OCR Text |
Show DID THE PURITANS BURN WITCHES? In an article appearing in this paper under the caption, "The Saint Xecded for Turks," the concluding paragraph reads: A strange mixture of vice and virtue is leavened into the Mohametan loaf and called religion. It is only a little milder than the mixture upon which the Puritans Puri-tans fed those old colonists who considered it sinful to kiss a wife on Sunday, but godlike to burn a witch. The writer now admits that instituting comparisons com-parisons of races gives offense to the people who arc hit the hardest. Therefore, when the injury is perceived, per-ceived, honesty demands and' should supply correction. correc-tion. Prof. Charles C. Starbuck of Andover, Mass., calls our attention to the above paragraph. He is particularly angry over the language which puts the Puritan below the Turk in the charge of religious re-ligious intolerance, reminding us that the Puritans, Puri-tans, "if not your fellow-Catholics, were at least your fellow-Christians, who never put to death a Catholic, layman or clergyman, and who received a Jesuit missionary sent from Canada with peculiar pe-culiar distinction." Perhaps Prof. Starbuck can historically establish estab-lish his last statement. He is likely a descendant of the Puritans, and there are many such scattered scat-tered over this western country. They do not like to hear the stories of Puritan intolerance repeated at this day. All of us would remember the virtues rather than the vices of our ancestors. It is natural. Therefore, while it is safe to attack the Turks in a newspaper, it is not wise to place them alongside. the Puritans. "Brick" Pomeroy gave this advice to a young man starting out in journalism: journal-ism: "Don't roast nationality or religion," said he, "but, if you have to pitch into anybody, pitch into the Mormons. It's a popular subject. It can't offend them, either, because nobody will read your paper in that territory." But, aside from this pleasantry, let us examine historical facts to ascertain the basis of the accepted ac-cepted belief held against Puritans, which charges them with burning witches, not to mention other modes of intolerant punishment. About the "Blue Laws of Connecticut," Prof. Starbuck says: Now permit me to say that the law forbidding: a man to kiss his wife on Sunday is a pure fable. It is one of the many lies contained in that notorious fabricaticn entitled "The Connecticut Blue Laws." This was made up by the Rev. Samuel Peters, an Episcopal minister of Connecticut, who, failing to receive re-ceive there the attention which he conceived his due, went to England and vented his spite in this tissue j of utter calumnies. The complete fictitiousness of the whole thing has long been demonstrated, and it is about time for honest men to give over repeating these discredited lies. We said the Puritan considered it "sinful" to kiss a wife on Sunday, making no reference to a "law" forbidding it. However, that makes no difference dif-ference except to dispose of the "Blue Laws of Connecticut." "What Prof. Starbuck says on this matter is corroborated by the Americanized Encyclopedia En-cyclopedia Britannica, but in milder form. The language used is: "The code commonly called the 'Blue Laws of Connecticut,' is now generally considered con-sidered to have been a forgery by the Rev. Samuel Peters. The early statutes were not peculiarly severe se-vere or intolerant, and no case of execution for witchcraft is known." This is not positive as to the forgery, and assumes probability only as we compare com-pare the "Blue Laws" with the early statutes. Taking up the Puritan government of Massachusetts, Massa-chusetts, we read a different story. Here is an extract ex-tract taken from the same authority, revised and republished in 1892: - In 1692 Plymouth colony was annexed to Massachusetts. Massa-chusetts. The Massachusetts colony was established in 1628-30, and made the first settlement of Boston in the autumn of 1630. A third colony, under a grant from Lord Stirling, settled in the islands, but united with the main body in 1695. The early years of the colonists were rendered unquiet "by continued difficulties diffi-culties with the Indians under Pequot and King Philip. The first settlera, being Puritans of the Church of England, denied to others the religious liberty which they had sacrificed so much to obtain for themselves, and persecuted with impartiality Quakers, heretics, Catholics and Protestant dissenters, not to speak of BURNING ill-favored old women as witches. Prof. Starbuck vigorously denies that any per son was ever burned in Xew England on any accusation ac-cusation whatever. "First and . last," he says, "about a hundred persons were-hanged a3-witches, but not one burned." " He adds : ' However, suppose that the early New Englanders had actually burned a hundred persons, what special guilt would have rested on them? They would simply havedone what everybody was doing, in Protestant and Catholic Christendom alike, Ireland only excepted. In Germany alone in three hundred years at least 300,000 persons were executed as witches, mostly burnt alive, and the two religions were equally fanatical fanati-cal In this horrid persecution, until at last the Jesuit, Frederick Spee, succeeded in calling a halt. The offence of-fence of New England is a mere nothing in the comparison. com-parison. Prof. Starbuck's denial of witch burning in Xew England is somewhat weakened by adding this apology. It is not denied that the Puritans were contemporary to an age of cruelty, exercised by peoples of all creeds, and in condemning Puritans Puri-tans we should not excuse others equally guilty. But Prof. Starbuck's amended answer only gives probability, of witch burning a' better coloring. color-ing. This probability is further sustained by the absence of printed records of the day's doings. Boston was the first city in America that possessed a local newspaper, but the earliest attempt in that direction, made in 1689, and a second attempt, under the title "Publick Occurrences," which followed fol-lowed in September, 1690, were both suppressed by the government of Massachusetts. Why were they suppressed? It is not charged that witch burning burn-ing was condoned by law. Such punishment is not of record in court reports. It was held to be religious, re-ligious, not legal, punishment. The proof of the accusation could be obtained only through the public press, and there was no public press at the time. Therefore must we depend upon folk lore for most of the knowledge we have of witch-burning. witch-burning. And folk lore embraces much of the history his-tory of nations and their people. 1 a ; ' |