"1721. Samuel Hayward was suspended from the Lord's supper by the
Brethren for his disorderly behaviour in word and deed, and his
incorrigibleness therein."
Up to this time it had been the custom of the Braintree church that any
person "propounded" for membership should, before being admitted, give an
oral or written relation of his or her religious experience,--a practice
in strict accordance with the usage then prevailing, with perhaps a few
exceptions, throughout Massachusetts.[6] The record, under date of
December 31, 1721, contains the following in relation to this:--
"Dr. Belcher's son Joseph, junior Sophister, [admitted.] He made the
last Relation, before the brethren consented to lay aside Relations.
"Because some persons of a sober life and good conversation have
signified their unwillingness to join in full communion with the
Church, unless they may be admitted to it without making a Public
Relation of their spiritual experiences, which (they say) the Church
has no warrant in the word of God to require, it was therefore
proposed to the Church the last Sacrament-day that they would not any
more require a Relation as above said from any person who desired to
partake in the Ordinance of the Lord's Supper with us, and after the
case had been under debate at times among the brethren privately for
the space of three weeks, the question was put to them January 28
1721/2 being on a Lord's Day Evening in the Meeting-house, whether
they would any more insist upon the making a Relation as a necessary
Term of full communion with them?
"It passed in the negative by a great majority."
Two months later the case of James Penniman again presented itself. It was
now nearly nine years since he had been solemnly admonished; and on the
4th of April, 1722,--
"Sabbath day. It was proposed to the church last Sabbath to
excommunicate James Penniman for his contumacy in sin, but this day
he presented a confession, which was read before the Congregation, and
prayed that they would wait upon him awhile longer, which the Church
consented to, and he was again publicly admonished, and warned against
persisting in the neglect of Public Worship, against Idleness,
Drunkenness and Lying; and he gave some slender hopes of Reformation,
seemed to be considerably affected, and behaved himself tolerably
well."
The following entries complete the record during the Marsh pastorate of
sixteen years, which ended March 8, 1726, Mr. Marsh then dying in his
forty-first year:--
"September 9. Brother Joseph Parmenter made a public Confession, in
the presence of the Congregation for the sin of drunkenness.
"September 21. At a Church meeting of the Brethren to consider his
case, the question was put whether they would accept his confession
[to] restore him; it passed in the negative, because he has made
several confessions of the sin, and is still unreformed thereof: the
Brethren concluded it proper to suspend him from Communion in the
Lord's Supper, for his further humiliation and warning. He was
accordingly suspended.
"March 3{d}, 1722-3. Sabbath Evening. Brother Parmenter having behaved
himself well (for aught anything that appears) since his suspension,
was at his desire restored again by a vote of the Brethren, _nemine
contradicente_.
"March 10. Joseph, a negro man, and Tabitha his wife made a public
confession of the sin of fornication, committed each with the other
before marriage, and desired to have the ordinance of Baptism
administered to them.
"May 26. The Brethren of the Church met together to consider what is
further necessary to be done by the Church towards the reformation of
James Penniman. He being present desired their patience towards him,
and offered a trifling confession, which was read, but not accepted by
the Brethren, because he manifested no sign of true repentance
thereof: they came to (I think) a unanimous vote that he should be
cast out of the Church for his incorrigibleness in his evil waies,
whenever I shall see good to do it, and I promised to wait upon him
some time, to see how he would behave himself before I proceeded
against him.
"At the same church meeting Major Quincey was fairly and clearly
chosen by written votes to the office of tuning the Psalm in our
Assemblies for Public Worship.
"January 26, 1723/4 Lord's-day. In the afternoon, after a sermon on 1
Cor. 5.5.[7] James Penniman persisting in a course of Idleness,
Drunkenness, and in a neglect of the Public Worship, &c. had the
fearfull sentence of excommunication pronounced upon him.
"February 2, 1723/4. Lord's Day. After the public service the Church
being desired to stay voted--that Benjamin Neal, David Bass and Joseph
Neal jun. members in full communion have discovered such a perverse
spirit and been guilty of such disorderly behaviour in the House and
Worship of God that they deserve to be suspended from communion with
us at the Lord's table.
"February 9. Lord's Day evening. David Bass acknowledging his
offensive behavior and promising to be more watchfull for time to
come, the brethren signified their consent that he be restored to full
communion with them.
"March 1. This day (being Sacrament day) Benjamin Neal and Joseph
Neal, confessing their offensive behavior in presence of the Brethren,
were restored to the liberty of full communion."
The above are all the record entries relating to matters of discipline
during the Marsh pastorate, which ended March 8, 1726. They cover a period
of sixteen years. On the 2d of November following the Rev. John Hancock
was ordained, and the following entries are in his handwriting:--
"January 21, 1728. Joseph P---- and Lydia his wife made a confession
before the Church which was well accepted for the sin of Fornication
committed with each other before marriage.
"August 12, 1728. The Church met again at the house of Mrs. Marsh to
examine into the grounds of some scandalous reports of the conduct of
Brother David Bass on May the 29{th} who was vehemently suspected of
being confederate with one Roger Wilson in killing a lamb belonging to
Mr. Edward Adams of Milton. The witnesses, viz. Capt. John Billings,
Mr. Edward and Samuel Capons of Dorchester, being present, the Church
had a full hearing of the case, who unanimously agreed that brother
Bass, though he denied the fact of having an hand in killing the lamb,
yet was guilty of manifest prevaricating in the matter, and could not
be restored to their communion without giving them satisfaction, and
desired the matter might be suspended.
"[Nov. 11, 1728.] On Monday November the 11, 1728 we had another
church meeting to hear and consider Brother David Bass's confession,
which (after some debate) was accepted; and it was unanimously voted
by the Church that it should be read before the whole Congregation,
with which brother Bass would by no means comply, and so the matter
was left at this meeting.
"But on December the 15 following David Bass's confession was read
publicly before the Church and Congregation, which he owned publicly,
and was accepted by the brethren by a manual vote.
"November 17, 1728. Mehetabel the wife of John B---- Jun{r} made a
confession before the Church and Congregation for the sin of
fornication, which was well accepted.
"September 28, 1729. Elizabeth M---- made a confession before the
whole congregation for the sin of fornication, which was accepted by
the Church.
"July 2, 1732. Abigail, wife of Joseph C----, made a confession of the
sin of fornication, which was well accepted by the Church, though she
was ill and absent.
"August 6, 1732. Ebenezer H---- and wife made their confession of the
sin of fornication.
"July 1, 1733. Tabitha, a servant of Judge Quincy, and a member of
this Church, made her confession for stealing a 3 pound bill from her
Master, which was accepted.
"August 11, 1734. Nathan S---- and wife made their confession of the
sin of fornication which was well accepted by the church.
"September 28, 1735. Elizabeth P----, widow, made her confession of
the sin of fornication and was accepted.
"[Sept. 8, 1735.] At a meeting of the First Church of Christ in
Braintree at the house of the Pastor, September the 8{th} 1735, after
prayer--Voted, That it is the duty of this Church to examine the
proofs of an unhappy quarrel between Benjamin Owen and Joseph Owen,
members in full communion with this Church on May 30{th} 1735, whereby
God has been dishonored and religion reproached.
"After some examination thereof it was unanimously voted by the
brethren--That the Pastor should ask Benjamin Owen whether he would
make satisfaction to the Church for his late offensive behaviour,
which he refused to do in a public manner, unless the charge could be
more fully proved upon him. Whereupon there arose several debates upon
the sufficiency of the proof to demand a publick confession of him;
and there appearing different apprehensions among the brethren about
it, it was moved by several that the meeting should be adjourned for
further consideration of the whole affair.
"Before the meeting was adjourned Benjamin Web acquainted the brethren
with some scandalous reports he had heard of Elizabeth Morse, a member
of this Church, when it was unanimously voted to be the duty of this
Church to choose a Committee to examine into the truth of them and
make report to the Church. And Mr. Benjamin Web, Mr. Moses Belcher
Jun{r} and Mr. Joseph Neal, Tert. were chose for the committee.
"Then the meeting was adjourned to the 29{th} Inst. at 2 oclock P. M.
"The brethren met upon the adjournment, and after humble supplication
to God for direction, examined more fully the proofs of the late
quarrel between Benj. Owen and Joseph Owen but passed no vote upon
them.
"[Oct. 22, 1735.] At a meeting of the 1{st} Church in Braintree at the
house of the Pastor, Oct. 22, 1735--after prayer, Benj. Owen offered
to the brethren a confession of his late offensive behavior which was
not accepted.
"Then it was voted by the brethren that he should make confession of
his offence in the following words, viz: Whereas I have been left to
fall into a sinful strife and quarrel with my brother Joseph Owen, I
acknowledge I am greatly to blame that I met my brother in anger and
strove with him, to the dishonor of God, and thereby also have
offended my Christian brethren. I desire to be humbled before God, and
to ask God's forgiveness; I desire to be at peace with my brother, and
to be restored to the charity of this Church, and your prayers to God
for me.
"To which he consented, as also to make it in public.
"At the desire of the brethren the meeting was adjourned to Friday the
24 Inst. at 4 o'clock P. M. that they might satisfy themselves
concerning the conduct of Joseph Owen in the late sinful strife
between him and his brother. And the Pastor was desired to send to him
to be present at the adjournment.
"The brethren met accordingly, and after a long consideration of the
proof had against Joseph Owen, it was proposed to the brethren whether
they would defer the further consideration of Joseph Owen's affair to
another opportunity. It was voted in the negative.
"Whereupon a vote was proposed in the following words viz: Whether it
appears to the brethren of this Church that the proofs they have had
against Joseph Owen in the late unhappy strife between him and his
brother be sufficient for them to demand satisfaction from him. Voted
in the affirmative.
"And the satisfaction the brethren voted he should make for his
offence was in the following words:--I am sensible that in the late
unhappy and sinful strife between me and my brother Benj. Owen, I am
blameworthy, and I ask forgiveness of God and this Church, and I
desire to be at peace with my brother and ask your prayers to God for
me.
"Then it was proposed to the brethren whether they would accept this
confession, if Joseph Owen would make it before them at the present
meeting--Voted in the negative.
"Whereupon it was voted that he should make this satisfaction for his
offence before the Church upon the Lord's day immediately before the
administration of the Lord's supper. With which he refusing to comply
though he consented to make it before the Church at the present
meeting, the meeting was dissolved.
"October 26, 1735. Benj'n Owen made a public confession of his
offence, and was restored to the charity of the Church.
"Memorandum. At the adjournment of the Church meeting Sept. the 29{th}
1735, Mr. Moses Belcher and Mr. Joseph Neal, two of the committee
chosen Sept. the 8{th}, made report to the brethren, that they had
been with Eliz. Morse, and that she owned to them she had been
delivered of two bastard children since she had made confession to the
church of the sin of fornication, and she promised them to come and
make the Church satisfaction for her great offence the latter end of
October.
"[Nov. 10, 1735.] At a church meeting, Nov. 10{th}, 1735, the case of
Elizabeth Morse came under consideration. And she having neglected to
come and make satisfaction for her offence according to her promise,
though she was in Town at that time, the brethren proceeded and
unanimously voted her suspension from the communion of this church. It
was likewise unanimously voted that the Pastor should admonish her in
the name of the Church in a letter for her great offence.
"Upon a motion made by some of the brethren to reconsider the vote of
the church Oct. 24 relating to Joseph Owen, it was voted to reconsider
the same. Voted also that his confession be accepted before the
brethren at the present meeting, which was accordingly done, and he
was restored to their charity.
"December 7, 1735. Lieutenant Joseph Crosbey made confession of the
sin of fornication, and was restored to the charity of the church.
"December 21, 1735. John Beale made confession of the sin of
fornication, and was restored to the charity of the brethren.
"April 18, 1736. Susanna W---- made confession of the sin of
fornication, and was restored to the charity of the brethren.
"May 1, 1737. Sam P---- and wife made public confession of the sin of
fornication. Accepted.
"January 22, 1737/8. Charles S---- and wife made a public confession
of the sin of fornication.
"June 11, 1738. Benj'n Sutton and Naomi his wife, free negroes, made
confession of fornication.
"December 17, 1738. Jeffry, my servant, and Flora, his wife, servant
of Mr. Moses Belcher, negroes, made confession of the sin of
fornication.
"May 20{th}, 1739. Benjamin C---- and wife, of Milton, made confession
of fornication.
"Jan'y 20, 1739/40. Joseph W---- and wife confessed the sin of
fornication.
"October 25, 1741. This Church suspended from their communion Eleazer
Vesey for his disorderly unchristian life and neglecting to hear the
Church, according to Matt. 18, 17."
The Hancock pastorate lasted eighteen years, ending with Mr. Hancock's
death on the 7th of May, 1744; and no record of cases of church discipline
seems to have been kept by any of his successors in the pulpit of the
North Precinct church. In the year 1750 Braintree probably contained some
eighteen hundred or two thousand inhabitants, and during the half-century
between 1725 and 1775 there is no reason to suppose that any considerable
change took place in their condition, whether social, material or
religious. It was a period of slow maturing. The absence of a record,
therefore, in no way implies change; if it indicates anything at all in
this case, it indicates merely that the successors to Mr. Hancock, either
because they were indolent or because they saw no advantage in so doing,
made no written mention of anything relating to the church's life or
action beyond what was contained in the book regularly kept by the
precinct clerk. There are but two exceptions to this, both consisting of
brief entries made, the one by the Rev. Lemuel Bryant, the immediate
successor of Mr. Hancock, the other by the Rev. Anthony Wibird, who in
1755 followed Mr. Bryant. Both entries are to be found on the second page
of the volume from which all the extracts relating to church discipline
have been taken. Mr. Bryant was for his time an advanced religious
thinker, and, as is invariably the case with such, he failed to carry the
whole of his flock along with him. Owing to declining health he resigned
his pastorate in October, 1753, having exactly two months before recorded
the following case of discipline:--
"August 22, 1753. Ebenezer Adams was Suspended from the Communion of
the Church for the false, abusive and scandalous stories that his
Unbridled Tongue had spread against the Pastor, and refusing to make a
proper Confession of his monstrous wickedness."
The other of these two records bears date almost exactly twenty years
later, and was doubtless made because of the preceding entry. It is very
brief, and as follows:--
"November 3, 1773. The Church made choice of Ebenezer Adams for
deacon, in the place of deacon Palmer, who resigned the stated
exercise of his office."
After 1741, therefore, the only records of the North Precinct church are
those contained in the book kept by the successive precinct clerks, which
has often been consulted, but never copied. None of the entries in it
relate to cases of discipline or to matters spiritual, they being almost
exclusively prudential in character. No record is made of births,
baptisms, deaths or marriages, which were still for several years to come
noted in the small volume from which I have quoted. Accordingly the
Braintree North Precinct records after Mr. Hancock's ministry are of far
inferior interest, though as the volume containing them from 1709 to 1766
distinctly belongs to what are known as "ancient records," and as such is
liable at any time to be lost or destroyed, I have caused a copy of it to
be made, and have deposited it for safe keeping in the library of this
Society. An examination of this volume only very occasionally brings to
light anything which is of more than local interest, or which has a
bearing on the social or religious conditions of the last century, though
here and there something is found which constitutes an exception to this
rule. Such, for instance, is the following entry in the record of the
proceedings of a Precinct meeting held on the 19th of July, 1731, to take
measures for properly noticing the completion of the new meeting-house
then being built:--
"After a considerable debate with respect to the raising of the new
meeting-house, &c., the Question was put whether the committee should
provide Bred Cheap Sugar Rum Sider and Bear &c. for the Raising of
said Meeting House at the Cost of the Precinct. It passed in the
affirmative."
I have been unable to discover any subsequent detailed statement of
expenses incurred and disbursements made under the authority conferred by
this vote. Such a document might be interesting. Two years before, when in
1729 the Rev. Mr. Jackson was ordained as pastor of the church of Woburn,
among the items of expense were four, aggregating the sum of L23 1_s._,
representing the purchase of "6 Barrels and one half of Cyder, 28 Gallons
of Wine, 2 Gallons of Brandy and four of Rum, Loaf Sugar, Lime Juice, and
Pipes," all, it is to be presumed, consumed at the time and on the spot.
It has of course been noticed that a large proportion of the entries I
have quoted relate to discipline administered in cases of fornication, in
many of which confession is made by husband and wife, and is of acts
committed before marriage. The experience of Braintree in this respect
was in no way peculiar among the Massachusetts towns of the last century.
While examining the Braintree records I incidentally came across a
singular and conclusive bit of unpublished documentary evidence on this
point in the records of the church of Groton; for, casually mentioning one
day in the rooms of the Society the Braintree records to our librarian,
Dr. S. A. Green, he informed me that the similar records of the Groton
church were in his possession, and he kindly put them at my disposal.
Though covering a later period (1765-1803) than the portion of the
Braintree church records from which the extracts contained in this paper
have been made, the Groton records supplement and explain the Braintree
records to a very remarkable degree. In the latter there is no vote or
other entry showing the church rule or usage which led to these
post-nuptial confessions of ante-marital relations; but in the Groton
records I find the following among the preliminary votes passed at the
time of signing the church covenant, regulating the admission of members
to full communion:--
"June 1, 1765. The church then voted with regard to Baptizing children
of persons newly married, That those parents that have not a child
till seven yearly months after Marriage are subjects of our Christian
Charity, and (if in a judgment of Charity otherwise qualified) shall
have the privilege of Baptism for their Infants without being
questioned as to their Honesty."
This rule prevailed in the Groton church for nearly forty years, until in
January, 1803, it was brought up again for consideration by an article in
the warrant calling a church meeting "to see if the church will reconsider
and annul the rule established by former vote and usage of the church
requiring an acknowledgment before the congregation of those persons who
have had a child within less time than seven yearly months after marriage
as a term of their having baptism for their children."
The compelling cause to the confessions referred to was therefore the
parents' desire to secure baptism for their offspring during a period when
baptism was believed to be essential to salvation, with the Calvinistic
hell as an alternative. The constant and not infrequently cruel use made
by the church and the clergy of the parental fear of infant
damnation--the belief "that Millions of Infants are tortured in Hell to
all Eternity for a Sin that was committed thousands of Years before they
were born"--is matter of common knowledge. Not only did it compel young
married men and women to shameful public confessions of the kind which has
been described, but it was at times arbitrarily used by some ministers in
a way which is at once ludicrous and, now, hard to understand. Certain of
them, for instance, refused to baptize infants born on the Sabbath, there
being an ancient superstition to the effect that a child born on the
Sabbath was also conceived on the Sabbath; a superstition presumably the
basis on which was founded the provision of the apocryphal Blue Laws of
Connecticut,--
"Whose rule the nuptial kiss restrains
On Sabbath day, in legal chains";[8]
and there is one well-authenticated case of a Massachusetts clergyman
whose practice it was thus to refuse to baptize Sabbath-born babes, who in
passage of time had twins born to him on a Lord's day. He publicly
confessed his error, and in due time administered the rite to his
children.[9]
With the church refusing baptism on the one side, and with an eternity of
torment for unbaptized infants on the other, some definite line had to be
drawn. This was effected through what was known as "the seven months'
rule"; and the penalty for its violation, enforced and made effective by
the refusal of the rites of baptism, was a public confession. Under the
operation of "the seven months' rule" the records of the Groton church
show that out of two hundred persons owning the baptismal covenant in that
church during the fourteen years between 1761 and 1775 no less than
sixty-six confessed to fornication before marriage.[10] The entries
recording these cases are very singular. At first the full name of the
person, or persons in the case of husband and wife, is written, followed
by the words "confessed and restored" in full. Somewhat later, about the
year 1763, the record becomes regularly "Confessed Fornication;" which two
years later is reduced to "Con. For.;" which is subsequently still further
abbreviated into merely "C. F." During the three years 1789, 1790 and
1791 sixteen couples were admitted to full communion; and of these nine
had the letters "C. F." inscribed after their names in the church records.
I also find the following in regard to this church usage in Worthington's
"History of Dedham" (pp. 108, 109), further indicating that the Groton and
Braintree records reveal no exceptional condition of affairs:--
"The church had ever in this place required of its members guilty of
unlawful cohabitation before marriage, a public confession of that
crime, before the whole congregation. The offending female stood in
the broad aisle beside the partner of her guilt. If they had been
married, the declaration of the man was silently assented to by the
woman. This had always been a delicate and difficult subject for
church discipline. The public confession, if it operated as a
corrective, likewise produced merriment with the profane. I have seen
no instance of a public confession of this sort until the ministry of
Mr. Dexter (1724-55) and then they were extremely rare. In 1781, the
church gave the confessing parties the privilege of making a private
confession to the church, in the room of a public confession. In Mr.
Haven's ministry, (1756-1803) the number of cases of unlawful
cohabitation, increased to an alarming degree. For twenty-five years
before 1781 twenty-five cases had been publicly acknowledged before
the congregation, and fourteen cases within the last ten years."
It will be noticed in the above extract that the writer says he had "seen
no instance of a public confession of this sort" prior to 1724, and that
until after 1755 "they were extremely rare." In the case of the Braintree
records, also, it will be remembered there was but one case of public
confession recorded prior to 1723, and that solitary case occurred in
1683.
The Record Commissioners of the city of Boston in their sixth report
(Document 114--1880) printed the Rev. John Eliot's record of church
members of Roxbury, which covers the period from the gathering of the
church in 1632 to the year 1689, and includes notes of many cases of
discipline. Among these I find the following, the earliest of its kind:--
"1678. Month 4 day 16. Hanna Hopkins was censured in the Church with
admonition for fornication with her husband before thei were maryed
and for flying away from justice, unto Road Iland." (p. 93.)
During the next eighteen years I find in these records only seven entries
of other cases generally similar in character to the above, though the
Roxbury records contain a number of entries descriptive of interesting
cases of church discipline, besides many memoranda of "strange providences
of God" and "dreadful examples of Gods judgment." It would seem, however,
that the instances of church discipline publicly administered on the
ground of sexual immorality were infrequent in Roxbury, as in Dedham and
Braintree, prior to the year 1725. As will presently be seen, a change
either in morals or in discipline, but probably in the latter more than in
the former, apparently took place at about that time.
* * * * *
So far as they bear upon the question of sexual morality in Massachusetts
during the eighteenth century, what do the foregoing facts and extracts
from the records indicate?--what inferences can be legitimately drawn from
them? And here I wish to emphasize the fact that this paper makes no
pretence of being an exhaustive study. In it, as I stated in the
beginning, I have made use merely of such material as chanced to come into
my hands in connection with a very limited field of investigation. I have
made no search for additional material, nor even inquired what other facts
of a similar character to those I have given may be preserved in the
records of the two other Braintree precincts. I have not sought to compare
the records I have examined with the similar records I know exist of the
churches of neighboring towns,--such as those of Dorchester, Hingham,
Weymouth, Milton and Dedham. So doing would have involved an amount of
labor which the matter under investigation would not justify on my part. I
have therefore merely made use of a certain amount of the raw material of
history I have chanced upon, bringing to bear on it such other general
information of a similar character as I remember from time to time to have
come across.
Though the historians of New England, whether of the formal description,
like Palfrey and Barry, or of the social and economic order, like Elliott
and Weeden, have little if anything to say on the subject, I think it not
unsafe to assert that during the eighteenth century the inhabitants of New
England did not enjoy a high reputation for sexual morality. Lord
Dartmouth, for instance, who, as secretary for the colonies, had charge of
American affairs during a portion of the North administration, in one of
his conversations with Governor Hutchinson referred to the commonness of
illegitimate offspring "among the young people of New England"[11] as a
thing of accepted notoriety; nor did Hutchinson, than whom no one was
better informed on all matters relating to New England, controvert the
proposition.
And yet, speaking again from the material which chances to be at my own
disposal, I find, so far as Braintree is concerned, nothing to justify
this statement of Lord Dartmouth's in the manuscript record book of Col.
John Quincy, which has been preserved, and is now in the possession of
this Society. Colonel Quincy was a prominent man in his day and
neighborhood; and the North Precinct of Braintree, in which he lived and
was buried, when, nearly thirty years after his death, it was incorporated
as a town, took its name from him. As a justice of the peace, Colonel
Quincy kept a careful record of the cases, both civil and criminal, which
came before him between 1716 and 1761, a period of forty-five years. These
cases, a great part of them criminal, were over two hundred in number, and
came not only from Braintree but from other parts of the old county of
Suffolk. Under these circumstances, if the state of affairs indicated by
Lord Dartmouth's remark, and Governor Hutchinson's apparent admission of
its truth, did really prevail, many bastardy warrants would during those
forty-five years naturally have come before so active a magistrate as John
Quincy. Such does not seem to have been the case. Indeed I find during the
whole period but four bastardy entries,--one in 1733, one in 1739, one in
1746, and one in 1761,--and, in 1720, one complaint against a woman to
answer for fornication. Considering the length of time the record of
Colonel Quincy covers, this is a remarkably small number of cases, and,
taken by itself, would seem to indicate the exact opposite from the
condition of affairs revealed in the church records of the same period,
for it includes the whole Hancock pastorate. This record book of Colonel
Quincy's I will add is the only original legal material I have bearing on
this subject. An examination of the files of the provincial courts would
undoubtedly bring more material to light.
I have only further to say, in passing, that some of the other cases
mentioned in this John Quincy record are not without a curious interest.
For instance, August 24, 1722, John Veasey, "husbandman," is put under
recognizance in the sum of L5 "for detaining his child from the public
worship of God, said child being about eleven years old." On the same day
John Belcher, "cordwainer," is put under a similar recognizance "for
absenting himself from the public worship of God the winter past." Eleazer
Veasey,--the Braintree Veaseys I will say in passing were members of the
Church of England in Braintree, and not members of the Braintree
church,--Eleazer Veasey is, on the 20th of September, 1717, fined five
shillings to the use of the town poor for "uttering a profane curse." So
also Christopher Dyer, "husbandman," "did utter one profane curse," to
which charge he pleaded guilty, and, on the 17th of May, 1747, was fined
four shillings for the use of the poor. In this case the costs were
assessed at six shillings, making ten shillings as the total cost of an
oath in Massachusetts at that time; but as Dyer was a "soldier of His
Majesty's service," the court added that if the fine was not paid
forthwith, he (Dyer) "be publickly set in the stocks or cage for the space
of three hours."
Returning to the subject of church discipline and public confessions of
incontinence, it will be observed that in the case of the North Precinct
Church of Braintree the great body of these confessions are recorded as
being made during the Hancock pastorate, or between the years 1726 and
1744. This also, it will be remembered, was the period of what is known in
New England history as "The Great Awakening," described in the first
chapter of the recently published fifth volume of Dr. Palfrey's work. Some
writers, while referring to what they call "the tide of immorality" which
then and afterward "rolled," as they express it, over the land, so that
"not even the bulwark of the church had been able to withstand" it,--these
writers, themselves of course ministers of the church, have, for want of
any more apparent cause, attributed the condition of affairs they
deplored, but were compelled to admit, to the influence of the French
wars, which, it will be remembered, broke out in 1744, and, with an
intermission of six years (1749-1755), lasted until the conquest of Canada
was completed in 1760. But it would be matter for curious inquiry whether
both the condition of affairs referred to and the confessions made in
public of sins privately committed were not traceable to the church
itself rather than to the army,--whether they were not rather due to the
spiritual than to the martial conditions of the time.
I have neither the material at my disposal, nor the time and inclination
to go into this study, both physiological and psychological, and shall
therefore confine myself to a few suggestions only which have occurred to
me in the course of the examination of the records I have been discussing.
"The Great Awakening," so called, occurred in 1740,--it was then that
Whitefield preached on Boston Common to an audience about equal in number
to three quarters of the entire population of the town.[12] Five years
before, in 1735, had occurred the famous Northampton revival, engineered
and presided over by Jonathan Edwards; and previous to that there had been
a number of small local outbreaks of the same character, which his
"venerable and honoured Grandfather Stoddard," as Edwards describes his
immediate predecessor in the Northampton pulpit, was accustomed to refer
to as "Harvests," in which there was "a considerable Ingathering of
Souls." A little later this spiritual condition became general and, so to
speak, epidemic. There are few sadder or more suggestive forms of
literature than that in which the religious contagion of 1735, for it was
nothing else, is described; it reveals a state of affairs bordering close
on universal insanity. Take for instance the following from Edwards's
"Narrative" of what took place at Northampton:--
"Presently upon this, a great and earnest Concern about the great
things of Religion, and the eternal World, became _universal_ in all
parts of the Town, and among Persons of all Degrees, and all Ages; the
Noise amongst the _Dry Bones_ waxed louder and louder: All other talk
but about spiritual and eternal things, was soon thrown by.... There
was scarcely a single Person in the Town, either old or young, that
was left unconcerned about the great Things of the eternal World.
Those that were wont to be the vainest, and loosest, and those that
had been most disposed to think, and speak slightly of vital and
experimental Religion, were now generally subject to great
awakenings.... Souls did as it were come by Flocks to Jesus Christ.
From Day to Day, for many Months together, might be seen evident
Instances of Sinners brought _out of Darkness into marvellous Light_,
and delivered _out of an horrible Pit, and from the miry Clay, and set
upon a Rock_, with a _new Song of Praise to God in their mouths_ ...
in the Spring and Summer following, _Anno_ 1735 the Town seemed to be
full of the Presence of God. It never was so full of _Love_, nor so
full of _Joy_; and yet so full of Distress as it was then. There were
remarkable Tokens of God's Presence in almost every House.... Our
publick _Praises_ were then greatly enlivened.... In all _Companies_
on _other_ Days, on whatever _Occasions_ Persons met together,
_Christ_ was to be heard of and seen in the midst of them. Our _young
People_, when they met, were wont to spend the time in talking of the
_Excellency_ and dying _Love_ of JESUS CHRIST, the Gloriousness of the
way of _Salvation_, the wonderful, free, and sovereign _Grace_ of God,
his glorious Work in the _Conversion_ of a Soul, the _Truth_ and
Certainty of the great Things of God's Word, the Sweetness of the
Views of his _Perfection &c._ And even at _Weddings_, which formerly
were meerly occasions of Mirth and Jollity, there was now no discourse
of any thing but the things of Religion, and no appearance of any, but
_spiritual Mirth_."[13]
And it was this pestiferous stuff,--for though it emanated from the pure
heart and powerful brain of the greatest of American theologians, it is
best to characterize it correctly,--it was this pestiferous stuff that
Wesley read during a walk from London to Oxford in 1738, and wrote of it
in his journal,--"Surely this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in
our eyes." Such was the prevailing spiritual condition of the period in
which the entries I have read were made in the Braintree church records.
In the language of the text from which Dr. Colman preached on the occasion
of the first stated evening lecture ever held in Boston, "Souls flying to
Jesus Christ [were] pleasant and admirable to behold."
The brother clergyman[14] who prepared and delivered from the pulpit of
the Braintree church a funeral sermon on Mr. Hancock referred to the
religious excesses of the time, and described the dead pastor as a "wise
and skilful pilot" who had steered "a right and safe course in the late
troubled sea of ecclesiastical affairs," so that his people had to a
considerable degree "escaped the errors and enthusiasm ... in matters of
religion which others had fallen into."[15] Nevertheless it is almost
impossible for any locality to escape wholly a general epidemic; and in
those days public relations of experiences were not only usual in the
churches, but they were a regular feature in all cases of admission to
full communion. That this was the case in the Braintree church is evident
from the extract already quoted from the records, when in 1722 "some
persons of a sober life and good conversation signified their
unwillingness to join in full communion with the church unless they
[might] be admitted to it without making a Public relation of their
spiritual experiences." It was also everywhere noticed that the women, and
especially the young women, were peculiarly susceptible to attacks of the
spiritual epidemic. Jonathan Edwards for instance mentions, in the case of
Northampton, how the young men of that place had become "addicted to
night-walking and frequenting the tavern, and leud practices," and how
they would "get together in conventions of both sexes for mirth and
jollity, which they called frolicks; and they would spend the greater part
of the night in them"; and among the first indications of the approach of
the epidemic noticed by him was the case of a young woman who had been one
of the greatest "company keepers" in the whole town, who became "serious,
giving evidence of a heart truly broken and sanctified."
This same state of affairs doubtless then prevailed in Braintree, and
indeed throughout New England. The whole community was in a sensitive
condition morally and spiritually,--so sensitive that, as the Braintree
records show, the contagion extended to all classes, and, among those
bearing some of the oldest names in the history of the township, we find
also negroes,--"Benjamin Sutton and Naomi his wife," and "Jeffry, my
servant, and Flora, his wife,"--grotesquely getting up before the
congregation to make confession, like their betters, of the sin of
fornication before marriage. It, of course, does not need to be said that
such a state of morbid and spiritual excitement would necessarily lead to
public confessions of an unusual character. Women, and young women in
particular, would be inclined to brood over things unknown save to those
who participated in them, and think to find in confession only a means of
escape from the torment of that hereafter concerning which they
entertained no doubts; hence perhaps many of these records which now seem
both so uncalled for and so inexplicable.
So far, however, what has been said relates only to the matter of public
confession; it remains for others to consider how far a morbidly excited
spiritual condition may also have been responsible for the sin confessed.
The connection between the animal and the spiritual natures of human
beings taken in the aggregate, though subtile, is close; and while it is
well known that camp-meetings have never been looked upon as peculiar, or
even as conspicuous, for the continence supposed to prevail at them, there
is no doubt whatever that in England the license of the restoration
followed close on the rule of the saints. One of the authorities on New
England history, speaking of the outward manifestations of the "Great
Awakening," says that "the fervor of excitement showed itself in strong
men, as well as in women, by floods of tears, by outcries, by bodily
paroxysms, jumping, falling down and rolling on the ground, regardless of
spectators or their clothes." Then the same authority goes on to
add:--"But it was common that when the exciting preacher had departed, the
excitement also subsided, and men and women returned peaceably to their
daily duties."[16] This last may have been the case; but it is not
probable that men and women in the condition of mental and physical
excitement described could go about their daily duties without carrying
into them some trace of morbid reaction. It was a species of insanity; and
insanity invariably reveals itself in unexpected and contradictory forms.
But it is for others, like my friend Dr. Green, both by education and
professional experience more versed in these subjects than I, to say
whether a period of sexual immorality should not be looked for as the
natural concomitant and sequence of such a condition of moral and
religious excitement as prevailed in New England between 1725 and 1745. I
merely now call attention to the fact that in Braintree the Hancock
pastorate began in 1726 and ended in 1743, and that it was during the
Hancock pastorate, also the period of "the Great Awakening," that public
confessions of fornication were most frequently made in the Braintree
church; further, and finally, it was during the years which immediately
followed that the great "tide of immorality" which the clergy of the day
so much deplored, "rolled over the land."
But it still remains to consider whether the entries referred to in the
church records must be taken as conclusive evidence that a peculiarly lax
condition of affairs as respects the sexual relation did really prevail in
New England during the last century. This does not necessarily follow;
and, for reasons I shall presently give, I venture to doubt it. In the
first place it is to be remembered that the language used in those days
does not carry the same meaning that similar language would carry if used
now. For instance, when Jonathan Edwards talks of the youth of Northampton
being given to "Night-walking ... and leud practices," he does not at all
mean what we should mean by using the same expression; and the young woman
who was one of the greatest "company keepers" in the whole town, was
probably nothing worse than a lively village girl much addicted to walking
with her young admirers after public lecture on the Sabbath
afternoons,--"a disorder," by the way, which Jonathan Edwards says he made
"a thorough reformation of ... which has continued ever since."[17]
So far the relations then prevailing between the young of the two sexes
may have been, and probably were, innocent enough, and nothing more needs
be said of them; but coming now to the facts revealed in the church
records, I venture to doubt the correctness of the inference as to general
laxity which would naturally be drawn from them. The situation as respects
sexual morality which prevailed in New England during the eighteenth
century seems to me to have been peculiar rather than bad. In other words,
though there was much incontinence, that incontinence was not promiscuous;
and this statement brings me at once to the necessary consideration of
another recognized and well-established custom in the more ordinary and
less refined New England life of the last century, which has been
considered beneath what is known as the dignity of history to notice, and
to which, accordingly, no reference is made by Palfrey or Barry, or, so
far as I know, by any of the standard authorities: and yet, unless I am
greatly mistaken, it is to this carefully ignored usage or custom that we
must look for an explanation of the greater part of the confessions
recorded in the annals of the churches. I refer, of course, to the
practice known as "bundling."
I do not propose here to go into a description of "bundling,"[18] or to
attempt to trace its origin or the extent to which it prevailed in New
England during the last century. All this has been sufficiently done in
the little volume on the subject prepared by Dr. H. R. Stiles, and
published some twenty years ago. For my present purpose it is only
necessary for me to say that the practice of "bundling" has long been one
of the standing taunts or common-place indictments against New England,
and has been supposed to indicate almost the lowest conceivable state of
sexual immorality;[19] but, on the other hand, it may safely be asserted
that "bundling" was, as a custom, neither so vicious nor so immoral as is
usually supposed; nor did it originate in, nor was it peculiar to, New
England. It was a practice growing out of the social and industrial
conditions of a primitive people, of simple, coarse manners and small
means. Two young persons proposed to marry. They and their families were
poor; they lived far apart from each other; they were at work early and
late all the week. Under these circumstances Saturday evening and Sunday
were the recognized time for meeting. The young man came to the house of
the girl after Saturday's sun-down, and they could see each other until
Sunday afternoon, when he had to go back to his own home and work. The
houses were small, and every nook in them occupied; and in order that the
man might not be turned out of doors, or the two be compelled to sit up
all night at a great waste of lights and fuel, and that they might at the
same time be in each other's company, they were "bundled" up together on a
bed, in which they lay side by side and partially clothed. It goes without
saying that, however it originated, such a custom, if recognized and
continued, must degenerate into something coarse and immoral. The
inevitable would follow. The only good and redeeming feature about it was
the utter absence of concealment and secrecy. All was open and recognized.
The very "bundling" was done by the hands of mother and sisters.
As I have said, this custom neither originated in nor was it peculiar to
New England, though in New England, as elsewhere, it did lead to the same
natural results. And I find conclusive evidence of this statement in all
its several parts in the following extract from a book published as late
as 1804, descriptive of customs, etc., then prevailing in North Wales. For
the extract I am indebted to Dr. Stiles:--
"Saturday or Sunday nights are the principal time when this courtship
takes place; and on these nights the men sometimes walk from a
distance of ten miles or more to visit their favorite damsels. This
strange custom seems to have originated in the scarcity of fuel and in
the unpleasantness of sitting together in the colder part of the year
without a fire. Much has been said of the innocence with which these
meetings are conducted; but it is a very common thing for the
consequence of the interview to make its appearance in the world
within two or three months after the marriage ceremony has taken
place."
And again, referring to the same practice as it prevailed in Holland,
another of the authorities quoted by Dr. Stiles, relating his observations
also during the present century, speaks of a--
"courtship similar to bundling, carried on in ... Holland, under the
name of _queesting_. At night the lover has access to his mistress
after she is in bed; and upon application to be admitted upon the bed,
which is of course granted, he raises the quilt or rug, and in this
state _queests_, or enjoys a harmless chit-chat with her, and then
retires. This custom meets with the perfect sanction of the most
circumspect parents, and the freedom is seldom abused. The author
traces its origin to the parsimony of the people, whose economy
considers fire and candles as superfluous luxuries in the long winter
evenings."
The most singular, and to me unaccountable, fact connected with the custom
of "bundling" is that, though it unquestionably prevailed--and prevailed
long, generally and from an early period--in New England, no trace has
been reported of it in any localities of England itself, the mother
country. There are well-authenticated records of its prevalence in parts
at least of Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Holland; but it could hardly have
found its way as a custom from any of those countries to New England. I
well remember hearing the late Dr. John G. Palfrey remark--and the remark
will, I think, very probably be found in some note to the text of his
History of New England--that down to the beginning of the present century,
or about the year 1825, there was a purer strain of English blood to be
found in the inhabitants of Cape Cod than could be found in any county of
England. The original settlers of that region were exclusively English,
and for the first two centuries after the settlement there was absolutely
no foreign admixture. Yet nowhere in New England does the custom of
"bundling" seem to have prevailed more generally than on Cape Cod; and
according to Dr. Stiles (p. 111) it was on Cape Cod that the practice held
out longest against the advance of more refined manners. It is tolerably
safe to say that in a time of constantly developing civilization such a
custom would originate nowhere. It is obviously a development from
something of a coarser and more promiscuous nature which preceded
it,--some social condition such as has been often described in books
relating to the more destitute portions of Ireland or the crowded
districts in English cities, where, in the language of Tennyson,--
"The poor are hovell'd and hustled together, each sex, like swine."
Such a custom as "bundling," therefore, bears on its face the fact that it
is an inheritance from a simple and comparatively primitive period. If,
then, in the case of New England, it was not derived from the mother
country, it becomes a curious question whence and how it was derived.
But no matter whence or how derived, it is obvious that the prevalence of
such a custom would open a ready and natural way for a vast increase of
sexual immorality at any time when surrounding conditions predisposed a
community in that direction. This is exactly what I cannot help surmising
occurred in New England at the time of "the Great Awakening" of the last
century, and immediately subsequent thereto. The movement was there, and
in obedience to the universal law it made its way on the lines of least
resistance. Hence the entries of public confession in the church records,
and the tide of immorality in presence of which the clergy stood aghast.
But in order to substantiate this theory of an historical manifestation it
remains to consider how generally the custom of "bundling" prevailed in
New England, and to how late a day it continued. The accredited historians
of New England, so far as I am acquainted with their writings, throw
little light on this question. Mr. Elliott, for instance, in his chapter
on the manners and customs of the New England people, contents himself
with some pleasing generalities like the following, the correctness of
which he would have found difficulty in maintaining:--
"With this exalted, even exaggerated, value of the individual
entertained in New England, it was not possible that men or women
entertaining it should yield themselves to corrupt or debasing
practices. CHASTITY was, therefore, a cardinal virtue, and the abuse
of it a crying sin, to be punished by law, and by the severe reproof
of all good citizens."[20]
According to this authority, therefore, as "bundling" was unquestionably
both a "corrupt" and a "debasing practice," "it was not possible that men
or women" of New England "should yield themselves" to it; and that ends
the matter.
Passing on from Mr. Elliott to another authority: in his recently
published and very valuable "Economic and Social History of New England,"
Mr. Weeden has two references to "bundling." In one of them (p. 739) he
speaks of it as "certainly an unpuritan custom" which was "extensively
practised in Connecticut and Western Massachusetts," against which
"Jonathan Edwards raised his powerful voice"; and again he later on (p.
864) alludes to it as "a curious custom which accorded little with the New
England character," and which "lingered among the lower orders of people
... prevailing in Western Massachusetts as late as 1777." I am led to
believe that the custom prevailed far more generally and to a much later
date than these statements of Mr. Weeden would seem to indicate; that,
indeed, it was continued even in eastern Massachusetts and the towns
immediately about Boston until after the close of the Revolutionary
troubles, and probably until the beginning of the present century. The
Braintree church records throw no light on this portion of the subject;
but the Groton church records show that not until 1803 was the practice
discontinued of compelling a public confession before the whole
congregation whenever a child was born in less than seven months after
marriage. Turning then to Worthington's "History of Dedham" (p. 109),--a
town only ten miles from Boston,--I find that the Rev. Mr. Haven, the
pastor of the church there, alarmed at the number of cases of unlawful
cohabitation, preached at least as late as 1781 "a long and memorable
discourse," in which, with a courage deserving of unstinted praise, he
dealt with "the growing sin" publicly from his pulpit, attributing "the
frequent recurrence of the fault to the custom then prevalent of females
admitting young men to their beds who sought their company with intentions
of marriage." Again, in a letter of Mrs. John Adams, written in 1784, in
which she gives a very graphic and lively account of a voyage across the
Atlantic in a sailing-vessel of that period, I find the following, in
which Mrs. Adams, describing how the passengers all lived in the common
cabin, adds:--"Necessity has no law; but what should I have thought on
shore to have laid myself down in common with half a dozen gentlemen? We
have curtains, it is true, and we only in part undress,--about as much as
the Yankee bundlers."[21] Mrs. Adams was then writing to her elder sister,
Mrs. Cranch; they were both women of exceptional
refinement,--granddaughters of Col. John Quincy, and daughters of the
pastor of the Weymouth church. Mrs. Adams while writing her letter knew
that it would be eagerly looked for at home, and that it would be read
aloud and passed from hand to hand through all her acquaintance, and this
was in fact the case; so it is evident, from this easy, passing allusion,
that the custom of "bundling" was then so common in the community in which
Mrs. Adams lived, that not only was written reference to it freely made,
but the reference conveyed to a large circle of friends a perfect idea of
what she meant to describe. At the same time the use of the phrase "the
Yankee bundlers" indicates the social class to which the custom was
confined.
The general prevalence of the practice of "bundling" throughout New
England, and especially in southeastern Massachusetts, up to the close of
the last century may therefore, I think, be assumed. I have already said
that the origin of the custom was due to sparseness of settlement, the
primitive and frugal habits of the people permitting the practice, and the
absence of good means of communication. It becomes, therefore, a somewhat
curious subject of inquiry whether traces of "bundling" can be found in
the traditions and records of any of our large towns. That it existed and
was commonly practised within a ten-mile radius of Boston I have shown;
but I greatly doubt whether it ever obtained in Boston itself.
Nevertheless, an examination of the church records of Boston, Salem, and
more especially of Plymouth, would be interesting, with a view to
ascertaining whether the spirit of sexual incontinence prevailed during
the last century in the large towns of New England to the same extent to
which it unquestionably prevailed in the rural districts. My own belief is
that it did so prevail, though the practice of "bundling" was not in use;
if I am correct in this surmise, it would follow that the evil was a
general one, and that "bundling" was merely the custom through which it
found vent. In such case the cause of the evil would have to be looked for
in some other direction. It would then, paradoxical as such a statement
may at first appear, probably be found in the superior general morality of
the community and the strict oversight of a public opinion which, except
in Boston,--a large commercial place, where there was always a
considerable floating population of sailors and others,--prevented the
recognized existence of any class of professional prostitutes. On the one
hand, a certain form of incontinence was not associated either in the male
or female mind with the presence of a degraded class, while, on the other
hand, the natural appetites were to a limited extent gratified. It was in
their attempt wholly to ignore these natural appetites that Jonathan
Edwards and the clergy of the last century fell into their error.
I have alluded to the early church records of Plymouth as probably
offering a peculiarly interesting field of inquiry in this matter. I have
never seen those records, and know nothing of them; but as long ago as the
year 1642 Governor Bradford had occasion to bewail the condition of
affairs then existing at Plymouth,--"not only," he declared,
"incontinencie betweene persons unmaried, for which many both men and
women have been punished sharply enough, but some maried persons allso";
and he exclaimed, "Marvilous it may be to see and consider how some kind
of wickednes did grow and breake forth here, in a land wher the same was
so much witnesed against, and so narrowly looked unto, and severly
punished when it was knowne!" But finally, with great shrewdness and an
insight into human nature which might well have been commended to the
prayerful consideration of Jonathan Edwards and the revivalists of exactly
one century later, Governor Bradford goes on to conclude that--
"It may be in this case as it is with waters when their streames are
stopped or dammed up, when they gett passage they flow with more
violence, and make more noys and disturbance, then when they are
suffered to rune quietly in their owne chanels. So wikednes being here
more stopped by strict laws, and the same more nerly looked unto, so
as it cannot rune in a comone road of liberty as it would, and is
inclined, it searches every wher, and at last breaks out wher it getts
vente."[22]
There is one other episode I have come across in my local investigations,
of the same general character as those I have referred to, which throws a
curious gleam of light on the problems now under discussion. I have
already mentioned the fact, quite significant, that during the very period
when the church was most active in disciplining cases of fornication, the
court record of John Quincy shows that but one case of fornication was
brought before him in forty-five years. This was in 1720, and the woman
was bound over in the sum of L5 to appear before the superior court. That
woman I take to have been a prostitute. Her case was exceptional, so
recognized, and summarily dealt with. In the Braintree town records there
are some mysterious entries which I am led to believe relate to another
and similar case, but one in which the objectionable character was
otherwise dealt with. In the midst of the Revolutionary troubles the
following votes were passed at the annual town meeting held in the
meeting-house of the Middle Precinct, now Braintree, on the 15th of March,
1779:--
"Voted That Doctor Baker be desired to leave this Town, also
"Voted, that the eight men that Doctor Baker gott a warrant for go
immediately and Deliver themselves up to Justice."
Fifteen days later, at another meeting held on the 30th of March, this
matter again presented itself, and the following entry records the action
taken:--
"A motion was made to chuse a Committee to be Ready to appear and make
a stand against any vexatious Law suit that may be brought against any
of the Inhabitants of this Town by Doctor Moses Baker Then,
"Voted, that Thomas Penniman, Esq{r.} Col{o} Edmund Billings, Mr.
Azariah Faxon, Capt. John Vinton and Capt. Peter B. Adams be a
Committee to use their Influence with proper authority to suppress,
any vexatious Law suits that may be brought by Doctor Moses Baker
against any of the Inhabitants of this Town and that said Committee
shall be allowed by the Town for their time.
"Messrs William Penniman and Joseph Spear entered their dissent to the
Last Vote, as being Illegal and Improper, as there was no such article
in the warrant only in General Terms."[23]
I have endeavored to learn something of the transaction to which these
mysterious entries of over a century ago relate, and the result of my
inquiries seems to indicate a state of affairs then existing in the
neighborhood of Boston very suggestive of those "White-cap" and
"Moonshiner" proceedings in the western and southern States, accounts of
which from time to time appear in the telegraphic despatches to our
papers. Dr. Moses Baker lived and practised medicine in what is now the
town of Randolph, and in 1777 he was one of two physicians to whom the
town voted permission to establish an inoculating hospital. In 1779 he was
about forty years of age, and married. At the time there dwelt not far
from where Dr. Baker lived a woman of bad reputation, with whom Dr. Baker
was, whether rightly or not, believed to have improper relations. Certain
men living in the neighborhood accordingly undertook to act as a local
committee to enforce good morals; and this committee decided to ride Dr.
Baker and the woman in question together on horseback to a convenient
locality near the meeting-house, and there tar and feather them. A
broken-down old hack, deemed meet and appropriate for use as a charger in
such case, was accordingly procured; and going to the woman's house, the
_vigilantes_ actually took her from her bed, and, without allowing her to
clothe herself, put her on the horse, and then proceeded to Baker's house.
He in the mean time had received notice of the proposed visit; and when
the party reached their destination they found him indignant, armed and
resolute. He threatened to shoot the first man who laid hands on him. This
was a turn in affairs which the self-constituted vindicators of public
morality had not contemplated, and accordingly they proceeded no further
in their purpose. Dr. Baker was not molested, and the woman was released.
It is immaterial, so far as this paper is concerned, whether there was, or
whether there was not, ground for the feeling against Baker. In the
emergency he does not seem to have demeaned himself either as one guilty
or afraid; and, as the action of the town meetings shows, he did not
hesitate to bring the whole matter before the courts and into public
notice. But for my present purposes this is of no consequence; the
significance of the incident here lies in the confirmatory evidence which
the extracts from the records afford of the inferences drawn from the
facts set forth in the earlier part of this paper. The offending female in
this case seems to have been what is known as a woman of bad or abandoned
character; the man's relations with her are assumed as notorious. Here was
a state of things which public opinion would not tolerate. Probably more
than half of those who took part in the proposed vindication of decency
and morals looked with indifference on the custom of "bundling." That was
in anticipation of marriage, and in its natural results there was nothing
which savored of promiscuous incontinence. The extraordinary entries in
the records show how fully the town sympathized with and supported the
_vigilantes_, as they would now be called in Mexicanized parlance of the
extreme Southwest. The distinction I have endeavored to draw between the
excusable, if not permissible, incontinence of the New England country
community of the last century, and the idea of promiscuous immorality as
we entertain it, is clearly seen in this Baker episode.
* * * * *
Having now made use of all the original material the possession of which
led me into the preparation of the present paper, it might at this point
properly be brought to a close; but I am tempted to go on and touch on one
further point which has long been with me a matter of doubt, and in regard
to which I have been disposed to reach opposite conclusions at different
times,--I refer to the comparative morality of the last century and that
which is now closing. Has there been during the nineteenth century, taken
as a whole, a distinct advance in the matter of sexual morality as
compared with the eighteenth? Or has the change, which it is admitted has
taken place, been only in outward appearance, while beneath a surface of
greater refinement human nature remains ever and always the same? It is
unquestionably true that in a large and widely differentiated community
like that in which we live the individual, no matter who he is, knows very
little of what may be called the real "true inwardness" of his
surroundings. Any one who wishes to satisfy himself on this point need
only seek out some elderly and retired country doctor or lawyer of an
observing turn of mind and retentive memory, and then, if the inquirer
should be fortunate enough to lead such an one into a confidential mood,
listen to his reminiscences. It has been my privilege to accomplish this
result on several occasions; and I may freely say that I have always
emerged from those interviews in a more or less morally dishevelled
condition. After them I have for considerable periods entertained grave
and abiding doubts whether, except in outward appearance and respect for
conventionalities, the present could claim any superiority over the past.
A cursory inspection of the criminal and immoral literature of the day,
which the printing-press now empties out in a volume heretofore undreamed
of, tends strongly to confirm this feeling of doubt,--which becomes almost
a conviction when, from time to time, the realistic details of some Lord
Colin Campbell or Sir Charles Dilke or Charles Stewart Parnell scandal are
paraded in the newspapers.
Yet, such staggering evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, I find
myself unable to get away from the record; and that record, so far as it
has cursorily reached me in the course of my investigations, leads me to
conclude that the real moral improvement of the year 1891, as compared
with the conditions in that respect existing in the year 1691 or even
1791, is not less marked and encouraging than is the change of language
and expression permissible in the days of Shakspeare and of Defoe and of
Fielding to that to which we are accustomed in the pages of Scott,
Thackeray and Hawthorne.
For instance, again recurring to my own investigations, I have from time
to time come across things which, as indicating a state of affairs
prevailing in the olden time, have fairly taken away my breath. Here is a
portion of a note from the edition of Thomas Morton's "New English
Canaan," prepared by me some years ago as one of the publications of the
Prince Society, which bears on this statement:--
"Josselyn says of the 'Indesses,' as he calls them [Indian women] 'All
of them are of a modest demeanor, considering their savage breeding;
and indeed do shame our _English_ rusticks whose ludeness in many
things exceedeth theirs.' (_Two Voyages_, 12, 45.) When the
Massachusetts Indian women, in September, 1621, sold the furs from
their backs to the first party of explorers from Plymouth, Winslow,
who wrote the account of that expedition, says that they 'tied boughs
about them, but with great shamefacedness, for indeed they are more
modest than some of our English women are.' (Mourt, p. 59.) See, also,
to the same effect Wood's _Prospect_, (p. 82). It suggests, indeed, a
curious inquiry as to what were the customs among the ruder classes of
the British females during the Elizabethan period, when all the
writers agree in speaking of the Indian women [among whom chastity was
unknown] in this way. Roger Williams, for instance [who tells us that
'single fornications they count no sin'] also says, referring to their
clothing,--'Both men and women within doores, leave off their beasts
skin, or English cloth, and so (excepting their little apron) are
wholly naked; yet but few of the women but will keepe their skin or
cloth (though loose) neare to them, ready to gather it up about them.
Custome hath used their minds and bodies to it, and in such a freedom
from any wantonnesse that I have never seen that wantonnesse amongst
them as (with griefe) I have heard of in Europe' (_Key_, 110-11)."[24]
Again, I recently came across the following, which illustrates somewhat
curiously what may be called the social street amenities which a sojourner
might expect to encounter in a large English town of a century ago. If
ever there was a charming, innocent little woman, who, as a wife and
mother, bore herself purely and courageously under circumstances of great
trial and anxiety,--a woman whose own simple record of the strange
experience through which she passed appeals to you so that you long to
step forward and give her your arm and protect her,--if there ever was, I
say, a woman who impresses one in this way more than Mrs. General
Riedesel, I have not met her. Mrs. Riedesel, as the members of this
Society probably all know, followed her husband, who was in command of the
German auxiliary troops in Burgoyne's army, to America in 1777, and in so
doing passed through England, accompanied by her young children. Here is
her own account of a slight experience she had in Bristol, where, the poor
little woman says, "I discovered soon how unpleasant it is to be in a city
where one does not understand the language, ... and wept for hours in my
chamber":--
"During my sojourn in Bristol I had an unpleasant adventure. I wore a
calico dress trimmed with green taffeta. This seemed particularly
offensive to the Bristol people; for as I was one day out walking with
Madame Foy more than a hundred sailors gathered round us and pointed
at me with their fingers, at the same time crying out, 'French whore!'
I took refuge as quickly as possible into the house of a merchant
under pretense of buying something, and shortly after the crowd
dispersed. But my dress became henceforth so disgusting to me, that as
soon as I returned home I presented it to my cook, although it was yet
entirely new."[25]
It was at Bristol also that the little German woman, hardly more than a
girl, describes how, the very day after her arrival there, her landlady
called her attention to what the landlady in question termed "a most
charming sight." Stepping hastily to the window, Mrs. Riedesel says, "I
beheld two naked men boxing with the greatest fury. I saw their blood
flowing and the rage that was painted in their eyes. Little accustomed to
such a hateful spectacle, I quickly retreated into the innermost corner of
the house to avoid hearing the shouts set up by the spectators whenever a
blow was given or received."
Street customs, manners and language are, to a very considerable extent,
outward exponents of the moral condition within. It would not be possible
to find any place in Europe now where women could be seen going about the
streets in the condition as respects raiment which Josselyn, Winslow and
Roger Williams seem to intimate was not unusual with the British females
of their time; nor would a strumpet even, much less any decent woman, from
a foreign land, be treated in the streets of any civilized city as Madame
Riedesel describes herself as having been treated in the streets of
Bristol in 1777. One cannot conceive of an adulterer or adulteress now
doing public penance in a white sheet before a whole congregation
assembled for the public worship of God, nor of a really respectable young
married couple standing up under the same circumstances and confessing to
the sin of fornication. Even if such a thing were done, it would be looked
upon as rather suggestive than edifying. All the evidence accordingly
indicates that, morally, the improvement made in the nineteenth century as
compared with those that preceded it has been more than superficial and in
externals only,--that it has been real, in essentials as well as in
language and manners. So, while it would not be safe to adopt Burke's
splendid generality, that vice has in our time lost half its evil in
losing all its grossness, yet it is not unfair to adopt the trope in a
modified form, and assert that, in the matter of sexual morality, vice in
the nineteenth century as compared with the seventeenth or the eighteenth
has lost some part of its evil in losing much of its grossness.