Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

and the following profession of the Christian faith: I, A B, profess faith in GoD, the Father, and JESUS CHRIST his eternal Son, the true GOD, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for ever more; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to be given by divine inspiration.*

* Can this be deemed a confession of faith, by Quakers? The question derives great interest from the wide schism, at this time existing in the society of Friends, in which the two parties, alike, claim to hold the original faith; one professing that in the text--the other, belief in the unity of the Deity, the humanity of Christ, with a modified view of divine inspiration in the Scriptures. Upon the true solution of the original faith of the Quakers, much property, and a greater value, (if I may thus express myself,) in sentiment, at this moment depends. It is said, that no formal declaration of the Quaker faith, is to be found in the records of the society; and courts of justice have been compelled to seek it, in the partial, equivocal, and unsatisfactory declarations of esteemed preachers, and polemical writers. The best evidence which the nature of the subject admits, is the formal declaration of faith, by the yearly meeting. But an attempt of this kind was one of the immediate causes of the present division. The next best evidence, would be a declaration of faith, by a body of Quakers, at a period when no division existed, among the sect, and when an attempt to force a declaration of faith upon them, would have been resisted, as firmly, to say the least, as at any time, since the ministry of Fox. Was the Assembly of West New Jersey, of the year 1696, such a body? If it was, their declaration of “The Christian Faith," is entitled to profound respect and unlimited confidence; having been made when the zeal of the church was most lively, during the life of many of its distinguished primitive apostles, such as Barclay and Penn, and within seven years after the death of its founder, George Fox. This Assembly consisted of about fifty members. It is perhaps impossible, at this day, to declare that every member was a Quaker. This, however, is probable, since the Quakers composed vastly the greater proportion of the population. It is certain, however, that the majority of the Assembly were Friends, and might, therefore, have arrested the promulgation of this creed. That they would have done so, cannot be doubted, had it not been their faith; for they came to the province, that they might enjoy that faith, without molestation. They had purchased the soil, and the government, that they might live under laws of their own enactment. But this act, had it declared a faith different from that, which the Quakers professed, would have disqualified them from participating in the government, and would have placed them at the mercy of the very few Swedes and Dutch, who were in the province. We are, therefore, constrained to believe, that this statutory confession of faith, was the faith of the Quaker church.-See Leaming and Spicer's Collection, p. 514.-And see the Act, in the Appendix, I.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The confession of faith set forth in the New Jersey act of 1693, is copied in words, from the English toleration act, passed in 1689, (1 William and Mary). The following account of which, is given by George Whitehead.-Works, page 635. "Yet to prevent any such (Friends) from being stumbled or ensnared, by some expressions in the aforesaid profession or creed, (which appeared unscriptural,) in the said Bill, we, instead thereof, did propose and humbly offer, as our own real belief of the Deity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost;"-the form we have given in the text. "Which declaration," he continues, "John Vaughton and I, delivered to Sir Thomas Clergis, who, with some others, were desirous we should give in such cónfession, of our Christian belief, that we might not lie under the unjust imputation of being no Christians, and thereby be deprived of the benefit of the intended law, for our religious liberty. We were, therefore, of necessity, put upon offering the said confession, it being, also, our known professed principle, sincerely to confess Christ, the Son of the living God, his divinity, and that he is the eternal Word, and that the Three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, are one; one divine Being, one God, blessed forever."

[ocr errors]

In what sense the words of this confession were accepted, by Friends, it would, perhaps, be difficult to say. They were, probably, understood by the framers of the toleration act, to be equivalent to the belief in the Trinity, as expressed by the Church of England. But this sense, if not denied, is certainly not conceded by the Quaker writers, generally, who, in relation to this mysterious subject, express themselves with great mystery, and allege that they take up the doctrine as expressly laid down in the Scripture, and are not warranted in making deductions, however specious. It has been supposed, too, that in framing this confession of faith, an outward conformity to the requisition of Parliament, only, was designed: and that every Friend was at perfect liberty to construe the words of his confession, in such sense as the spirit within him should direct. If so, we have advanced nothing in determining

[graphic]

. XIV. By the deed of partition of July, 1676, Sir George Carteret became seized of East New Jersey, in severalty. By his testament, December 5th, 1678, he named his wife, Elizabeth, his executrix, and guardian of his heir; and devised the province to trustees, to be sold for payment of his debts.* He died in the following year, but his death made no change in the government, which continued to be administered by his brother Philip, until about the end of the year 1681, or beginning of 1682, when he was superseded by the transfer of the province to other proprietaries.

XV. The latter part of his administration, was embittered by the revival of the disputes which had once rendered him a fugitive from his government, and by the unjust and violent assumption of authority, over his province, by the profligate Andross, governor of New York. The pretension of this ready tool of despotism, was sustained by that portion of the inhabitants, who had derived their land titles through governor Nicholls, from the Duke, and who believed that his Grace would render valid their advantageous purchases from the Indians. Andross seems, first, formally, to have disputed the right of Carteret, in March, 1680, when, by proclamation, he claimed the submission of the inhabitants for the Duke of York. Threats of invasion followed; to resist which, Carteret prepared his military force, amounting to one hundred and fifty men. Andross, however, visited Elizabethtown, attended by a civil suite, only, where he ostentatiously displayed the Duke's title, and his own commission; and, utterly disregarding his master's double grant to Sir George Carteret, demanded the recognition of his authority. This being rèfused, he retired; but soon after, April 31, 1680, despatched a party of soldiers, who rudely dragged Carteret from his bed, and conveyed him, prisoner, to New York, where he was tried, upon the information of the attorney-general, with having riotously and routously, with force of arms, endeavoured to maintain and exercise jurisdiction and government over his Majesty's subjects, within the bounds of his Majesty's letters patent, granted to his Royal Highness. In despite of the efforts of Andross, who presided at the trial, the jury, though several times sent out by him, magnanimously acquitted the prisoner. The court, however, adjudged, that if Carteret returned to New Jersey, he should engage not to assume any authority there.

Andross met an Assembly at Elizabethtown, on the 2d June, 1680, where he again exhibited the documents of his authority, together with a copy of the laws enacted at New York, which he proposed as the rule of action for New Jersey. Although the Assembly were indisposed, or dreaded, to question the authority of the Duke, they were not unregardful of their rights, nor backward in proclaiming them. They replied, "As we are the representatives of the freeholders of this province, we dare not grant his Majesty's letters patent, though under the great seal of England, to be our rule or joint safety; for the great charter of England, alias, magna charta, is the only rule, privilege, and joint safety of every free born Englishman. What we have formerly done, we did in obedience to the authority that was then established in this province, and that being done according to law, they needed no confirmation." They declared, also, their expectation, that, the privileges granted them, by virtue of the concessions of Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, would be confirmed to them; and they re-enacted former laws, and demanded their approval.

the faith of Friends, since they have adopted the remainder of the Scriptures, giving to them, in many cases, a meaning widely different from that assigned by Orthodox Christians.

* The trustees were John Earl of Sandwich, John Earl of Bath, Bernard Granville, brother of the latter, Sir Thomas Crew, Sir Thomas Atkins, and his brother, Edward Atkins.

Complaints against the proceedings of Andross were despatched to England with an appeal to the King. The Duke disavowed the acts of his minion, yet no instructions appear to have been given to rescind them. For, after the departure of Andross, for England, Captain Brochholts, his substi tute, maintained his assumption, refusing to recognise the authority of Carteret, until he exhibited a new commission, notwithstanding the Assembly of New Jersey had declared the conduct of Andross illegal. No further forcible effort, however, was made to control the province; the Duke having, in truth, agreed to confirm his former grants with the right of government; and, soon after, by release of this contested power, terminated these troubles. Disgusted by these contentions, and perceiving that they were not likely to derive either emolument or satisfaction, from their province, the trustees and executrix of Sir George Carteret, offered it for sale to the highest bidder.*

XVI. The sessions of the Assembly, during the administration of Carteret, were commonly holden at Elizabethtown, frequently at Woodbridge, and sometimes at Middletown and Piscataway.† Many laws were enacted during this period, but most of them were local or ephemeral in their character. Those of a more general nature, provided; That, contemners of authority should be punished by fine, or corporal infliction, at the discretion of the court: that males above sixteen, and under sixty, years of age, failing to furnish themselves with arms, should be fined, two shillings per week, for neglect: that, one guilty of arson, should repair the injury done, and in case of inability so to do, be, at the mercy of the court, condemned to death or other corporal punishment: that, murder, false witness, with design to take away life, crimes against nature, witchcraft, stealing away any mankind, should be punished by death; burglary or highway robbery, the first offence with burning in the hand, the second in the forehead, and in both cases, with restitution; and the third offence with death: larceny, the first offence by treble restitution; and so the second and third, with such increase of punishment, even unto death, as the court might direct, if the offender were incorrigible; otherwise, and if unable to make restitution, to be sold for satisfaction, or to receive corporal punishment: conspiracies or attacks upon towns or forts, smiting or cursing of parents, unless in self defence, upon complaint of the parent, were also subjected to the penalty of death: rape was punishable with death, or otherwise, severely, at the discretion of the court; fornication, with marriage, fine, or corporal punishment; adultery, with divorce, corporal punishment, or banishment, either, or all of them, as circumstances should determine the mind of the judge; night walking and revelling, after nine o'clock, with arrest, and punishment, at the discretion of the court:-That, the members of Assembly should be chosen on the first of January, and their sessions be holden on the first Tuesday in November, annually, or oftener, if the governor and council should deem necessary: that, no marriage should be had without the consent of parent, guardian, or master, as the case might require, unless upon notice, thrice published, at some meeting or kirk, near the parties' abode, or set up in writing, at some public house, for fourteen days previous; nor then, unless solemnized by some approved minister, justice, or chief officer, who was forbidden, under penalty of twenty pounds, and dismission from office, to marry any, who had not fulfilled these requisitions.

XVII. In comparing the laws of East and West Jersey, we are much struck with the difference of the spirit which dictated them. The genius of Calvinism, which rules by terror, and the ever suspended sword, in this and

* Grahame's Col. Hist. vol. ii. 350. See Appendix K.

+ The first Assembly was holden 26th May, 1668, at Elizabethtown.

in the future world, is strongly impressed upon the one, whilst a prudent reserve in naming crimes, and a humane forbearance in their punishment, characterize the other. The ancient lawgivers prescribed no punishment for parricide, deeming the offence impossible;-the Quaker legislators, had no enactment against arson-no prescribed punishment for murder or treason, and other heinous offences; and yet, during four-and-twenty years, of their administration, no instance of such crimes was known within their territories. In East Jersey, there were thirteen classes of offences, against which, the penalty of death was denounced; and amongst these, were simple larcenies, and the impossible crime of witchcraft; whilst in West Jersey, such punishment was unknown to the law. The sentence, and mode of its execution, in cases of treason and murder, were by the "Concessions," committed to the Assembly; but that body never prescribed a general rule, nor had occasion to apply their powers to a special case. The legislators of West Jersey, in injuries of every kind, sought reparation, and the reclamation of the offender. Thus, the spoiler of property was condemned, in all cases, to make a fourfold restitution, and to suffer imprisonment at labour; and the perpetrator of personal injuries, might be pardoned by the sufferer. In all cases, mercy presided over the justice-seat. But in East Jersey, the great object of the law seems to have been vengeance. Like to Draco, the legislator deemed small crimes worthy of death, and could find no severer punishment for the greatest. But, though from the enactments against witchcraft, the progress of intellectual light seemed less in East, than in West Jersey, there was an earnest care for the instruction of the people. This was particularly evident in an act, of 1693, providing, that, the inhabitants of any town might, by warrant from a justice, elect three men to establish and levy a rate for the maintenance of a schoolmaster, payment of which, might be enforced by distress. Upon the whole, we may remark, that, though the legislators of East and West Jersey, drew their principles from the same volume, they were from different sources; the first were oppressed, enslaved, by the vengeful God, who prescribed the Levitical law; the others sought and found, a well regulated freedom, in the merciful monitions of a Ředeemer.

In East Jersey there was no law for the public support of religion; yet, every township maintained its church and its minister. The people, by the testimony of the first deputy of the Quaker sovereigns, "were, generally, a sober, professing people, wise in their generation, courteous in their behaviour, and respectful to those in office." And Gawn Lawrie, the second deputy, assures us, “that there was not, in all the province, a poor body, or that wants."* Relying on this view, we might impute the dissentions which had prevailed, to the injudicious conduct of the government. But there is reason to believe, that, the blame of these dissentions is chargeable, in a considerable degree, upon the people. A headstrong and turbulent disposition appears to have prevailed among some classes, at least, of the inhabitants: various riots and disturbances broke forth, even under the new government, and the utmost patience of the rulers, were necessary to govern them. A law, enacted about four years after this period, reprobates the frequent occurrence of quarrels and challenges, and interdicts the inhabitants from wearing swords, pistols, or daggers.†

*"The servants work not so much," says Lawrie, "by a third, as they do in England, and I think, feed much better; for they have beef, pork, bacon, pudding, milk, butter, and good beer and cider to drink. When they are out of their time, they have land for themselves, and generally turn farmers. Servants' wages are not under two shillings a day, besides victuals." S. Smith, p. 117, 181.

+ Smith, pp. 162, 163, 169, 171, 175, &c. Grahame's Col. Hist.

CHAPTER IV.

From the Purchase of East Jersey, by the Quakers, to the Surrender of the two Provinces to the Crown, 1682–1702.—I. Purchase of East Jersey by Penn and his Associates.-They admit others, not Quakers, to participate in the Purchase. -II. Robert Barclay appointed Governor for Life-Scotch Emigrants-Deputy Governors-Foundation of Amboy-Vain Efforts at Commerce.-III. Efforts of James II. to destroy Colonial Charter-Defeated by the Revolution.-IV. Andrew Hamilton, Deputy Governor-Death of Robert Barclay-InterregnumAndrew Hamilton, Governor-in-Chief-Superseded by Jeremiah Basse-Reappointed-Discontent of the Colonists.-V. Attempt of New York to tax the Colony.-VI. Proposition from the English Ministers for the Surrender of the Proprietary Governments-Negotiations relating thereto.-VII. Final and unconditional Surrender-Lord Cornbury appointed Governor-Outline of the new Government.-VIII. Stationary Condition of New Jersey-Causes thereof.— IX. Condition of the Aborigines-Purchases of their Lands-Traditions of their Origin-Tribes most noted in New Jersey-Treaty at Crosswicks-at Burlington and Easton-Final Extinction of Indian Title to the Soil of New Jersey.X. Review of the Title under the Proprietaries of East Jersey.-XI. Review of Title of Proprietaries of West Jersey.-XII. Of the Partition Line between East and West Jersey.

I. The success of their experiment in West Jersey, encouraged the Quakers of Great Britain, to avail themselves of the opportunity, that was now afforded, in the proposition for the sale of East Jersey, of enlarging the sphere of their enterprise, by the acquisition of that province. In February, 1682, William Penn, with eleven others of his religious faith,* purchased the colony from the devisees of Sir George Carteret. This territory, then, contained about five thousand inhabitants, the great majority of whom were not Quakers. There were populous settlements at Shrewsbury, Middletown, upon the Raritan and Millstone rivers; at Piscataway, Woodbridge, and Elizabethtown; at Newark, and upon the banks of the Passaic and Hackensack rivers; at Bergen, and along the bay and bank of the Hudson. Whether to allay the jealousy, with which, the inhabitants might have regarded a government, wholly composed of men whose principles differed greatly from their own, or for the purpose of fortifying their interest at court, by associating influential men with their enterprise, the twelve purchasers hastened to assume twelve other partners, among whom were the Earl of Perth, Chancellor of Scotland, and Lord Drummond, of Gilston, Secretary of State for that kingdom. In favour of the twenty-four, the Duke of York executed his third and last grant of East Jersey, 14th March,

* The associates of Penn were Robert West, Thomas Rudyard, Samuel Groome, Thomas Hart, Richard Mew, Thomas Wilcox, Ambrose Rigg, Hugh Hartshorne, Clement Plumstead, Thomas Cooper, and John Hayward.

The names of the additional twelve, were James, Earl of Perth, Sir George M‘Kenzie, John Drummond, Robert Barclay, David Barclay, Robert Gordon, Robert Burnett, Peter Sonmans, James Braine, Gawen Turner, Thomas Nairne, Thomas Cox, and William Dockwra.

† From the dedication of Scott's model of East Jersey, it appears that Viscount Tarbet and Lord M'Leod, two other powerful Scotch nobles, became, shortly after, proprietaries. Sir George M'Kenzie, Lord Advocate of Scotland, whom his cotemporaries justly denominated, the bloody M'Kenzie, was infamously distinguished as a witness for the crown, on the trial of Lord Russell.-Grahame's Col. Hist. vol. ii. p. 351. n.

† Grahame's Col. Hist.

« AnteriorContinuar »