Part 15 (1/2)
Winthrop gives the case of a man who, having hired help to repair a milldam, worked an hour on Sat.u.r.day after sunset to finish what he had intended for the day's labor. The next day his little child, being left alone for some hours, was drowned in an uncovered well in the cellar of his house. ”The father freely, in open congregation, did acknowledge it the righteous hand of G.o.d for his profaning his holy day.”
Visitors and travellers from other countries were forced to obey the rigid laws with regard to Sat.u.r.day-night observance. Archibald Henderson, the master of a vessel which entered the port of Boston, complained to the Council for Foreign Plantations in London that while he was in sober Boston town, being ignorant of the laws of the land, and having walked half an hour after sunset on Sat.u.r.day night, as punishment for this unintentional and trivial offence, a constable entered his lodgings, seized him by the hair of his head, and dragged him to prison. Henderson claimed 800 damages for the detention of his vessel during his prosecution. I have always suspected that the gay captain may have misbehaved himself in Boston on that Sat.u.r.day night in some other way than simply by walking in the streets, and that the Puritan law-enforcers took advantage of the Sabbath-day laws in order to prosecute and punish him. We know of Bradford's complaint of the times; that while sailors brought ”a greate deale” of money from foreign parts to New England to spend, they also brought evil ways of spending it--”more sine I feare than money.”
The Puritans found in Scripture support for this observance of Sat.u.r.day night, in these words, ”The evening and the morning were the first day,”
and they had many followers in their belief. In New England country towns to this day, descendants of the Puritans regard Sat.u.r.day night, though in a modified way, as almost Sunday, and that evening is never chosen for any kind of gay gathering or visiting. As late as 1855 the shops in Hartford were never open for customers upon Sat.u.r.day night.
Much satire was directed against this Sat.u.r.day night observance both by English and by American authors. In the ”American Museum” for February, 1787, appeared a poem ent.i.tled, ”The Connecticut Sabbath.” After saying at some length that G.o.d had thought one day in seven sufficient for rest, but New England Christians had improved his law by setting apart a day and a half, the poet thus runs on derisively:--
”And let it be enacted further still That all our people strict observe our will; Five days and a half shall men, and women, too, Attend their bus'ness and their mirth pursue, But after that no man without a fine Shall walk the streets or at a tavern dine.
One day and half 'tis requisite to rest From toilsome labor and a tempting feast.
Henceforth let none on peril of their lives Attempt a journey or embrace their wives; No barber, foreign or domestic bred, Shall e'er presume to dress a lady's head; No shop shall spare (half the preceding day) A yard of riband or an ounce of tea.”
And many similar rhymes might be given.
Sunday night, being shut out of the Sabbath hours, became in the eighteenth century a time of general cheerfulness and often merry-making. This sudden transition from the religious calm and quiet of the afternoon to the noisy gayety of the evening was very trying to many of the clergymen, especially to Jonathan Edwards, who preached often and sadly against ”Sabbath evening dissipations and mirth-making.” In some communities singing-schools were held on Sunday nights, which afforded a comparatively decorous and orderly manner of spending the close of the day.
Sweet to the Pilgrims and to their descendants was the hush of their calm Sat.u.r.day night, and their still, tranquil Sabbath,--sign and token to them, not only of the weekly rest ordained in the creation, but of the eternal rest to come. The universal quiet and peace of the community showed the primitive instinct of a pure, simple devotion, the sincere religion which knew no compromise in spiritual things, no half-way obedience to G.o.d's Word, but rested absolutely on the Lord's Day--as was commanded. No work, no play, no idle strolling was known; no sign of human life or motion was seen except the necessary care of the patient cattle and other dumb beasts, the orderly and quiet going to and from the meeting, and at the nooning, a visit to the churchyard to stand by the side of the silent dead. This absolute obedience to the letter as well as to the spirit of G.o.d's Word was one of the most typical traits of the character of the Puritans, and appeared to them to be one of the most vital points of their religion.
XVIII.
The Authority of the Church and the Ministers.
Severely were the early colonists punished if they ventured to criticise or disparage either the ministers or their teachings, or indeed any of the religious exercises of the church. In Sandwich a man was publicly whipped for speaking deridingly of G.o.d's words and ordinances as taught by the Sandwich minister. Mistress Oliver was forced to stand in public with a cleft stick on her tongue for ”reproaching the elders.” A New Haven man was severely whipped and fined for declaring that he received no profit from the minister's sermons. We also know the terrible shock given the Windham church in 1729 by the ”vile and slanderous expressions” of one unregenerate Windhamite who said, ”I had rather hear my dog bark than Mr. Bellamy preach.” He was warned that he would be ”shakenoff and givenup,” and terrified at the prospect of so dire a fate he read a confession of his sorrow and repentance, and promised to ”keep a guard over his tongue,” and also to listen to Mr. Bellamy's preaching, which may have been a still more difficult task. Mr. Edward Tomlins, of Boston, upon retracting his opinion which he had expressed openly against the singing in the churches, was discharged without a fine. William Howes and his son were in 1744 fined fifty s.h.i.+llings ”apeece for deriding such as sing in the congregation, tearming them fooles.” The church music was as sacred to the Puritans as were the prayers, but it must have been a sore trial to many to keep still about the vile manner and method of singing. In 1631 Phillip Ratcliffe, for ”speaking against the churches,” had his ears cut off, was whipped and banished. We know also the consternation caused in New Haven in 1646 by Madam Brewster's saying that the custom of carrying contributions to the Deacons' table was popish--was ”like going to the High Alter,”
and ”savored of the Ma.s.s.” She answered her accusers in such a bold, highhanded, and defiant manner that her heinous offence was considered worthy of trial in a higher court, whose decision is now lost.
The colonists could not let their affection and zeal for an individual minister cause them to show any disrespect or indifference to the Puritan Church in general. When the question of the settlement of the Reverend Mr.
Lenthal in the church of Weymouth, Ma.s.sachusetts, was under discussion, the tyranny of the Puritan Church over any who dared oppose or question it was shown in a marked manner, and may be cited as a typical case. Mr. Lenthal was suspected of being poisoned with the Anne Hutchinson heresies, and he also ”opposed the way of gathering churches.” Hence his ordination over the church in the new settlement was bitterly opposed by the Boston divines, though apparently desired by the Weymouth congregation. One Britton, who was friendly towards Lenthal and who spoke ”reproachfully” and slurringly of a book which defended the course of the Boston churches, was whipped with eleven stripes, as he had no money to pay the imposed fine. John Smythe, who ”got hands to a blank” (which was either canva.s.sing for signatures to a proxy vote in favor of Lenthal or obtaining signatures to an instrument declaring against the design of the churches), for thus ”combining to hinder the orderly gathering” of the Weymouth church at this time, was fined 2. Edward Sylvester for the same offence was fined and disfranchised. Ambrose Martin, another friend of Lenthal's, for calling the church covenant of the Boston divines ”a stinking carrion and a human invention,” was fined 10, while Thomas Makepeace, another Weymouth malcontent, was informed by those in power that ”they were weary of him,”
or, in modern slang, that ”he made them tired.” Parson Lenthal himself, being sent for by the convention, weakened at once in a way his church followers must have bitterly despised; he was ”quickly convinced of his error and evil.” His conviction was followed with his confession, and in open court he gave under his hand a laudable retraction, which retraction he was ordered also to ”utter in the a.s.sembly at Weymouth, and so no further censure was pa.s.sed on him.” Thus the chief offender got the lightest punishment, and thus did the omnipotent Church rule the whole community.
The names of loquacious, babbling Quakers and Baptists who spoke disrespectfully of some or all of the ordinances of the Puritan church might be given, and would swell the list indefinitely; they were fined and punished without mercy or even toleration.
All profanity or blaspheming against G.o.d was severely punished. One very wicked man in Hartford for his ”fillthy and prophane expressions,” namely, that ”hee hoped to meet some of the members of the Church in h.e.l.l before long, and he did not question but hee should,” was ”committed to prison, there to be kept in safe custody till the sermon, and then to stand the time thereof in the pillory, and after sermon to be severely whipped.” What a severe punishment for so purely verbal an offence! New England ideas of profanity were very rigid, and New England men had reason to guard well their temper and tongue, else that latter member might be bored with a hot iron; for such was the penalty for profanity. We know what horror Mr.
Tomlins's wicked profanity, ”Curse ye woodchuck!” caused in Lynn meeting, and Mr. Dexter was ”putt in ye billboes ffor prophane saying dam ye cowe.”
The Newbury doctor was sharply fined also for wickedly cursing. When drinking at the tavern he raised his gla.s.s and said,--
”I'll pledge my friends, and for my foes A plague for their heels, and a poxe for their toes.”
He acknowledged his wickedness and foolishness in using the ”olde proverb,”
and penitently promised to curse no more.
Sad to tell, Puritan women sometimes lost their temper and their good-breeding and their G.o.dliness. Two wicked Wells women were punished in 1669 ”for using profane speeches in their common talk; as in making answer to several questions their answer is, The Devil a bit.” In 1640, in Springfield, Goody Gregory, being grievously angered, profanely abused an annoying neighbor, saying, ”Before G.o.d I coulde breake thy heade!” But she acknowledged her ”great sine and faulte” like a woman, and paid her fine and sat in the stocks like a man, since she swore like the members of that profane s.e.x.
Sometimes the sins of the fathers were visited on the children in a most extraordinary manner. One man, ”for abusing N. Parker at the tavern,” was deprived of the privilege of bringing his children to be baptized, and was thus spiritually punished for a very worldly offence. For some offences, such as ”speaking deridingly of the minister's powers,” as was done in Plymouth, ”casting uncharitable reflexions on the minister,” as did an Andover man; and also for absenting one's self from church services; for ”sloathefulness,” for ”walking prophanely,” for spoiling hides when tanning and refusing explanation thereof; for selling short weight in grain, for being ”given too much to Jearings,” for ”Slanndering,” for being a ”Makebayte,” for ”ronging naibors,” for ”being too Proude,” for ”suspitions of stealing pinnes,” for ”pnishouse Squerilouse Odyouse wordes,” and for ”lyeing,” church-members were not only fined and punished but were deprived of partaking of the sacrament. In the matter of lying great distinction was made as to the character and effect of the offence. George Crispe's wife, who ”told a lie, not a pernicious lie, but unadvisedly,” was simply admonished and remonstrated with. Will Randall, who told a ”plain lie,” was fined ten s.h.i.+llings. While Ralph Smith, who ”lied about seeing a whale,”
was fined twenty s.h.i.+llings and excommunicated.