fectionists, &c., &c., are but carrying out its legitimate aim. And when I see Presbyterianism rising to rebuke it, as in the extracts just given, I do but seem to hear the voices of such as Thomas Edwards and Robert Baillie, echoing from the vistas of the past.

P. S. To show how effectually Presbyterianism has been kept out of Massachusetts-more effectually far than Episcopacy-I add the following statistics. Morse, in his Geography of 1792, gives the number of Presbyterians in Massachusetts, in 1750, as 2,994. In 1792, as 2,776.While Hayward, in his statistics of 1836, says they have but two churches in the whole State.-Morse's Geog. p. 171. Hayward 143.

LETTER XVIII.

The present letter will be the last of this series, and will be devoted to the consideration of sufferers at the hands of the Puritans, who deserve a far more honored place among such sufferers, than multitudes, who have no particular sympathy with the Puritans, are willing to allow. I allude to the

* Independency may create such a brood now, as it did of old. It was out of Independency, that there sprang the numerous sects which are the reproach of Presbyterianism, and of itself-the Sabbatarians, Millenarians, Grindletonians, Muggletonians, Fifth-Monarchists, Ranters, Seekers, Quakers, Anabaptists; with many others, more short-lived than these."-Rise of Old Dissent, exemplified in the Life of Oliver Heywood, by J. Hunter. London, 1842, p. 61. Mr. Hunter, I presume, is a Presbyterian! See his pref. p. xii.

And see the Churchman of Sept. 13, 1834, for some amusing comments on Perfectionism, tracing its succession through Doctors Taylor and Beecher.

Aborigines. I am reluctant to believe, what the testimony of history requires me to admit, that my countrymen of all classes have too little fellow feeling for "the poor Indian”— far less than becomes professed and forward advocates for the doctrine of an equality of natural rights. This doctrine is elaborately set forth in our Declaration of Independence; which solemnly announces that all men—not one nation, or one clan, but all men without distinction of rank or color-are born free and equal. It is difficult to account for this, but upon the supposition that we are conscious of an immense amount of wrong-doing towards this unfortunate race; and that it is the peculiarity of the wrong-doer, rather than of the injured, to retain intense dislike. Proprium humani ingenii est odisse quem læseris.

However, if Americans generally have failed in compassion for the unhappy fortunes of the Red Man, the Puritans should have been the very last among them to do so. They had given sacred and voluntary pledges to treat them with the utmost consideration. These letters effectually prove, what an incomparable favor Puritans deemed royal charters -how they compassed sea and land to make one proselyte to their schemes for obtaining such "a precious boon."But the very, the exact, the grand consideration, for which those charters were imparted, was a Christian devotion to the best welfare of the native inhabitants of America. This point, like others, has been alluded to before. It must now come up formally. I appeal, then, to the language of the Charter-I must beg my readers to be particular in their recollections-not of the King's letter, or the King's mandamus, but of the great parchment Charter of Massachusetts; which Mr. Bancroft once said was unrolled with so much state, when an enlargement of territory was hoped for."And we do of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, give and grant to the said Governor and Company, and their successors, &c., for the directing, ruling,

and disposing of all other matters and things, whereby dur said people, inhabitants there, may be so religiously, peaceably, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderly conversation may win and incite the natives of the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and Saviour of mankind, and the Christian faith; which in our royal intention,* and the adventurers' free profession, is the principal end of this plantation." The language of the Charter of Connecticut is precisely similar, with two variations. It reads "win and invite;" for "win and incite;" which may possibly be a typographical error. And it also reads "the only and principal end of this plantation”‡—a somewhat ominous addition; as if negligence, or something worse, required the English Government to be more emphatic upon a point, rather too costly to the pocket and trying to patience, to be remembered with perfect precision!

So then, it appears, that these celebrated Charters were granted, not upon an implied or virtual, but upon the expressed and literal stipulation and condition, that the Puritan "adventurers" should put forth their best and most unwearied efforts, for the conversion of the natives of New England to Christianity. This was the matter of fact quid pro quo-was neither more nor less than the plain price, or bonus as we might now say, which they, of their own unconstrained accord, paid for these charters. It is true, indeed, that the king might receive other and further compensation; as, e g., a fifth of the revenue of mines and gold and silver. But

*Or "intentions:" I am not + Anc. Charters, &c., p. 14.

certain about the reading.

Cradock's letter, Felt's Salem, p. 11. Hazard's Collect, ii. 602. Hinman's Antiquities, 183. And further. This peculiarity of the Charter was occasionally confessed. See a preamble to an act about the Indians, p. 95 of the Connecticut Laws, edit. 1769. There is one drawback, however. The Charter says, "the only," &c. The preamble Jesuitically lowers this very decided language, and says, "one great end." This is interpreting a Constitution by the favorite rule, "as I understand it." We see where the rule comes from

all that was problematical. The sure and certain compensation which was provided for, was the conversion of the natives to Christianity; and the granting Charters to distant settlements for such a noble object, were an act which might well entitle a monarch to that highest of human appellations, "The father of his country."

*

Thus it appears, that it was the King of England, (bigoted Churchman, and half-papist as they esteemed him,) rather than the Puritans, who took the Aborigines into a kind consideration, and prospectively regarded their welfare. And if the Puritans had seconded the King's wishes without delay-had acceded with all their hearts to his terms, in respect to the missionary requital expected for charter privileges and protection—and had labored, at once and zealously, to fulfil their contract, by devoting undivided efforts to the conversion of the Indians--making that their only or principal business, as it was the only and principal end of their plantation-I say, if they had done all this, they had done no more than a duty which might have been exacted of them by a human court of law! They would have gone not a whit beyond common mercantile honesty, in the fulfilment of a pecuniary contract. They would have merited not one single plaudit.

But how different, how immensely different, the representations usually made of this affair! Do but look into such a volume as that fourth of the third series of the Massachu

setts Historical Collections, and see. Here is line upon line, tract upon tract, to display the wonders of Puritan philanthropy, for the victim of heathenism in New England. And the series of goodly tales is ushered into new-born life, by a publishing committee, " as authentic narratives of the

* No wonder even Dr. Dwight was constrained to say, as he reviewed Puritan and Episcopal annals, I really believe, that the English Church has done more than most others to promote the cause of Christianity."-Travels, i. 61.

great efforts, made by some of the fathers in our Israel, for the spiritual welfare of the children of the forest." Great efforts! Are those great efforts of charity, which are made in mere payment of a debt-for the fulfilment of a legal bond? The Jesuit of North America asked for no charter, but went with his life in his hands, into the depths of the forest; and shared an Indian's fare, and an Indian's toils, so he might "win and invite" him to his faith. Ibo, et non redibo," was his foreboding farewell. And when he died, as he often did, a martyr, (his whole body, perhaps, converted into a blazing torch,) he could depart without a murmur for his fate, the name of Jesus breathed forth with his last sigh!*

And yet a Puritan will tell us, he was but a political emissary dispatched by France,† to stir up the northern tribes for the massacre of himself and family; while he, whose chartered duty it was to convert Indians, could foredoom them to destruction, and still be all the while an emissary of God! A Puritan minister is recorded by Increase Mather in his Indian Troubles, who "publickly declared that he foresaw the destruction of the Narragansett nation; solemnly confirming his speech by saying, If God do not destroy that people, then say that his Spirit hath not spoken by me." And adds Mather, with his own oracular presumption, "Surely that holy man was a prophet." Such an incendiary as this, safe in his nest, is Heaven's own prophet; while a Jesuit, hacked in pieces, or consumed by a slow fire, for his efforts to convert infidels, is the mere tool of chicanery and the slave of superstition! I blush for Protestantism, that history wrings from me the shameful comparison.

*Bancroft, iii, 137–141.

The words of Gov. Bradford might be retorted by the French and Dutch too; for he confessed the Indians had English guns, because the French and Dutch were too slight. This shows where the guns of the Indians came from.-Mass. Hist. Coll. 1st ser. iii. 83.

I Mather's Ind. Troubles, edit. 1677, p. 60.