be deemed justly chargeable with inconsistency in enacting severely, and executing mildly, the inconsistency was at least amiable; and she need not blush to own that the feelings of humanity triumphed over the sternness of a mistaken theory.

Such mildness, however, was far from agreeable to Sir John Hervey; and, in the assembly of 1629, an act was passed, at his instigation, enjoining, under severe penalties, a strict conformity to the canons of the church:* and there is evidence to show that after this time infractions of church law were visited with punishment. The enactments of this, and the period immediately subsequent to it, are often characterized by harshness; and if, as has been said, they were "judicious," their necessity indicates the sad fact that the practical fruits of Christianity did not accompany the possession of a sound creed: in other words, that the religion of the day was more nominal than real. It is, however, a point worthy of examination, whether this supposed necessity was not itself created by the severity of the enactments and proclamations under the royal governor. To coerce men into the outward exercise of religious acts by penal laws, is indeed possible; but to make them love either the religion which is thus enforced, or those who enforce it, is beyond the reach of human power. There is an inherent principle of resistance to oppression, seated in the very constitution of most men, which disposes them to rebel against the arbitrary exercise of violence seeking to give direction to opinions; and it is not, therefore, to be wondered at, that one sanguinary law compel men to live piously, should beget the necessity for more. In addition to this consideration, it is to be borne in mind, that the utmost severity in enforcing ecclesiastical law was the fashion of those who were in power at home; and a similar course in the colony would therefore be deemed an acceptable offering to the authorities of the 1 Hening's Virginia Statutes, at large, 149. † 2 Burk, 31.

G

mother country. Without intending then to assert that the religious condition of the colony was all that could be desired, it may be said that the existence of these severe enactments furnishes no conclusive evidence that Christianity was at a low ebb, and wickedness triumphant.

But, however this may be, nothing is more certain than that punishments were inflicted on the colonists, not for professing a faith different from that which was established, but for not complying with laws made to enforce that which they had professed. Upon the ancient records is to be found the entry of the excommunication of a colonist "for forty days, for using scornful speeches, and putting on his hat in church, when, according to an order of court, he was to acknowledge and ask forgiveness for an offence."* But the most memorable instance is furnished in the case of Stephen Reek, which occurred in 1642, under the first administration of Sir William Berkeley. It has already been mentioned, that the decrees of the court of high commission were acknowledged as authority in the ecclesiastical concerns of the colony. They had now come to be the established rules of conduct; and the authority of Archbishop Laud was not less conclusive in Virginia than it was in England. His opinions concerning the puritans were implicitly received and acted upon, so that the colony afforded no countenance, nor even a home to one of that class; for during the short administration of Sir Francis Wyatt, who succeeded Hervey, (from 1639 to 1641,) several laws were enacted against the puritans, though there were then none in the colony, "to prevent," as was said, "the infection from reaching this country." The greatest reverence and respect for the character and doctrines of the archbishop were enjoined under heavy penalties; and no reflection, however slight, was allowed against royal or epis

1 Hening's Virginia Statutes, at large, 223.

+ Beverly, 57; 2 Burk, 75.

copal authority. Under this state of things, Reek, either in a moment of exasperation at the oppression of tyranny, or in the indiscreet indulgence of a jocose spirit, was unfortunately heard to say that "his majesty was at confession with my Lord of Canterbury." Whether the expression was considered as amounting to a charge of popery against the king, or as importing a belief that his majesty was under the prelate's guidance, is not recorded; but the unfortunate delinquent was pilloried for two hours, with a label on his back, setting forth his offence, fined fifty pounds, and imprisoned during pleasure.*

The usual effects of punishment, in cases of this kind, were soon apparent. Such punishment never yet failed to give resolution to the spirit of resistance; and men are often led, by severity, to the adoption of measures, of which, if unmolested, they would probably have never thought. On the records of the first church in Boston, there may be found, in the very year in which Reek was punished, the history of an application sent from Virginia, addressed to the General Court of Massachusetts, and gentlemen of influence in the community, beseeching them "to send ministers of the gospel into that region, that its inhabitants might be privileged with the preaching and ordinances of Jesus Christ." And (as we have seen that the case of Reek did not stand alone) it can scarcely admit of doubt, that the application was prompted by opposition to the indiscreet and oppressive measures pursued in Virginia.

It has, indeed, been said by a modern historian,‡ (whose inaccuracies may find some extenuation in the fact that he is a foreigner, and wrote under many disadvantages in his materials, and at a distance from the scene of action,) that this application to Massachusetts was made by the little

1 Hening's Virginia Statutes, 1 Mather's Magnalia, Hartford ed., at large, 552; 2 Burk, 67. 538; though Mather places it in 1641. + Emerson's Historical Sketch of +1 Graham's Hist. of the United the first Church in Boston, p. 75; States, 313.

remnant of puritans, who are supposed to have entered the colony in 1619. No authority is given by him for the statement, nor is it known on what ground it rests. It is believed to be erroneous; the most diligent research has not been rewarded by the discovery of any such fact; and as twenty-three years had now elapsed since the arrival of puritans in 1619, during all which time the Church of England was the establishment, it will not be deemed improbable that the distinct existence of these dissenters had been gradually lost, under the combined influence of an act of conformity, the vigilance of the governor and council, and the known want of a pastor. The application, therefore, has been considered as that of members of the establishment driven into opposition by the severity of rulers; and is viewed in this light; though it is possible, and indeed probable, that the application was suggested by some of those who, as we are informed by Winthrop, had emigrated from New-England two years before, and sought a home in the southern colonies.*

The lesson presented is plain and impressive. Up to the period of Hervey's arrival, in 1629, there was no complaint; the colonists were content to remain in the bosom of that church in which they had been reared; and there is ample evidence of a conscientious and general attachment to the faith which was established. The colony of Massachusetts Bay was planted by men who, for the most part, were decided in their opposition to the Church of England. That church received as little countenance among them, as puritanism found in Virginia : and yet, notwithstanding this marked difference of opinion, a portion of the church in Virginia is found, goaded into madness by the folly of rulers, and willing to manifest its resentment by an alliance with those who could furnish no aid, but at the expense of that church which once had their best affections.

* 2 Savages' Winthrop, 21.

The application to Boston was laid before a meeting of the ministers of that place, when three were designated to answer the call: of these three, one only, Mr. Tomson, could be prevailed on to obey the summons ;* he was, however, joined afterward, by Mr. Knolles of Watertown and Mr. James of New-Haven; and these three gentlemen went as Congregational missionaries to the Church of England in Virginia.† Their stay, however, was but short, for an act of the legislature of this year, enacted" that for the preservation of purity and unity of doctrine and discipline in the church, and the right administration of the sacraments, no minister be admitted to officiate in this country, but such as shall produce to the governor a testimonial that he hath received his ordination from some bishop in England, and shall then subscribe, to be conformable to the orders and constitutions of the Church of England, and the laws there established: upon which the governor is hereby requested to induct the said minister into any parish that shall make presentation of him and if any other person, pretending himself a minister, shall, contrary to this act, presume to teach or preach publicly or privately, the governor and council are hereby desired and empowered to suspend and silence the person so offending; and upon his obstinate persistance, to compel him to depart the country with the first convenience." If the unwelcome visit of these ministers was not the cause of the passage of this act, it was unquestionably this law which compelled their speedy return.§ Of the effect of their visit, this account is obtained from the statements of such as were of their own persuasion. "They had," says Mather, "little encouragement from the rulers of the place, but they had a kind entertainment

* Emerson's Historical Sketch of the first Church in Boston, p. 75; 1 Mather's Magnalia, 538; though Mather places it in 1641.

t1 Holmes's Annals, 264.

Trott's Laws of the British Plantations, p. 116; 1 Henings's Statutes, at large, 277.

1 Holmes's Annals, 271, note 3. 1 Math. Mag. 539.