« AnteriorContinuar »
was paid, which many Dutch and English would have done, but he could not consent; and within three days was free to work, and made able and strong, which tormented them, for they aimed at: his fine; and after he had wrought a week, he had liberty; Captain Willet, his adversary, saying, “He should be freed, for he had lost the love both of Dutch and English;” and so begged his release of the governor, being the fittest person to do it, as being the occasion of his sufferings, by incensing him against him. Many more instances might be given of their barbarous inhumanities, but I refer to the former treatise, this being enough to show the disparity of his parallel, as to such things, between New England and Pennsylvania, to hide his deceit, and cover their own barbarities to the innocent; but that will not do, though he would sain measure our corn by his own bushel, which hath been proved too unreasonable to be allowed for just measure; and that there is no comparison, either as to the provocation or procedure, as I said before, and may show further anon. But he may say he doth not justify those severities; “he will not, he cannot:” but I say, why doth he then, by taking the persecutors' parts, and endeavouring to excuse them in it; and on the other hand, reviling and abusing the sufferers all along, as he does, and going to extenuate their sufferings? Must he go against his conscience, to please his benefactors for his salary? Well, Cotton, whatever thou dost, the author hereof does not write for bread, nor will he go beyond his conscience to please any man; he courts no man's favours, nor fears any man's frowns; and all the reward he expects is only that of well-doing. As for his “Token of an Almanac for the Year 1694, composed by one of them.” Answer. That is false; he was none of us, but rather like himself, and the New-England men, an apostate from the Truth, one degenerated and shrunk from that goodness, as he saith of themselves; and a reviler and abuser of the people of God, like him, D. L. And his article of chronology, “Since the English in New England hanged their countrymen for religion,” years 36,” is like Cotton Mather's before, false; for it was but 35, from 1659 to 1694. Is not this a notable almanac-maker, that can reckon no better, or tell 35 from 36? A notable token indeed. And his other, “Since at Philadelphia, some did little less by taking away goods, and imprisoning some, and condemning others, without trial, for religious dissent, 3,” is false also; for it was but 2, from '92 to '94. What thinkest, reader? Is this man fit to make almanacs, that cannot tell 1, 2, 3, right? I must confess, I have hardly met with such a token. But see how he minces the matter, for religious dissent, not religion, as the other: and I doubt not but his conscience, or the witness in it, told him there was a difference; and yet it was not for religious dissent neither, but “tending to sedition, disturbance of the peace, and subversion of the government;” hoping, as George Keith said, “he should shortly see their power taken from them;” as appears by the paper published at Philadelphia, which George Keith, &c., calls a Proclamation, and sets down in the book of their trial, page 6, where are these words: “There“fore, for the undeceiving of all people, we have thought fit, by “this public writing, not only to signify that our procedure against “the persons, now in the sheriff's custody, respects only that part “of the said printed sheet which appears to have the tendency “aforesaid ; and not any part relating to differences in religion, “but also to caution,” &c. Which shows that it was not for religious dissent, whatever they pretended. And what does he mean by “little less”? Was taking away William Bradford's press or letters, for printing a scandalous paper against the government who had employed him, and had a salary from it, little less than putting to death? O monstrous deceit ! And what signified their imprisonment, when, not like the Quakers in New England, they could not get out, but they could not get in, when they would P for George Keith, when he wanted to date a paper from the prison, to make it look the more like a suffering, got into the entry to sign it, because he could not get into the prison. Did ever the Quakers in New England, or elsewhere, complain of such mock sufferings? And what does he mean by “condemning without trial” P when they themselves put out a book of their pretended trial, in 1693, though nobody would own it, when put to it at London, in 1694, for the falsity of it, no doubt, not like our relations of New England persecutions, which are owned, with the authors' names, in many books, especially the aforesaid, and never denied or convicted of any untruth, that I know of, to this day. And to what were they “condemned"? Would he have it thought to be death, by setting it so, and to heighten his account, not telling what their punishment was, when it was only some small fines, for their turbulency to the government, which perhaps were hardly ever levied? Thus his deceit appears, and how little it avails Cotton Mather as to any parallel. And for his “grounds of hope, that the days of prevailing Quakerism will be but threescore years and ten,” &c., alluding to that of the Psalmist of the age of man, shows his envy more than his wit, and is so idle and foolish that it deserves no notice, having no relation thereto, except he would make the Quakers only the men, and their persecutors beasts; but one may see how he can profane Scripture to serve his own turn; and whatever he hopes, I doubt not but the Truth, broken forth about fifty years ago under the reproachful name of Quakerism, will prevail and prosper, to the laying waste the kingdom of Antichrist and all its enemies, and will live and remain, when all that oppose it will be dead and gone, their names rotten and their places be no more found. “And that among those grounds, he cannot but reckon the alterations which the sect of Quakers do experience, not only in the points of their faith, but also in that odd symptom of quaking,” &c., is no ground at all; for, as I have shown above, there are no such alterations as he suggests, especially as to faith, that is their own case, as well as their first love, as confessed above, whérein he would fain measure us by themselves again, though to little purpose. And as to that of quaking, as he calls it, if it is not so much or frequent as in the beginning, or first breaking forth of the Truth in our day, yet it is not ceased, whoever that Quaker was that he says, chap. i., page 25, said it was, which he has not named, and which therefore we are not bound to credit on his
* Note, Cotton, then not for sedition, as thou pretendest as aforesaid; here he convicts thee, though like thee in other things.
bare say-so, and in his terms, nor is it true in the whole; however we own that it was the power of God that wrought in our Friends in the beginning, and that power is not limited in its divers operations, though the first effusion or breaking forth is many times most terrible and amazing, as in the apostles' days, Acts ii. 2, 12, 37, &c.," and yet Christianity continued and prevailed for many ages after, and doth, as to the outward profession of it, unto this day, though the power hath been greatly lost; and his friend George Keith will tell him f “that as for the bodily tremblings, “some may have them in a greater measure, others in a less, and “some have none at all, so as to fall under outward observation; “ and yet the work of God in them may be as real and true as in “others that have them most.” So that ground is removed. But that it was “a symptom of a diabolical possession” is highly wicked and blasphemous, for it judges all the holy men of old . that witnessed such a state of trembling and quaking as aforesaid, to be diabolical, or by a devilish power, for which I leave him to the rebukes of heaven.
Cotton Mather. Ibid.—“It was no rare thing for the old set of Quakers, to proselyte people, merely by stroking or breathing on them.” Answer. Sometimes a new sect, and now an old set; but this is more than he can prove, that any were ever so proselyted, as he calls it; yet, as to laying on of hands, if they ever so did, it is no more than what is warranted in Scripture by the apostles laying on of hands, which yet is not usual in any extraordinary manner. But for stroking, I know nothing of it; and for breathing on any in such a way, I never knew or heard of any such among us, though I have heard of such things among some others. And for his telling of “bewitched people,” he may take that home to themselves, considering what work they have had, and how they have been pestered and perplexed with them in New England. I thought they would have left off their old slanders of such things now, when they have been so punished with witches themselves, no doubt in just judgment for their abusive slanders.
* See, also, Acts iv. 31, and xvi. 26. f Way to the City of God, page 23.
I remember, indeed, how they stripped and searched two innocent women for witches, at their first coming amongst them, it being their usual slander. And he might well say,” “It may be that the “wrath, which we have had against one another, has had more “ than a little influence upon the coming down of the devil, in “that wrath which now amazes us. Have not many of us been “devils one unto another, for slanderings, for backbitings, for “animosities? For this, among ofber causes, perhaps, God has “permitted the devils to be worrying, as they now are among us. “But it is high time to leave off all devilism, when the devil him“self is falling upon us; and it is no time for us to be censuring “and reviling one another, with a devilish wrath, when the wrath “of the devil is annoying us.” And yet he will persist in his slanderings and backbitings, and not leave off his devilism. Will he give such advice to others to leave it off, and not take it himself, but persist in it still? Is it a time for him to be censuring and reviling others, “with a devilish wrath,” as he hath done in this history, when it is so with them for it? Well, if they will not take warning, but persist in their old slanders, I doubt not but the hand of the Lord will pursue them for it still, until they are consumed. And for his “Crew of Quakers,” as he calls them, called “Case's crew,” which stories his father Increase told before him, in his Essay for Recording of Illustrious Providences, and which were answered by George Keith in his Presbyterian and Independent Visible Churches, &c., and so confuted, as to their being Quakers, that Increase Mather never replied to it, as I heard of; only his son, this Cotton Mather, would pretend to vindicate him from his abusiveness in a former book, as if he distinguished them from Quakers, by calling them “The late singing and
dancing Quakers,” who indeed were Ranters, and no Quakers; . .
and yet the said Cotton Mather hath the impudence to revive and recite the said abusive stories again in his History. Albeit he confesses, “They have been so troublesome and vexatious to the Quakers themselves, that they have denied them;” as no doubt
* Book of Witches, page 45.