Chapter XIV: Part 14

[471] See _infra_, 324, _note_. Though Lyford frequently exercised in the Plymouth church, as an elsewhere ordained brother, he was never installed as its pastor. When admitted to it, Bradford says he made “a large confession,” saying, among other things, “that he held not himself a minister till he had a new calling.” (Bradford, pp. 181, 185, 188.)

[472] _Supra_, 24.

[473] This chapter and Chapter XIII. (pp. 273-6) relate to the same matter. It is impossible to venture a surmise even as to their meaning. It would seem clear that they have no historical value, but relate rather to some humorous incident--having the full seventeenth-century flavor of coarseness--which occurred in the settlement of Boston Bay. Apparently, judging by the expressions, “this goodly creature of incontinency” (_Infra_, *129), “that had tried a camp royal in other parts” (*121), some English prostitute found her way out to Mount Wollaston, in company with one of the adventurers there, and subsequently went on to Virginia. She may have come with Wollaston, and been left in Boston Bay when her companion went to Virginia, and then followed him, giving birth to a child on the way. This would explain the allusion to Phyllis and Demophoön subsequently made (p. *129). It is, however, a mere surmise on a subject not worth puzzling over.

[474] It does not need to be said that this is one of Morton’s preposterous statements. As the settlement of Virginia dated from 1607, the twenty-seven years he speaks of was equivalent to saying, “up to the time at which he was writing,” viz. 1634. Virginia was then not only a much older settlement, but it had a population largely in excess of that of New England.

[475] _Supra_, 229, _note_ 3.

[476] This chapter and Chapter XII. are, historically speaking, as inexplicable as Chapters IX. and XIII. There is nothing in any of the contemporaneous records to indicate who is referred to under the pseudonym of Bubble.

[477] One of the smallest of the islands in Boston Bay, still called by the same name. It lies off Mount Wollaston, and a mile or so away, and between it and Pettuck’s Island. (See Shurtleff’s _Description of Boston_, p. 360.)

[478] [view] See _supra_, 111, _note_ 1.

[479] Nipnet, or Worcester County; see _supra_, 240, _note_.

[480] [present] See _supra_, 111, _note_ 1.

[481] Squanto is apparently referred to here. (_Supra_, 244, _note_ 2.) There is no incident in Squanto’s life--of which there is a quite detailed account to be gathered from the early Plymouth records--which is suggestive of the events described in the text.

[482] The first part of _Don Quixote_ was published in 1605, and the second part in 1615. It was first translated into English by Thomas Skelton, in 1612-20.

[483] The reference here is to the story of Demophoön and Phyllis, told by Ovid (_Heroides_, II.) Demophoön, son of Theseus and Phædra, accompanied the Greeks to Troy; and on his return, Phyllis, the daughter of the Thracian king Sithon, fell in love with him, and he consented to marry her. But before the nuptials were celebrated, he went to Attica to settle his affairs at home, and as he tarried longer than Phyllis had expected, she began to think that she was forgotten, and put an end to her life. She was metamorphosed into a tree. (See Smith’s _Dictionary_, title _Demophoön_.)

[484] _Supra_, 17-19.

[485] _Supra_, 14, _note_ 4.

[486] John Scogan was the famous court buffoon, attached to the household of Edward IV., whose head Justice Shallow makes the youthful Falstaff break at the court gate (_Henry IV._ Part II. act iii. sc. 2), though Falstaff is represented as having died at least twenty years before Scogan could have been born. In regard to him, see Doran’s _Court Fools_, pp. 123-30. “Scogan’s choice,” in Morton’s day, seems to have been a popular expression, signifying that a choice of some sort is better than no power to choose at all. It was derived probably from the story of Scogan, that he was once ordered to be hanged, but allowed the privilege of choosing the tree. He escaped the penalty by being unable to find a tree to his liking. Morton uses the expression again, see _infra_, *137. But the reference here is as obscure as “the poem.”

[487] _Infra_, 348, _note_.

[488] _Supra_, 278, _note_ 1.

[489] “Ye Roman Goddes Flora.” (Bradford, p. 237.)

[490] In regard to the arrest of Morton by Standish, in June, 1628, see _supra_, 27-9.

[491] See _infra_, 291, _note_.

[492] Morton here confounds his experience in Boston, two years later, with that at Plymouth in 1628. In 1630 the master of the _Gift_ refused to carry him back to England. (_Supra_, 44.) In the spring of 1628, however, no vessel seems to have arrived at Plymouth from England, as Allerton then brought over an assortment of goods, and came in a fishing-vessel by way of the Maine stations. (Bradford, p. 232.) Allerton returned to London in the course of the succeeding summer or autumn, but it is not probable then any vessel left Plymouth in June, 1628, bound for England. (_Supra_, 29.)

[493] It was not until towards the close of the summer of the next year that Morton returned to Massachusetts in company with Allerton. (_Supra_, 36-7.)

[494] Morton implies above that the “Poem” which follows was written shortly after the events to which it relates occurred, and before his return to New England in 1629. It was then, it seems, “in use” in London. The name of Ben Jonson appears in the margin of the original edition, as of this reprint, and opposite the first two lines, as above. Exactly what this signifies it is impossible now to say. Some critics that I have consulted are inclined to think that Jonson, who was then about fifty-five years old and at the height of his fame, may have written all the verses. Others suggest that Morton, by putting the name in the margin, meant to imply that Jonson wrote them all, and that this was another of the unscrupulous tricks of the author of the _New Canaan_. Neither explanation commends itself to my judgment. The first five verified lines are a paraphrase of five lines at the beginning of one of Jonson’s productions, for a poem it is not. In his published works (Gifford’s ed. [1816], vol. viii. p. 241) they appear as follows:--

“I sing the brave adventure of two wights,
And pity ’tis, I cannot call them knights:
One was; and he for brawn and brain right able
To have been styled of king Arthur’s table.
The other was a squire, of fair degree.”

With the last of the foregoing lines the paraphrase stops, and the rest of the verses in the _New Canaan_ are, it must in justice be said, not only more cleanly, but in other respects superior to those to be found in Jonson’s works. Indeed, where the latter are not unintelligible, they are almost unequalled for the nastiness in which the writer seems to revel. Gifford not too strongly remarks of them, “I dislike the subject.” Morton, it appears to me, abandoning, at the sixth line, the paraphrase with which he began, went on with a production of his own, but very properly put Jonson’s name opposite the lines he borrowed from him. The remainder is in his own style, and not inferior to the mass of the contemporary verse. He himself explains it. The “nine worthy wights” are Standish and his party, who were sent to arrest him. The “prodigeous birth,” was the establishment of the Mount Wollaston plantation. The “seven heads” were the seven persons composing the company at Mount Wollaston at the time of the arrest. The “forked tail” was the Maypole, with its antlered top. The fear that the Hydra of Ma-re Mount would devour “all their best flocks” refers to the apprehended competition in the fur trade. The “Soll in Cancer” indicates the season; the “thundering Jove” the storm, in which Morton made his escape from his captors at Wessagusset. The arrest at Mount Wollaston is passed over very lightly. Then follows the discussion among the magistrates at Plymouth, as to the disposition to be made of the prisoner. Standish would seem to be designated under the name of Minos. He recommends death. Eacus is more difficult to identify. In the preceding chapter (_Supra_, 288), Morton speaks of him as being the one whose “voice was more allowed of then both the others.” My supposition is that, by Eacus, Morton meant Dr. Samuel Fuller, who then apparently (Bradford, pp. 264, _note_, 306, _note_) stood, next to Standish, at the head of the assistants. Morton says that he “confounded all the arguments that Eacus could make;” and he afterwards, in the _New Canaan_, refers to Fuller with peculiar bitterness. (_Infra_, 298.) “Sterne Radamant” is clearly Bradford, “the cheif Elder.” The remainder of the poem calls for no explanation; and the whole of it is much less unintelligible than is usual with Morton.

[495] [what] See _supra_, 111, _note_ 1.

[496] “Brave Christmas gambols” were, it may be remarked, not greatly in vogue in the Plymouth of 1628. (See Bradford, p. 112.)

[497] _Supra_, 163, _note_ 1.

[498] The personage referred to, in this amusing but extremely scurrilous chapter, is Dr. Samuel Fuller. There is a notice of Dr. Fuller in Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._ (p. 222, _note_), and in Eliot’s _Biog. Dict._ He was one of those who came over in the _Mayflower_; but that he was born in the County of Somerset, and bred a butcher, appears only from the statement in the text. At Plymouth, besides being the physician of the colony, he was a magistrate and a deacon of the church. He died there, of an infectious fever, in 1633, and his best possible epitaph is read in Bradford (p. 314): “A man godly, and forward to do good, being much missed after his death.”

[499] _Infra_, 345, _note_.

[500] Paul’s Walk, as the central nave of old St. Paul’s was called, was in the reign of Charles I. much what a business arcade is now. There is a vivid description of it, with extracts from writers of the time, in W. H. Ainsworth’s romance, _Old St. Paul’s_ (B. II. ch. 7). See also, Gardiner’s _Charles I._ (vol. ii. p. 11).

[501] The visit of Dr. Fuller to Salem, referred to in the text, may have taken place in 1628. Though he was also there in 1629; and again in 1630, when he likewise visited Charlestown. (Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._, p. 222, _note_.)

[502] This description of the usual effect of sea-sickness I take to be peculiar to Morton.

[503] Endicott’s first wife was Anna Gover, a cousin of Governor Cradock. Little is known of her. She came to New England with her husband, and died during the very early days of the settlement, as she seems to have been in failing health in September, 1628. Endicott was married to his second wife August 18, 1630; on the 17th of the following month he sat among the magistrates at Boston in judgment upon the author of the _New Canaan_, who had been “sent for” just five days after the marriage, which seems to have taken place at Charlestown. (Winthrop, vol. i. p. *30; Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, pp. 131, 292; _Supra_, 43-4.)

[504] This was the case of Roger Clerk, of Wandsworth, attached in the chamber of the Guildhall of London, before the mayor and aldermen, on the 13th of May, 1382, on a plea of deceit and falsehood as to Roger atte Hacche. The record is to be found in Riley’s _Memorials of London and London Life_ (pp. 464-6), and is very curious as illustrating English manners in the time of Richard II. Morton’s reference would indicate that the case had then been handed down as a tradition for two hundred and fifty years. It seems that Clerk gave Hacche a bit of old parchment, rolled up in “a piece of cloth of gold,” asserting that it was very good for the ailments with which his wife was afflicted. Upon being arraigned, Clerk contended that upon the parchment was written “a good charm for fevers.” Upon examination, no word of the alleged charm was found in the paper. The court then told the prisoner “that a straw beneath his foot would be of just as much avail for fevers, as this charm of his was; whereupon, he fully granted that it would be so. And because that the same Roger Clerk was in no way a literate man, and seeing that on the examinations aforesaid, (as well as others afterwards made,) he was found to be an infidel, and altogether ignorant of the art of physic or of surgery; and to the end that the people might not be deceived and aggrieved by such ignorant persons etc.; it was adjudged that the same Roger Clerk should be led through the middle of the City, with trumpets and pipes, he riding on a horse without a saddle, the said parchment and a whetstone, for his lies, being hung about his neck, an urinal also being hung before him, and another urinal on his back.”

The punishment of the “pillory and the whetstone,” as it was called, was that ordinarily imposed on those telling falsehoods. In another case in the same volume (p. 316) it is thus given in detail: “The said John shall come out of Newgate without hood or girdle, barefoot and unshod, with a whetstone hung by a chain from his neck, and lying on his breast, it being marked with the words,--‘A false liar;’ and there shall be a pair of trumpets trumpeting before him on his way to the pillory.”

[505] The person referred to in this chapter was probably the Rev. Francis Bright, of whom very little is known. He was one of the three ministers sent over by the Massachusetts Company in 1629, Higginson and Skelton being the other two. In June of that year, when Graves and the Spragues were sent by Endicott to effect a settlement at Charlestown, Bright accompanied them as “minister to the Company’s servants.” (Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, pp. 316, 376.) As such, he was the Caiaphas, or high-priest, of that region, and it naturally devolved on him to “exercise his guifts on the Lords day at Weenasimute.” Morton further says that the person he refers to had been a silenced minister in England. That Bright had been silenced is not known, but both Skelton and Higginson had been (_Magnalia_, B. I. ch. iv. § 4; Neal’s _Hist. of Puritans_, vol. ii. p. 229); and, though Hubbard intimates that Bright was a conformist (p. 113), yet, in the Company’s letter to Endicott, the three ministers are stated to have “declared themselves to us to be of one judgment, and to be fully agreed on the manner how to exercise their ministry.” (Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._, p. 160.) Winthrop, Morton adds, “spied out Caiphas practise; and he must be packing.” Bright returned to England shortly after Winthrop’s arrival. Johnson says (_Wonder-working Providence_, p. 20) that he “betooke him to the Seas againe,” when he saw that “all sorts of stones would not fit in the building.”

Samuel Skelton is referred to by Morton a few pages further on (_Infra_, 306) as “Pastor Master Eager,” which name may be taken to imply “covetousness” in him. But, though Skelton might be termed the “Caiphas” of the country, he was not silenced by Winthrop. He can, therefore, hardly be the person here aimed at.

[506] [courteousnesse] See _supra_, 111, _n._ 1.

[507] _Supra_, 229, _note_ 3, and 300, _note_ 1.

[508] Iosua Temperwell. Under this name Morton always designates Governor John Winthrop.

[509] Caiaphas was the high-priest of the Jews; Jonas, or Jonah, was the first Hebrew prophet sent to a heathen nation. The propriety of these two Biblical allusions in this connection is, therefore, apparent enough. The allusion to Demas is more obscure, as he is only mentioned by Paul as a fellow-disciple who had forsaken him, “having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica.” (II. _Timothy_ iv. 10.)

[510] _Supra_, *144, *151.

[511] _Supra_, 30.

[512] _Supra_, 35.

[513] _Supra_, 37.

[514] By this name Morton designates Matthew Cradock, the first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Company, though he never came to America. Cradock was a wealthy London merchant, and as such subscribed largely to the funds of the company. In regard to him, see Dr. Young’s note in _Chron. of Mass._ (p. 137).

[515] It is not clear who Morton may have intended to designate by this name. John Washburne was the secretary and “collector for the company” at the time Endicott was sent over, but of him nothing is known. (Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, p. 55.) It would seem more probable that Increase Nowell was the person Morton had in mind. Nowell was one of the original patentees, contributing money to forward the purposes of the company, serving on committees, &c. (_Ib._ p. 262.) He came to New England with Winthrop, and was among the magistrates who were present at the trial of Morton in September, 1630. (_Records_, vol. i. pp. 73, 75.) He was the first ruling-elder of the Charlestown church. He is described as having been “a worthy pious man” (Eliot); and if he was the person intended by Morton,--which is not at all clear,--the propriety of calling him Ananias, if it rests on anything, is not apparent from the record.

[516] The “covered case,” in which Governor Winthrop is supposed to have brought over the charter of 1629, is still to be seen in the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth at the State House in Boston; and that in which Endicott brought over the patent of 1628 was, it may be inferred from the text, similar in appearance. It very much resembles the case for “some instrument of musick,” being a flat, narrow box, 2 feet 10 inches long, by 3-1/2 inches wide and 3 inches deep. It has a species of circular annex, so to speak, at its middle, intended to contain the seal. This annex, like the box, is of wood, and is 7 by 8 inches in surface, and the same in depth as the main case, of which it is a part. The whole is covered with stamped leather, now brown and mouldered with age. There are, however, some things about this case which suggest doubts as to its having been made quite so early as the time of Charles I.

[517] In regard to this meeting at Salem, and the action taken at it, see _supra_, 38-40. No record or other mention of it, except that contained in the text, has come down to us.

[518] See _supra_ 300, _note_ 1.

[519] This refers to the famous Salem ordination of Skelton and Higginson, July 20 and August 6, 1629; in regard to which see Palfrey, vol. i. pp. 295-6.

[520] _Supra_, 41-2.

[521] [converted] See _supra_ 111, _note_ 1.

[522] The arrival of Winthrop’s fleet in June, 1630, is here referred to. It has already been stated that Iosua Temperwell is intended for Governor Winthrop. It will be noticed that Morton, much as he disliked him, always refers to Winthrop, if not with respect, yet with a certain restraint of tone and insinuation which he did not show to others, such as Endicott, Fuller and Standish.

[523] _Supra_, *156.

[524] _Supra_, 47. See, also, the petition of Winslow, while a prisoner in the Fleet, to the Lords of the Council. (_Proc. of Mass. Hist. Soc._ 1860-2, p. 133.)

[525] _Supra_, 43-5.

[526] T. W. Higginson, who in 1866 published a translation of Epictetus, furnishes me the following note on this allusion: “The phrase ‘bear and forbear’ has always been received as the formula especially characteristic of Epictetus. It is most explicitly preserved to us in the _Noctes Atticæ_ of Aulus Gellius (B. XVII. ch. xix. §§ 5-6). Gellius says: ‘Verba duo dicebat: Ἀνέχου καὶ ἀπέχου,’ having previously explained their meaning. There was in 1634 no English translation of any portion of Epictetus containing the phrase; nor was he an author then much read at the English universities. Morton probably, therefore, got the quotation from the Latin of Aulus Gellius; if, indeed, he did not pick it up in listening to the talk of some more scholarly man,--possibly Ben Jonson.”

[527] Ille hæc ludibria fortunæ, ne sua quidem putavit, quæ nos appelamus etiam bona. (_Paradoxa_, I. 1.)

[528] I am unable to suggest any explanation of the allusions contained in this chapter. There is no apparent clew either to the “zealous Professor” whose conscience did not permit him to cut tombstones, or to the “gentleman newly come into the land,” who “incurred the displeasure” of Governor Winthrop and was degraded.

[529] “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.”

[530] “Antonomasia (_Rhet._). The use of the name of some office, dignity, profession, science or trade, instead of the proper name of the person; as where _his majesty_ is used for a king, or _his lordship_ for a nobleman, or when, instead of Aristotle, we say _the philosopher_; or, conversely, the use of a proper name instead of an appellative, as where a wise man is called a _Cato_, or an eminent orator a _Cicero_, the application being supported by a resemblance in character.” (_Webster._)

[531] The phrase “them that are without [the church]” calls for no explanation. It was common in early New England, and both Lyford and Bradford are found using it (Bradford, pp. 184, 187) exactly as Morton uses it, who probably picked it up at Plymouth.

[532] Innocence Fairecloath is the name under which Morton alludes to Philip Ratcliff. This man was a servant or agent of Governor Matthew Cradock. He got into trouble with Endicott and the members of the Salem church, and, according to Winthrop, “being convict, _ore tenus_, of most foul, scandalous invectives against our churches and government, was censured to be whipped, lose his ears, and be banished the plantation, which was presently executed.” (p. *56.) Another authority speaks of the offence as a “most horible blasphemy.” (III. _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. viii. p. 323.) In the _Records of Massachusetts_ (p. 88), under date of June 14 (24 N. S.), 1631, the sentence read as follows: “It is ordered, that Philip Ratcliffe shall be whipped, have his ears cut off, fined 40 l., and banished out of the limits of this jurisdiction, for uttering malicious and scandalous speeches against the government and the church of Salem, &c., as appeareth by a particular thereof, proved upon oath.” The severity of this sentence caused much scandal in England after Ratcliff returned there, and in April of the next year Edward Howes wrote out to John Winthrop, Jr.: “I have heard diverse complaints against the severitie of your Government especially Mr. Indicutts, and that he shalbe sent for over, about cuttinge off the Lunatick mans eares, and other grievances.” (III. _Mass. Hist. Coll._, vol. ix. p. 244.) In regard to Ratcliff’s subsequent connection with the Gorges-Mason attacks on the company before the Privy Council, see _supra_, 50-2, 62, and _Proceedings of Mass. Hist. Soc._, vol. xx., January meeting, 1883.

[533] See _supra_ 304, _note_ 2.

[534] The first two deacons of the church at Charlestown were Robert Hale and Ralph Monsall. The Charlestown church, however, was not organized until November, 1632, sixteen months after Ratcliff’s punishment. (Budington’s _First Church of Charlestown_, pp. 31, 34.)

The Boston church in June, 1631, had but one deacon, William Aspinwall (Ellis’s _First Church of Boston_, p. 328), in regard to whom there is a detailed note in Savage’s _Winthrop_ (p. *32). He was the deacon of the Charlestown church at the time Morton was arraigned and punished, and it is possible that Morton refers to him as Shackles. Aspinwall was a man of prominence in the settlement; but it must be remembered that, thirteen years later, “two of our ministers’ sons, being students in the college, robbed two dwelling-houses in the night of some pounds. Being found out, they were ordered by the gouvernours of the college to be there whipped, which was performed by the president himself--yet they were about 20 years of age.” (Winthrop, vol. ii. p. *166.) If the president of the college could officiate at the whipping-post in 1644, in a case of what Winthrop calls “burglary,” there seems no good reason why the deacon of the church should not have officiated there in 1631 in a case which the same authority calls “foul, scandalous invectives against our churches.”

[535] _Supra_, 319.

[536] The character of the _New Canaan_ as a political pamphlet of the time, intended to effect a given result in a particular quarter, has already been referred to. (_Supra_, pp. 68-9.) In this respect the present chapter is the most significant one in the book. It was intended to act on the well-known prejudices of Archbishop Laud, the head and controlling spirit of that Board of Lords Commissioners of Foreign Plantations which then had supreme authority over the colonies. To that Board Morton dedicated his book; and at the time he was writing it the Lords Commissioners, and especially the Archbishop, were taking active measures to vacate the Massachusetts charter and to assume the direct government of the colonies. It is its connection with these facts which alone gives any great degree of historical value to the present chapter. In itself it is not deserving of careful annotation, as it contains nothing that is new, and the ground is much better covered by Lechford in his _Plaine Dealing_. Like Morton, Lechford was a lawyer; and, unlike Morton, he was by nature a devout man. A member of the Church of England he has given in his book a remarkably vivid and fair-minded description of the practice of the New England churches during the earliest days of the settlement. Mr. Trumbull’s very learned and elaborate notes to his edition of the _Plaine Dealing_, which is the edition referred to in the notes to the present chapter, have cleared up Lechford’s text wherever it is obscure; and they obviate the necessity of any careful annotation of the present chapter, except where it is desirable to call notice to the special bearing any particular assertion made may be supposed to have had on Archbishop Laud’s idiosyncrasies.

[537] “Teaching in the church publicly,” was, it will be remembered, one of the offences charged against Winslow before the Lords Commissioners at the hearing of 1634, for which, at Archbishop Laud’s “vehement importunity,” he was committed to the Fleet. (_Supra_, 69; _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, 1860-2, p. 131.) On the real practice of the New England churches in regard to the exercise of their gifts by lay members, see _Plaine Dealing_, p. 42.

[538] “I suppose the first preacher that ever thus preached with notes in our New-England was the Reverend Warham.” (_Magnalia_, B. III. part 2, ch. xviii.) In regard to John Warham, first of Dorchester and subsequently of Windsor, Connecticut, see Dr. Young’s note in _Chron. of Mass._, p. 347.

[539] There probably never was any regularly chosen deaconess in New England. The office was recognized as having come down from the primitive churches (Dexter’s _Congregationalism_, p. 69); and Robert Browne in his definitions, in the _Life and Manners of all true Christians_, says: “The _widow_ is a person having office of God to pray for the church, and to visit and minister to those which are afflicted and distressed in the church; for the which she is tried and received as meet.” (Bacon’s _Genesis of the New England Churches_, p. 84.) Bradford in his _Dialogue_, written in 1648, speaking of the Separatist church at Amsterdam, says, that besides the pastor, teacher, elders and deacons, there was “one ancient widow for a deaconess, who did them service many years, though she was sixty years of age when she was chosen. She honored her place and was an ornament to the congregation. She usually sat in a convenient place in the congregation, with a little birchen rod in her hand, and kept little children in great awe from disturbing the congregation. She did frequently visit the sick and weak, especially women, and, as there was need, called out maids and young women to watch and do them other helps as their necessity did require; and if they were poor, she would gather relief for them of those that were able, or acquaint the deacons; and she was obeyed as a mother in Israel and an officer of Christ.” (Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._, p. 455.) It would be inferred from the passage quoted that there had in 1648 never been a deaconess in the Plymouth church, as in this _Dialogue_ the old men are supposed to be describing to the young men events strange to the latter, as having occurred long before. Lechford says, speaking of the Massachusetts colony: “No church there has a Deaconesse, as far as I know.” (_Plaine Dealing_, pp. 24, 40) “I have not met with an instance of [the] actual institution [of the office of deaconess] in New England.” (Palfrey, vol. ii. p. 37, _note_.)

It does not seem, however, to have been even theoretically one of the functions of the deaconess “to use her gifts at home,” as Morton says, “in an assembly of her sex, by way of repetition, or exhortation.” This would rather have pertained to the office of teacher. Meetings of females, such as those described, were held in the parishes during the early days, and played an important part in the Antinomian controversy. The deaconess did not, however, officiate at them. The character of these meetings appears in the following passage at the trial of Mrs. Hutchinson:

“COURT. ... What say you to your weekly public meetings? Can you find a warrant for them?

MRS. HUTCHINSON. I will show you how I took it up. There were such meetings in use before I came; and because I went to none of them, this was the special reason of my taking up this course. We began it with but five or six, and, though it grew to more in future time, yet, being tolerated at the first, I knew not why it might not continue.

COURT. There were private meetings indeed, and are still in many places, of some few neighbors; but not so public and frequent as yours; and are of use for increase of love and mutual edification. But yours are of another nature. If they had been such as yours they had been evil, and therefore no good warrant to justify yours. But answer by what authority or rule you uphold them?

MRS. H. By Titus ii. 3-5, where the elder women are to teach the younger.

COURT. So we allow you to do, as the Apostle there means, privately and upon occasion. But that gives no warrant of such set meetings for that purpose. And, besides, you take upon you to teach many that are older than yourself. Neither do you teach them that which the Apostle commands, viz: to keep at home.

MRS. H. Will you please to give me a rule against it, and I will yield.

COURT. You must have a rule for it, or else you cannot do it in faith. Yet you have a plain rule against it,--‘I suffer not a woman to teach.’ (I. Tim. ii. 12.)

MRS. H. That is meant of teaching men.”

(Weld’s _Short Story_, pp. 34-5.) See also the version to the same effect in Hutchinson’s _Massachusetts_, vol. ii. pp. 484-7.

[540] _Supra_, 262, _note_ 3, and 306, _note_ 3. The effect such a statement as that in the text would have upon Archbishop Laud is apparent. The real practice of the early New England churches in the matter of ordination can be found in the _Plaine Dealing_, pp. 13, 16, 17.

[541] “There hath been some difference about jurisdictions, or cognizance of causes: Some have held that, in causes betweene brethren of the Church, the matter should be first told the Church, before they goe to the civill Magistrate, because all causes in difference doe amount, one way or other, to a matter of offence; and that all criminall matters concerning Church members, should be first heard by the Church. But these opinionists are held, by the wiser sort, not to know the dangerous issues and consequences of such tenets.” (_Plaine Dealing_, p. 34.)

[542] There was no minister at Plymouth in the spring of 1628, when Morton was there. William Brewster was the ruling elder in the church and officiated in its pulpit, where, from the beginning, he had “taught twice every sabbath, and that both powerfully and profitably, to the great contentment of the hearers, and their comfortable edification.” (Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._, p. 467; Bradford, pp. 187-8.) In the summer of 1628, but after Morton had been sent to England, Allerton brought over Mr. Rogers as a preacher, who soon proved to be “crased in his braine” (Bradford, p. 243), and the next season was sent home. In the autumn, apparently, of 1629, and while Morton may have been at Plymouth at Allerton’s house (_Ib._ p. 253), before his final return to Mount Wollaston, the Rev. Ralfe Smith, who had come over with Skelton and Higginson in the previous June (Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, p. 151), was found at Nantasket and brought down to Plymouth. (Bradford, p. 263.) He was not, however, chosen into the ministry there until a later time. (_Ib._) It is unlikely that Morton here refers to Plymouth personages. He was at Salem in 1629 (_Supra_, 306), and in Boston, where as a prisoner he was undoubtedly made regularly to attend divine service, from early September to the end of December, 1630. (_Supra_, 45; Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, p. 321.) At Salem he had come in contact with Skelton and Higginson; and it has been seen (_Supra_, 300, _note_ 1) that he probably knew something of Francis Bright of Charlestown. The only other ministers then in the colony were John Warham and John Maverick at Dorchester, George Phillips at Watertown, and John Wilson at Boston.

[543] It is scarcely necessary to point out that the three following pages are largely the fruit of Morton’s imaginative powers, and were intended for the special edification of Archbishop Laud. As Plymouth was much less well supplied with preachers than the towns of the Massachusetts colony, it is altogether probable--as Dr. John Eliot surmised, in his review of the _New Canaan_, in the _Monthly Anthology_ for July, 1810--the allusions to the church-practises in this chapter found their largest basis of fact in incidents which Morton had been a witness of in the Plymouth meeting-house. It is safe to add, however, that he could have had no agreeable recollections of the meeting-houses at Boston and Charlestown.

[544] Oliver Le Daim, barber of Louis XI., created by him Comte de Meulan, and sent in 1477 on a confidential mission to Mary of Burgundy at Ghent. The account of his experiences is to be found in the _Memoires de Commines_, L. v. ch. xiv.

[545] _Supra_, 302, _note_ 1.

[546] I am indebted to Mr. Lindsay Swift, of the Boston Public Library, for the following explanation of this, to me, very perplexing allusion: “_Nic_, or, more correctly, _nick_,--namely, ‘a raised or indented bottom in a beer-can, by which the customers were cheated, the nick below and the froth above filling up part of the measure.’ I take this definition from Wright’s _Dictionary of Obsolete and Provincial English_. That the expression was a common one the following quotations prove:--

‘We must be running up and downe
With cannes of beere (malt sod in fishes broth),
And those they say are fil’d with nick and froth.’

(Rowland’s _Knave of Harts_.)

‘From the nick and froth of a penny pot-house.’

(Fletcher.)

‘Our pots were full quarted,
We were not thus thwarted
With froth-canne and nick-pot,
And such nimble quick shot.’

(Spurious lines added to Rand’s 1624 edition of Skelton’s _Elynour Rummynge_.) Most of this information I have taken from Nares’s _Glossary_ and Halliwell-Phillipp’s _Dictionary of Archaic and Provincial Words_, second edition.”

[547] The reference here is apparently to the running footmen much in use in the eighteenth century, and also, judging by the text, as early as the reign of Charles I. Their duty was to run before and alongside the cumbrous coaches then in use, to notify innkeepers of the coming guests. They carried long poles to assist them in clearing obstacles, and to help pry the carriages out of the sloughs in which they frequently got stuck. (Brewer’s _Dict. of Phrase and Fable_, p. 773; Macaulay’s _England_, vol. i. pp. 374-8.)

[548] It was one of the doctrines of Pythagoras that the souls of the dying passed into the air, and thence into the living bodies of other men, taking controlling possession of them. That the nimbleness of the father’s feet might thus account for the volubility of the son’s tongue is, it is needless to say, a purely Mortonian deduction.

[549] “_May_ 12. [1621] was the first marriage in this place, which, according to the laudable custome of the Low-Countries, in which they had lived, was thought most requisite to be performed by the magistrate, as being a civill thing, upon which many questions aboute inheritances doe depende, with other things most proper to their cognizans, and most consonante to the scripturs. Ruth 4. and no wher found in the gospell to be layed on the ministers as a part of their office.” (Bradford, p. 101.) The marriage here referred to was that of Edward Winslow to Mrs. Susannah White. It took place in May, Winslow’s wife having died seven weeks before, and Mrs. White’s husband, William, twelve weeks before. That he had married people was, it will be remembered, the other of the two charges advanced against Winslow himself, at the Privy Council hearing just referred to. (_Supra_, 322, _note_ 2.) The practice of civil marriage already prevailed in the Massachusetts colony also, as, a week before the arrest of Morton was ordered, Governor Endicott, on August 18, 1630, was married, at Charlestown apparently, “by the governour and Mr. Wilson.” (Winthrop, vol. i. p. *30. See also _Plaine Dealing_, pp. 86-7.) There are few more edifying examples of the casuistical skill of Winthrop and his associates than is afforded by his method of dealing with the question of civil marriages, as explained in detail in his _Journal_ (vol. i. p. *323). “In our church discipline, and in matters of marriage, to make a law that marriages should not be solemnized by ministers is repugnant to the laws of England; but to bring it to a custom by practice for the magistrates to perform it, is no law made repugnant, etc.” The charter of 1629 empowered the General Court of the colony “to make, ordeine, and establishe all Manner of wholesome and reasonable Orders, Lawes, Statutes, and Ordinances, Directions, and Instructions, not contrary to the Lawes of theis our Realme of England.” (Hazard, vol. i. p. 252.)

[550] At the conference between the Bishops and the Puritans, held in presence of James I. at Hampton Court in January, 1603, one of the practices of the English Church especially excepted to as a “relique of popery” by Dr. John Reynolds, the spokesman of the Puritans, was the ring in marriage. (Neal’s _Hist. of Puritans_, vol. ii. p. 42.) Among the reasons urged against its use I have not elsewhere found the “diabolical circle” argument. It seems rather to have been associated in the Puritan mind with the Romish traditions. (Jones’s _Finger-Ring Lore_, pp. 288-90.) This count, in Morton’s indictment, was based on good grounds. “In the Weddings of [early] New England the ring makes none of the ceremonies.” (Mather’s _Ratio Disciplinæ_, p. 116.)

[551] This refers to churching practice of the English Church. At the Hampton Court conference, referred to in the preceding note, another of the “reliques of popery,” specifically excepted to by Dr. Reynolds, was “the churching of women by the name of _purification_.”

[552] This count in the indictment was well laid. The children of the non-communicants in early New England could not be baptized; though they might be if either one of the parents was a member of the church. At a later period this became one of the leading causes of political agitation in the colony, and is referred to in the Dr. Robert Childs petition of 1646. In 1670 from four fifths to five sixths of the adult male inhabitants of Massachusetts were without the franchise, as being non-communicants. (Lechford’s _Plaine Dealing_, pp. 47, 48, 151; _Mem. Hist. of Boston_, vol. i. p. 156; Palfrey, vol. ii. p. 8, vol. iii. p. 41.)

[553] _Supra_, 316, _note_ 2.

[554] This was the favorite epithet employed by the early reformers in referring to the Mass. Calvin called it “an execrable idol;” Hooper, “a wicked idol.” Bradford--not Governor William, but John, the Smithfield martyr of Queen Mary’s time--terms it an “abominable idol of bread;” and again, “the horriblest and most detestable device that ever the devil brought out by man.” Bland, rector of Adishan, repeated the familiar figure, calling it a “most blasphemous idol;” and Latimer improved upon this by adding the words, “full of idolatry, blasphemy, sacrilege against God and the dear sacrifice of His Christ.” (Blunt’s _Reformation of the Church of Eng._, vol. ii. pp. 399-402.) The derivation of the Book of Common Prayer, in many of its parts, from the Missal was unmistakable; and naturally the next race of religious reformers applied to the former the same earnest epithets of theological dissent which had before been applied to the latter. Accordingly, in Barrowe’s _Brief Discovery of the False Church_, we find the Book of Common Prayer referred to as “a detestable idol, ... old rotten stuff ... abstracted out of the pope’s blasphemous mass-book, ... an abominable and loathsome sacrifice in the sight of God, even as a dead dog.” Barrowe was one of the three Separatist martyrs, and as such held in deepest veneration at Plymouth. (Young’s _Chron. of Pilg._, pp. 427-34.) The Book of Common Prayer was therefore undoubtedly looked upon and referred to at Plymouth as Morton says. Indeed, the Lyford schism was in some degree due to its use. (Bradford, p. 181.) That it was, in the early days, also so looked upon and so referred to at Salem and at Boston, is not clear. It is true that in 1629 it was again the cause of the Browne dissension at Salem (Young’s _Chron. of Mass._, p. 287), in consequence of which Skelton and Higginson both declared openly “that they came away from the Common Prayer and ceremonies, ... and therefore, being in a place where they might have their liberty, they neither could nor would use them, because they judged the imposition of these things to be sinful corruptions in the worship of God.” (Morton’s _Memorial_, p. 147.) The Puritans of Boston, however, were not Separatists, and it is open to question whether they at first felt towards the Common Prayer as the Plymouth people felt towards it, and as Morton says. In 1640 Governor Winthrop, it is true, noted it as a thing worthy of observation that his son “having many books in a chamber where there was corn of divers sorts, had among them one wherein the Greek testament, the psalms and the common prayer were bound together. He found the common prayer eaten with mice, every leaf of it, and not any of the two other touched, nor any other of his books, though they were above a thousand.” (Winthrop, vol. ii. p. *20.) When Governor Winthrop tried and sentenced Morton, however, he was anxious to preserve his connection with the Church of England, and it is very doubtful whether he then looked upon its Book of Prayer as “an idol.” (_Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, vol. xviii. p. 296.)

As one count in Morton’s indictment of the people of New England, that in the text now under consideration was not only sufficiently well founded, but it was peculiarly calculated to excite Archbishop Laud’s anger. It is unnecessary to say that he was the special champion of the Church of England ritual. To enforce exact conformity to it he regarded as his mission. When the ships loaded with emigrants for New England were, in March, 1634, stopped in the Thames by order of the Privy Council, they were not allowed to proceed on their voyage until the masters bound themselves to have the Book of Common Prayer used at morning and evening service during the voyage. (_Council Register_, Feb. 21, 28, 1634; Gardiner’s _Charles I._, vol. ii. p. 23.) This was Laud’s act, and it is more than probable that he was as much influenced by Morton on that occasion as he was subsequently in the matter of Winslow’s imprisonment for having performed the marriage ceremony. (_Supra_, 69, 93.)

[555] “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.” (_Matt._ xxiii. 23.)

“But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God.” (_Luke_ xi. 42.)

The significance of the text referred to lay, of course, in Morton’s mind, rather in its indirect than its direct application,--more in its denunciatory than in its contributory portions. The clergy in early Massachusetts were supported by the voluntary contributions in Boston, and by a regular town-tax levy outside of Boston. (_Plaine Dealing_, pp. 48-50; _Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._, 1860-2, p. 116.)

[556] _Supra_, Ch. XXV. pp. 316-20.

[557] “_Wink_, _v. n._ 1. to shut the eyes. _obs._” (_Worcester._)

[558] Edward Howes, in writing from London to John Winthrop, Jr., in November, 1632, describes how, on going home at noon one day, he met the master of a vessel which had just arrived from New England, together with three others who had come over with him. The master passing into the house on some matter of business, Howes had a talk with one of the other men, whom he describes as an “egregious knave.” The report given by this man of the Massachusetts community strikingly resembles that given by Morton in this chapter. He would, writes Howes, “give none of you a good word, but the governor [Winthrop]; he was a good man and kept a good table, but all the rest were Hereticks, and they would be more holy than all the world; they would be a peculiar people to God, but go to the Devil; that one man with you being at confession, as he called it, said he believed his father and mother and ancestors went all to Hell; and that your preachers, in their public prayers, pray for the governor before they pray for our king and state; ... that you never use the Lord’s prayer; that your ministers marry none; that fellows which keep hogs all the week preach on the Sabbath; that every town in your plantation is of a several religion; that you count all men in England, yea all out of your church, in the state of damnation. But I believe and know better things of you; but here you may partly see how the Devil stirs up his instruments.” (IV. _Mass. Hist. Col._, vol. vi. p. 485.)

[559] Mr. Swift (_Supra_, 328, _note_) suggests that Morton here alludes to the scene in Ben Jonson’s _Tale of a Tub_ (act iv. sc. 1), where Justice Preamble says:

“And what say you now, neighbor Turfe?”

Turfe answers him:

“I put it
Even to your worship’s bitterment, hab, nab.”

Here the Countryman makes the remark, and not the Justice; but a wholly correct allusion by Morton is not to be looked for. (_Supra_, 123, _note_ 2.) The meaning of _hab, nab_ is, of course, “hit or miss, at a venture, at random,” and is probably derived from _habbe, nabbe_,--“to have or not to have.” (See Nares’s _Glossary_.)

[560] _Supra_, 44-5.

[561] _Supra_, 319, _note_.

[562] By the General Court of May, 1644, it was ordered, that “Nantascot shall be called Hull.” (_Records_, vol. ii. p. 74.) Mr. Savage, in his notes to Winthrop (vol. ii. p. *175), and Mr. Whitmore (_Proc. Mass. Hist. Soc._ 1871-3, p. 397), think it was so called from Hull in Yorkshire. It would appear from the text that it had been locally known by that name among the “old planters” before the settlement of Boston.

[563] Sir Christopher Gardiner suddenly appeared in Massachusetts in May, 1630, and returned to England in 1632, arriving there in August. He is supposed to have come out as an agent, or emissary, of Sir Ferdinando Gorges. I had begun the preparation of a note on Sir Christopher, and “how hee spedd amongst the Seperatists,” for insertion at this point; but the subject developed on my hands until it assumed the shape of a study by itself. It can be found in the _Proceedings of the Mass. Hist. Soc._ for January, 1883, vol. xx.

[564] Machiavelli died in 1527, and _The Prince_ was published in 1532. The reputation of the man and of the book were as well established in Morton’s day as they are now.

“Nick Machiavel had ne’er a trick,
(Tho’ he gave his name to our old Nick.)”

(_Hudibras_, p. III. can. i. lines 1313-4.)

This derivation is not accepted by the authorities. See Brewer’s _Dict._, p. 614.

[565] _Supra_, Ch. XXV. pp. 316-20.

[566] As Saint Michael is one of the Azores, it may have been during this voyage that Morton visited the Isle of Sal and the tropics, as mentioned in the first chapter of the _New Canaan_. (_Supra_, 117.) If the voyage did last nine months, it was August or September, 1631, before he got back to England.

[567]

“Cum canerem reges et prœlia, Cynthius aurem
Vellit, et admonuit:...”

(Virgil, _Eclogues_, vi. 3-4.)

There are in the _New Canaan_ (_Supra_, 280, 297) two references to certain imaginary or special gifts from “Phaos box,” which in editing I had been unable to explain. Mr. Lindsay Swift (_Supra_, 328, _note_) now supplies me with a reference, which, if it is indeed, as seems most probable, the allusion which Morton had in mind, seems to indicate that his familiarity with classic authors was greater than I have been disposed to give him credit for. The reference is to the _Varia Historia_ of Ælianus (lib. XII. cap. xviii.), and reads as follows: “Phaonem, omnium hominum formosissimum, Venus in lactucis abscondit. Alii dicunt, eum portitorem fuisse, et habuisse hoc vitæ genus. Veniebat autem aliquando Venus, trajicere volens; ille vero, nesciens quænam esset, libenter recepit, magnaque cura, quoquo voluerat, eam vexit. Pro quibus meritis Dea alabastrum ei donavit, et erat in eo unguentum, quo unctus Phaon speciosissimus hominum evasit, atque adeo amarunt eum Mitylenensium feminæ. Tandem vero deprehensus in adulterio, trucidatus est.”

* * * * * *

Transcriber's Note

The following apparent errors have been corrected:

p. 18 (note) "Strutt s" changed to "Strutt’s"

p. 23 (note) "_Infra_ *149." changed to "_Infra_, *149."

p. 83 (note) "_State Papers_.," changed to "_State Papers_,"

p. 98 "repects" changed to "respects"

p. 102 (note) "humming-bird”" changed to "“humming-bird”"

p. 130 (note) "pp, 70" changed to "pp. 70"

p. 133 (note) "1869.," changed to "1869,"

p. 137 (note) "‘eat.”" changed to "‘eat.’”"

p. 140 (note) "lxxxix" changed to "lxxxix."

p. 147 (note) "Hemlock-Bark" changed to "Hemlock-Bark”"

p. 148 (note) "_nanwetee_’" changed to "_nanwetee_"

p. 152 (note) "lxxxiv-lxxxvii" changed to "lxxxiv.-lxxxvii."

p. 158 (note) "together”" changed to "together.”"

p. 185 (sidenote) "3. & 4" changed to "3. & 4."

p. 196 (note) "linarius" changed to "lanarius"

p. 213 (note) "_Chingachgook_" changed to "_Chingachcook_"

p. 217 (note) "he got" changed to "be got"

p. 218 (note) "vol," changed to "vol."

p. 226 (note) "_Psendopleuronectes_" changed to "_Pseudopleuronectes_"

p. 269 "the rest" changed to "the rest,"

p. 314 "handsomely" changed to "handsomely."

p. 326 (sidenote) "despised" changed to "despised."

p. 348 "cured" changed to "cured."

p. 355 "N. Y." changed to "N.Y."

p. 356 "N. Y." changed to "N.Y."

p. 356 "R. I." changed to "R.I."

p. 358 "N. Y." changed to "N.Y."

p. 359 "Prospect" changed to "Prospect."

p. 359 "Whitmore, A.M" changed to "Whitmore, A.M."

p. 363 "131, _n._;" changed to "131, _n._,"

p. 365 "Canonicus" changed to "Caunoŭnicus"

p. 366 "196, _n._," changed to "196, _n._;"

p. 369 "186," changed to "186."

p. 371 "_Kantantowwit_" changed to "Kantántowwit"

p. 371 "_Kodliep Kēn_" changed to "_Kodtup Kēn_"

p. 372 "description of, 200;" changed to "description of, 206;"

p. 374 "205, _n._" changed to "205, _n._;"

Inconsistent spelling, punctuation and typography have otherwise been left as printed.

The following possible errors have been left as printed:

p. 19 beasly

p. 123 originlly

p. 125 probality

p. 127 this Cost

p. 132 strenght

p. 144 lenght

p. 148 uncivilizied

p. 154 fuond

p. 164 giude

p. 210 oder glands

p. 219 Blacklead.

p. 223 (note) lenghth

p. 230 Mattachusetts

p. 231 ageed

p. 261 doubdt

p. 281 strenght

p. 287 worties

p. 365 Cithyrea

p. 365 fire-brand

p. 366 Colchos

p. 366 Powows

p. 366 luzerans

p. 367 Drails

p. 367 luzeran

p. 368 luzeran

p. 371 Lannerets

p. 371 Leadstones

p. 375 Newcomein

p. 376 Pawtucket

p. 376 Phlegethon

p. 376 Phœbus

p. 377 Rhadamanthus

p. 379 Chappel: chalkstones

p. 379 Stubbs

p. 380 Wampumpeack

p. 381 Auld