Chapter IX: Introduction (7)

That only which finds a place in works worthy to endure, and of standard value, is sure of perpetual preservation. Hutchinson's _History of Massachusetts_ is a work of this description. Whatever is committed to its custody will stand the test of time. This cannot be expected of that class of tracts or books to which _Cases of Conscience_ belongs, copies of which can hardly be found, and not likely to justify a separate re-publication. It has, indeed, not many years ago, been reprinted in England, in a series of _Old Authors_, tacked on to the _Wonders of the Invisible World_. But few copies have reached this country; and only persons of peculiar, it may almost be said, eccentric, tastes, would care to procure it. It will be impossible to awaken an interest in the general reading public for such works. They are forbidding in their matter, unintelligible in their style, obscure in their import and drift, and pervaded by superstitions and absurdities that have happily passed away, never, it is to be hoped, again to enter the realm of theology, philosophy, or popular belief; and will perish by the hand of time, and sink into oblivion. If this present discussion had not arisen, and the "_Advice_, entire," had not been given by Hutchinson, the _suppressio veri_, perpetrated by Cotton Mather, would, perhaps, have become permanent history.

In reference to the _Advice of the Ministers_, the Reviewer, in one part of his article, seems to complain thus: "Mr. Upham has never seen fit to print this paper;" in other parts, he assails me from the opposite direction, and in a manner too serious, in the character of the assault, to be passed over. In my book, (_ii., 267_) I thus speak of the _Advice of the Ministers_, referring to it, in a note to p. 367, in similar terms: "The response of the reverend gentlemen, while urging in general terms the importance of caution and circumspection in the methods of examination, decidedly and earnestly recommended that the proceedings should be vigorously carried on."

It is a summary, in general and brief terms, _in my own language_, of the _import_ of the whole document, covering both sets of its articles. Hutchinson condenses it in similar terms, as do Calef and Douglas. I repeat, and beg it to be marked, that I do _not quote it_, in _whole_ or _in part_, but only give its import in my own words. I claim the judgment of the reader, whether I do not give the import of the articles Mather printed in the _Life of Phips_--those pretending to urge caution--as fairly as of the articles he omitted, applauding the Court, and encouraging it to go on.

Now, this writer in the _North American Review_ represents to the readers of that journal and to the public, that I have _quoted_ the _Advice of the Ministers_, and, in variety of phrase, rings the charge of unfair and false _quotation_, against me. He uses this language: "If it were such a heinous crime for Cotton Mather, in writing the _Life of Sir William Phips_, to omit three Sections, how will Mr. Upham vindicate his own omissions, when, writing the history of these very transactions and bringing the gravest charges against the characters of the persons concerned, he leaves out seven Sections?" I _quoted_ no Section, and made no _omissions_; and it is therefore utterly unjustifiable to say that I _left out_ any thing. I gave the substance of the Sections Cotton Mather left out, in language nearly identical with that used by Hutchinson and all others. In the same way, I gave the substance of the Sections Mather published, in the very sense he always claimed for them. What I said did not bear the form, nor profess the character, of a _quotation_.

In the _Wonders of the Invisible World_, written in 1692, when the prosecutions were in full blast and Mather was glorying in them, and for the purpose of prolonging them, the only Section he saw fit, in a particular connection, to quote, was the SECOND. He prefaced it thus: "They were some of the Gracious Words inserted in the _Advice_, which many of the neighboring Ministers did this Summer humbly lay before our Honorable Judges." Let it be noted, by the way, that when he thus praised the document, its authorship had not been avowed. Let it further be noted, that it is here let slip that the paper was _laid before the Judges_, not Phips; showing that it was a response to _them_, not him. Let it be still further noted, that the Section which he thus cited, in 1692, is one of those which, when the tide had turned, he left out, in 1697.

The Reviewer, referring to Mather's quotation of the second Section of the _Advice_, in the _Wonders_, says: "he printed it in full, which Mr. Upham has never done;" and following out the strange misrepresentation, he says: "Mr. Upham does not print any part of the eighth Section, as the Ministers adopted it. He suppresses the essential portions, changes words, and, by interpolation, states that the Ministers 'decidedly,' 'earnestly,' and 'vehemently,' recommended that the 'proceedings' should be vigorously carried on. He who quotes in this manner needs other evidence than that produced by Mr. Upham to entitle him to impeach Mr. Mather's integrity." In another place he says, pursuing the charge of quoting falsely, as to my using the word "proceedings," "the word is not to be found in the _Advice_."

The eighth Section recommends "the speedy and vigorous prosecutions of such as have rendered themselves obnoxious." In a brief reference to the subject, I use the words "speedily and vigorously," marking them as quoted, although their form was changed by the structure of the sentence of my own in which they appear. Beyond this, I have made no _quotations_, in my book, of the _Advice_--not a Section, nor sentence, nor clause, nor line, is a quotation, nor pretends to be. Without characterising what the Reviewer has done, in charging me with _suppression of essential portions_, _interpolation_, and not _printing_ in full, or correctly, what the Ministers or any body else said, my duty is discharged, by showing that there is no truth in the charge--no foundation or apology for it.

The last of the works of Cotton Mather I shall examine, in this scrutiny of his retrospective opinions and position, relating to the witchcraft prosecutions, is the _Magnalia_, printed at London, in 1702. He had become wise enough, at that time, not to commit himself more than he could help.

The Rev. John Hale, of Beverly, died in May, 1700. He had taken an active part in the proceedings at Salem, in 1692, having, as he says, from his youth, been "trained up in the knowledge and belief of most of the principles" upon which the prosecutions were conducted, and had held them "with a kind of implicit faith." Towards the close of the Trials, his view underwent a change; and, after the lapse of five years, he prepared a treatise on the subject. It is a candid, able, learned, and every-way commendable performance, adhering to the general belief in witchcraft, but pointing out the errors in the methods of procedure in the Trials at Salem, showing that the principles there acted upon were fallacious. The book was not printed until 1702. Cotton Mather, having access to Mr. Hale's manuscript, professedly made up from it his account of the witchcraft transactions of 1692, inserted in the _Magnalia_,