annals of the New-England churches. It is narrated in detail by Mr.
Parris, in his church record-book. It would not be easy to find
anywhere an example of greater skill, wariness, or ability in a
conflict of this sort. On the one side is Mr. Parris, backed by his
church and the magistrates, and aided, it is probable, by Mr. Noyes; on
the other, three husbandmen. They had no known backers or advisers;
and, at frequent stages of the fencing match, had to parry or strike,
without time to consult any[ii.492] one. Mr. Parris was ingenious,
quick, a great strategist, and not over-scrupulous as to the use of his
weapons. Nurse, Tarbell, and Wilkins were cautious, cool, steady, and
persistent. Of course, they were wholly inexperienced in such things,
and liable to make wrong moves, or to be driven or drawn to untenable
ground. But they will not be found, I think, to have taken a false step
from beginning to end. Their line of action was extremely narrow. It
was necessary to avoid all personalities, and every appearance of
passion or excitement; to make no charge against Mr. Parris that could
touch the church, as such, or reflect upon the courts, magistrates, or
any others that had taken part in the prosecutions. It was necessary to
avoid putting any thing into writing, with their names attached, which
could in any way be tortured into a libel. Parris lets fall expressions
which show that he was on the watch for something of the kind to seize
upon, to transfer the movement from the church to the courts. Entirely
unaccustomed to public speaking, these three farmers had to meet
assemblages composed of their opponents, and much wrought up against
them; to make statements, and respond to interrogatories and
propositions, the full and ultimate bearing of which was not always
apparent: any unguarded expression might be fatal to their cause. Their
safety depended upon using the right word at the right time and in the
right manner, and in withholding the statement of their grievances, in
adequate force of language, until they were under the shelter of a
council. If, during the long-protracted conferences and communications,
they had tripped at any point, allowed a phrase or syllable to escape
which might be made the ground of discipline or censure, all would be
lost; for Parris could not be reached but through a council, and a
council could not even be asked for except by brethren in full and
clear standing. It was often attempted to ensnare them into making
charges against the church; but they kept their eye on Parris, and, as
they told him more than once in the presence of the whole body of the
people, on him alone. Limited as the ground was on which they could
stand, they held it steadfastly, and finally drove him from his
stronghold.
On the first movement of Mr. Parris offensively upon them, they
commenced their movement upon him. The method by which alone they could
proceed, according to ecclesiastical law[ii.493] and the platform of
the churches, was precisely as it was understood to be laid down in
Matt. xviii. 15-17. Following these directions, Samuel Nurse first
called alone upon Mr. Parris, and privately made known his grievances.
Parris gave him no satisfaction. Then, after a due interval, Nurse,
Tarbell, and Wilkins called upon him together. He refused to see them
together, but one at a time was allowed to go up into his study.
Tarbell and Nurse each spent an hour or more with him, leaving no time
for Wilkins. In these interviews, he not only failed to give
satisfaction, but, according to his own account, treated them in the
coolest and most unfeeling manner, not allowing himself to utter a
soothing word, but actually reiterating his belief of the guilt of
their mother; telling them, as he says, "that he had not seen
sufficient grounds to vary his opinion." Cloyse came soon after to the
village, and had an interview with him for the same purpose. Parris saw
them one only at a time, in order to preclude their taking the second
step required by the gospel rule; that is, to have a brother of the
church with them as a witness. He also took the ground that they could
not be witnesses for each other, but that he should treat them all as
only one person in the transaction. A sense of the injustice of his
conduct, or some other consideration, led William Way, another of the
brethren, to go with them as a witness. Nurse, Tarbell, Wilkins,
Cloyse, and Way went to his house together. He said that the four first
were but one person in the case; but admitted that Way was a distinct
person, a brother of accredited standing, and a witness. He escaped,
however, under the subterfuge that the gospel rule required "two or
_three_ witnesses." In this way, the matter stood for some time; Parris
saying that they had not complied with the conditions in Matt. xviii.,
and they maintaining that they had.
The course of Parris was fast diminishing his hold upon the public
confidence. It was plain that the disaffected brethren had done what
they could, in an orderly way, to procure a council. At length, the
leading clergymen here and in Boston, whose minds were open to reason,
thought it their duty to interpose their advice. They wrote to Parris,
that he and his church ought to consent to a council. They wrote a
second time in stronger terms. Not daring to quarrel with so large a
portion of the clergy, Parris pretended to comply with their advice,
but demanded a majority of the coun[ii.494]cil to be chosen by him and
his church. The disaffected brethren insisted upon a fair, mutual
council; each party to have three ministers, with their delegates, in
it. To this, Parris had finally to agree. The dissatisfied brethren
named, as one of their three, a church at Ipswich. Parris objected to
the Ipswich church. The dissenting brethren insisted that each side
should be free to select its respective three churches. Parris was not
willing to have Ipswich in the council. The other party insisted, and
here the matter hung suspended. The truth is, that the disaffected
brethren were resolved to have the Rev. John Wise in the council. They
knew Cotton Mather would be there, on the side of Parris; and they knew
that John Wise was the man to meet him. The public opinion settled down
in favor of the dissatisfied brethren, on the ground that each party to
a mutual council ought to—and, to make it really mutual, must—have free
and full power to nominate the churches to be called by it. Parris,
being afraid to have a mutual council, and particularly if Mr. Wise was
in it, suddenly took a new position. He and his church called an _ex
parte_ council, at which the following ministers, with their delegates,
were present: Samuel Checkley of the New South Church, James Allen of
the First Church, Samuel Willard of the Old South, Increase and Cotton
Mather of the North Church,—all of Boston; Samuel Torrey of Weymouth;
Samuel Phillips of Rowley, and Edward Payson, also of Rowley. Among the
delegates were many of the leading public men of the province. The
result was essentially damaging to Mr. Parris. The tide was now
strongly set against him. The Boston ministers advised him to withdraw
from the contest. They provided a settlement for him in Connecticut,
and urged him to quit the village, and go there. But he refused, and
prolonged the struggle. In the course of it, papers were drawn up and
signed, one by his friends, another by his opponents, together
embracing nearly all the men and women of the village. Those who did
not sign either paper were understood to sympathize with the
disaffected brethren. Many who signed the paper favorable to him acted
undoubtedly from the motive stated in the heading; viz., that the
removal of Mr. Parris could do no good, "for we have had three
ministers removed already, and by every removal our differences have
been rather aggravated." Another removal, they thought, would utterly
ruin them. They[ii.495] do not express any particular interest in Mr.
Parris, but merely dread another change. They preferred to bear the
ills they had, rather than fly to others that they knew not of. It is a
very significant fact, that neither Mrs. Ann Putnam nor the widow Sarah
Houlton signed either paper (the Sarah Houlton whose name appears was
the wife of Joseph Houlton, Sr.). There is reason to believe that they
regretted the part they had taken, particularly against Rebecca Nurse,
and probably did not feel over favorably to the person who had led them
into their dreadful responsibility.
In the mean time, the controversy continued to wax warm among the
people. Mr. Parris was determined to hold his place, and, with it, the
parsonage and ministry lands. The opposition was active, unappeasable,
and effective. The following paper, handed about, illustrates the
methods by which they assailed him:—
"As to the contest between Mr. Parris and his hearers, &c., it may be
composed by a satisfactory answer to Lev. xx. 6: 'And the soul that
turneth after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go
a-whoring after them, I will set my face against that soul, and will
cut him off from among his people.' 1 Chron. x. 13, 14: 'So Saul died
for his transgression which he committed against the Lord,—even against
the word of the Lord, which he kept not,—and also for asking counsel of
one who had a familiar to inquire of it, and inquired not of the Lord:
therefore he slew him,'" &c.
Mr. Parris mirrored, or rather daguerrotyped, his inmost thoughts upon
the page of his church record-book. Whatever feeling happened to
exercise his spirit, found expression there. This gives it a truly rare
and singular interest. Among a variety of scraps variegating the
record, and thrown in with other notices of deaths, he has the
following:—
"1694, Oct. 27.—Ruth, daughter to Job Swinnerton (died), and buried the
28th instant, being the Lord's Day; and the corpse carried by the
meeting-house door in time of singing before meeting afternoon, and
more at the funeral than at the sermon."
This illustrates the state of things. The Swinnerton family were all
along opposed to Mr. Parris, and kept remarkably clear from the
witchcraft delusion. Originally, it was not customary to have prayers
at funerals. At any rate, all that Mr. Parris had to do on the occasion
was to witness and record the fact, which he[ii.496] indites in the
pithy manner in which he often relieves his mind, that more people went
to the distant burial-ground than came to hear him preach. The
procession was made up of his opponents; the congregation, of his
friends. At last, Captain John Putnam proposed that each party should
choose an equal number from themselves to decide the controversy; and
that Major Bartholomew Gedney, from the town, should be invited to act
as moderator of the joint meeting. Both sides agreed, and appointed
their representatives. Major Gedney consented to preside. But this
movement came to nothing, probably owing to the refractoriness of Mr.
Parris; for, from that moment, he had no supporters. The church ceased
to act: its members were merged in the meeting of the inhabitants.
There was no longer any division among them. The party that had acted
as friends of Mr. Parris united thenceforward with his opponents to
defend the parish in the suit he had brought against it in the courts.
The controversy was quite protracted. The Court was determined to
uphold him, and expressed its prejudice against the parish, sometimes
with considerable severity of manner and action.[L]
[ii.497]
The parish heeded not the frowns of the Court, but persisted inexorably
in its purpose to get rid of Mr. Parris. After an obstinate contest, it
prevailed. In the last stage of the controversy, it appointed four men,
as its agents or attorneys, whose names indicate the spirit in which it
acted,—John Tarbell, Samuel Nurse, Daniel Andrew, and Joseph Putnam.
His dauntless son did not follow the wolf through the deep and dark
recesses of his den with a more determined resolution than that with
which Joseph Putnam pursued Samuel Parris through the windings of the
law, until he ferreted him out, and rid the village of him for ever.
Finally, the inferior court of Common Pleas, before which Mr. Parris
had carried the case, ordered that the matters in controversy between
him and the inhabitants of Salem Village should be referred to
arbitrators for decision. The following statement was laid before them
by the persons representing the inhabitants:—
_"To the Honorable Wait Winthrop, Elisha Cook, and Samuel Sewall,
Esquires, Arbitrators, indifferently chosen, between Mr. Samuel Parris
and the Inhabitants of Salem Village._
_"The Remonstrances of several Aggrieved Persons in the said Village,
with further Reasons why they conceive they ought not to hear Mr.
Parris, nor to own him as a Minister of the Gospel, nor to contribute
any Support to him as such for several years past, humbly offered as
fit for consideration._
"We humbly conceive that, having, in April, 1693, given our reasons why
we could not join with Mr. Parris in prayer, preaching, or sacrament,
if these reasons are found sufficient for our withdrawing (and we
cannot yet find but they are), then we conceive ourselves virtually
discharged, not only in conscience, but also in law, which
re[ii.498]quires maintenance to be given to such as are orthodox and
blameless; the said Mr. Parris having been teaching such dangerous
errors, and preached such scandalous immoralities, as ought to
discharge any (though ever so gifted otherways) from the work of the
ministry, particularly in his oath against the lives of several,
wherein he swears that the prisoners with their looks knock down those
pretended sufferers. We humbly conceive that he that swears to more
than he is certain of, is equally guilty of perjury with him that
swears to what is false. And though they did fall at such a time, yet
it could not be known that they did it, much less could they be certain
of it; yet did swear positively against the lives of such as he could
not have any knowledge but they might be innocent.
"His believing the Devil's accusations, and readily departing from all
charity to persons, though of blameless and godly lives, upon such
suggestions; his promoting such accusations; as also his partiality
therein in stifling the accusations of some, and, at the same time,
vigilantly promoting others,—as we conceive, are just causes for our
refusal, &c.
"That Mr. Parris's going to Mary Walcot or Abigail Williams, and
directing others to them, to know who afflicted the people in their
illnesses,—we understand this to be a dealing with them that have a
familiar spirit, and an implicit denying the providence of God, who
alone, as we believe, can send afflictions, or cause devils to afflict
any: this we also conceive sufficient to justify such refusal.
"That Mr. Parris, by these practices and principles, has been the
beginner and procurer of the sorest afflictions, not to this village
only, but to this whole country, that did ever befall them.
"We, the subscribers, in behalf of ourselves, and of several others of
the same mind with us (touching these things), having some of us had
our relations by these practices taken off by an untimely death; others
have been imprisoned and suffered in our persons, reputations, and
estates,—submit the whole to your honors' decision, to determine
whether we are or ought to be any ways obliged to honor, respect, and
support such an instrument of our miseries; praying God to guide your
honors to act herein as may be for his glory, and the future settlement
of our village in amity and unity.
"John Tarbell,
Samuel Nurse,
Joseph Putnam,
Daniel Andrew,
_Attorneys for the people of the Village_.
Boston, July 21, 1697." [ii.499]
The arbitrators decided that the inhabitants should pay to Mr. Parris a
certain amount for arrearages, and also the sum of £79. 9_s._ 6_d._ for
all his right and interest in the ministry house and land, and that he
be forthwith dismissed; and his ministerial relation to the church and
society in Salem Village dissolved. The parish raised the money with
great alacrity. Nathaniel Ingersoll, who had, as has been stated, made
him a present at his settlement of a valuable piece of land adjoining
the parsonage grounds, bought it back, paying him a liberal price for
it, fully equal to its value; and he left the place, so far as appears,
for ever.
On the 14th of July, 1696, in the midst of his controversy with his
people, his wife died. She was an excellent woman; and was respected
and lamented by all. He caused a stone slab to be placed at the head of
her grave, with a suitable inscription, still plainly legible,
concluding with four lines, to which his initials are appended,
composed by him, of which this is one: "Farewell, best wife, choice
mother, neighbor, friend." Her ashes rest in what is called the
Wadsworth burial ground.
Mr. Parris removed to Newton, then to Concord; and in November, 1697,
began to preach at Stow, on a salary of forty pounds, half in money and
half in provisions, &c. A grant from the general court was relied upon
from year to year to help to make up the twenty pounds to be paid in
money. Afterwards he preached at Dunstable, partly supported by a grant
from the general court, and finally in Sudbury, where he died, Feb. 27,
1720. His daughter Elizabeth, who belonged, it will be remembered, to
the circle of "afflicted children" in 1692, then nine years of age, in
1710 married Benjamin Barnes of Concord. Two other daughters married in
Sudbury. His son Noyes, who graduated at Harvard College in 1721,
became deranged, and was supported by the town. His other son Samuel
was long deacon of the church at Sudbury, and died Nov. 22, 1792, aged
ninety-one years.
In the "Boston News Letter," No. 1433, July 15, 1731, is a notice, as
follows:—
"Any person or persons who knew Mr. Samuel Parris, formerly of
Barbadoes, afterwards of Boston in New England, merchant, and after
that minister of Salem Village, &c., deceased to be a son of Thomas
Parris of the island aforesaid, Esq. who deceased 1673, or[ii.500] sole
heir by will to all his estate in said island, are desired to give or
send notice thereof to the printer of this paper; and it shall be for
their advantage."
Whether the identity of Mr. Parris, of Salem Village, with the son of
Thomas Parris, of Barbadoes, was established, we have no information.
If it was, some relief may have come to his descendants. There is every
reason to believe, that, after leaving the village, he and his family
suffered from extremely limited means, if not from absolute poverty.
The general ill-repute brought upon him by his conduct in the
witchcraft prosecutions followed him to the last. He had forfeited the
sympathy of his clerical brethren by his obstinate refusal to take
their advice. They earnestly, over and over again, expostulated against
his prolonging the controversy with the people of Salem Village,
besought him to relinquish it, and promised him, if he would, to
provide an eligible settlement elsewhere. They actually did provide
one. But he rejected their counsels and persuasions, in expressions of
ill-concealed bitterness. So that, when he was finally driven away,
they felt under no obligations to befriend him; and with his eminent
abilities he eked out a precarious and inadequate maintenance for
himself and family, in feeble settlements in outskirt towns, during the
rest of his days.
It is difficult to describe the character of this unfortunate man. Just
as is the condemnation which facts compel history to pronounce, I have
a feeling of relief in the thought, that, before the tribunal to which
he so long ago passed, the mercy we all shall need, which comprehends
all motives and allows for all infirmities, has been extended to him,
in its infinite wisdom and benignity.
He was a man of uncommon abilities, of extraordinary vivacity and
activity of intellect. He does not appear to have been wilfully
malevolent; although somewhat reckless in a contest, he was not
deliberately untruthful; on the contrary, there is in his statements a
singular ingenuousness and fairness, seldom to be found in a partisan,
much more seldom in a principal. Although we get almost all we know of
the examinations of accused parties in the witchcraft proceedings, and
of his long contentions with his parish, from him, there is hardly any
ground to regret that the parties on the other side had no friends to
tell their story. A transparency[ii.501] of character, a sort of
instinctive incontinency of mind, which made him let out every thing,
or a sort of blindness which prevented his seeing the bearings of what
was said and done, make his reports the vehicles of the materials for
the defence of the very persons he was prosecuting. I know of no
instance like it. His style is lucid, graphic, lively, natural to the
highest degree; and whatever he describes, we see the whole, and, as it
were, from all points of view. Language flowed from his pen with a
facility, simplicity, expressiveness, and accuracy, not surpassed or
often equalled. He wrote as men talk, using colloquial expressions
without reserve, but always to the point. When we read, we hear him;
abbreviating names, and clipping words, as in the most familiar and
unguarded conversation. He was not hampered by fear of offending the
rules which some think necessary to dignify composition. In his
off-hand, free and easy, gossiping entries in the church-book, or in
his carefully prepared productions, like the "Meditations for Peace,"
read before his church and the dissatisfied brethren, we have specimens
of plain good English, in its most translucent and effective forms.
Considering that his academic education was early broken off, and many
intermediate years were spent in commercial pursuits, his learning and
attainments are quite remarkable. The various troubles and tragic
mischiefs of his life, the terrible wrongs he inflicted on others, and
the retributions he brought upon himself, are traceable to two or three
peculiarities in his mental and moral organization.