the Commissioners except Josiah Winslow, of Plymouth, whose name, however, appears in the Connecticut copy of the Journal. John Winthrop, of Connecticut, attached to his subscription the following words: "Looking at the last [the vote relating to the Quakers] as a query, and not an act, I subscribe.” we say, it be not necessary to punish so high incorrigibleness in such and so many capital evils with death."1 The provision which threatened with death persons returning after being banished, was no novelty in Massachusetts legislation. It had been resorted to over and over again, through a course of years, and had never once failed of its intended effect in inducing the banished persons to stay away, and to confine themselves, at least, to such annoyance as they could inflict from a distance. Not to name such simple cases as those of Stone,3 South+, Buet,5 Collins, and Francis Hutchinson, it might naturally be presumed that the threat, which had proved adequate to rid Massachusetts permanently of the presence of persons so determined as Samuel Gorton and his compeers, would be effectual for the same purpose in any case that might arise. And there can be no doubt whatever, that, among those who favored a law threatening Quakers with death if they should return from banishment, there was a con 1 Mass. Archives, X. 246. — Among the petitioners were John Wilson and John Norton, the Pastor and the Teacher of the Boston church; Hezekiah Usher; John Hull, master of the mint; Anthony Stoddard, Deputy from Boston, a brother-in-law of George Downing; and Captain Thomas Savage, Speaker of the House of Deputies, the same who had himself been disarmed in the Antinomian controversy. See Bishop, "New England Judged by the Spirit of the Lord," 101. The First Part of Bishop's book, bringing the story down to the middle of March, 1661, was published at London in that year. The Second Part, continuing the narrative to May, 1665, was published in 1667. Sewel, publishing in 1722, and Besse in 1753, made large use of Bishop's book in those parts of their respective works which relate to the hardships of their friends in New England. Nor was it known only to the legislation of Massachusetts. See Conn. Rec., I. 242. * Mass. Rec., I. 108. Ibid., 312. • Ibid., 336. See above, 135, 136.-In the province of New York, laws of this tenor, against Romish ecclesiastics, were in force down to the year 1774.- As late as September, 1778, the General Court of Massachusetts passed an Act forbidding the return of loyalist refugees. If they came, they were to be sent away. If they returned a second time, they were "to suffer the pains of death, without benefit of clergy." (Acts and Laws for 1778, Chap. XIII.; comp. Hist. Mag., III. 313; Joseph Willard, "Naturalization in the American Colonies," &c., p. 25.) fident persuasion that the terror of the law would ac complish all that was desired, and would prevent any occasion for its execution.1 But they who thus reasoned did not yet know the persons with whom they had to deal. They had not taken the measure of Quaker pertinacity. There were others who had observed to better purpose the temper of the new sect, and who better understood the risk that would be incurred by the enactment which was proposed. It was warmly contested, chiefly in the House of Deputies. That body, which this year consisted of thirty-four members, at length passed it by a majority of one vote, after long debate and repeated conferences with the ishing Quak- Magistrates. The provision was, that thencefor ward convicted by a special jury "to be persons of the sect of the Quakers," should "be sentenced to banishment upon pain of death.”2 Law for pun ers, returned from exile, with death. October. 1 There was already a law of eleven years' standing, which banished Jesuits and Romish priests from Massachusetts, and threatened them with capital punishment, if they should return. (Mass. Rec., II. 193; III. 112.) 2 Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 346.— For the particular proceedings in the passing of this vote, see Bishop, "New England Judged," 101. I always take for granted the correctness of the statements of the Quaker historians, as to matters respecting which they had access to good information. At the meeting a year before the Federal Commissioners recommended this harsh measure to their constituent Colonies, they addressed a letter (September 12, 1657) to the Chief Magistrate of Rhode Island, acquainting him with the irruption of Quakers into Massachusetts through that territory, and desiring that measures might be taken for their exclusion from it. (Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 370, 371.) The Magistrates (Benedict Arnold being now President) made a courteous communication on the subject to the General Court of Massachusetts. They said: "We have no law among us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words, &c., their minds and understandings concerning the things and ways of God as to salvation and an eternal condition. And we, moreover, find, that in those places where these people aforesaid, in this Colony, are most of all suffered to declare themselves freely, and are only opposed by arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come. And we are informed that they begin to loathe this place, for that they are not opposed by the civil authority, but with all patience and meekness are suffered to say over their pretended revelations and admonitions. Nor are they like or able to gain many here to their way. Surely we find that they delight to be persecuted by civil pow The Court was not insensible to the responsibility of the step that had been taken, nor to the strong pressure of public sentiment in an opposite direction. Deferring to the necessity for an explanation of its course, it ordered that there should be "a writing, or declaration, drawn up and forthwith printed, to manifest the evil of the tenets of the Quakers, and danger of their practices, as tending to the subversion of religion, of church order, and civil government, and the necessity that this government is put upon, for the preservation of religion and their own peace and safety, to exclude such persons from amongst them, who, after due means of conviction, should remain obstinate and pertinacious." Mr. Norton, Teacher of Boston, was desired to compose the "declaration." 2 ers; and when they are so, they are like to gain more adherents by the conceit of their patient sufferings than by consent to their pernicious sayings." (R. I. Rec., I. 377.) This was a wise view of the subject. But it is also to be remembered, on the one hand, that the Quakers could find little to do in Rhode Island in their vocation as disturbers of order, for in Rhode Island there was little established order for them to disturb; and that, on the other hand, their worst disorders in Massachusetts took place after the severity of the laws against them had been relaxed. The opinion entertained of them and of their courses by the Rhode-Island authorities was not favorable. "We conceive," say Arnold and his associates, "that their doctrines tend to very absolute cutting down and overturning relations and civil government among men, if generally received. But, as to the damage that may in likelihood accrue to the neighbor Colonies by their being here entertained, we conceive it will not prove so dangerous (as else it might) in regard of the course taken by you " 1 to send them away out of the country, as they come among you.” (Ibid.) The Turk's method of dealing with the Quaker emissaries was the happiest. Prompted by that superstitious reverence which he was educated to pay to lunatics, as persons inspired, he received these visitors with deferential and ceremonious observance, and with a prodigious activity of genuflections and salams bowed them out of his country. They could make nothing of it, and in that quarter gave up their enterprise in despair. 1 Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 348. Norton's "Declaration was printed at the public charge in 1659, at Cambridge, by Samuel Green, in fiftyeight pages, small quarto. The first clause of its long title is, "The Heart of New England Rent at the Blasphemies of the present Generation." Norton labors hard to show a similarity of the principles and beginnings of the Quakers to those of the disciples of Muncer and Knipperdoling, with a view to make his readers infer that the developments in the present case would be not less mischievous. "The wolf," |