by Uncas, chief of the Mohegans, was Sachem's plain, in the east part of the town of Norwich. Mr. Savage, in his notes on Winthrop's Journal, says, that to him "it seems much more probable," that the place where Miantonimoh was killed, was between Hartford and Windsor. His opinion seems to rest solely on the statement of Winthrop, who, after mentioning that the decision of the commissioners of the united colonies was, that Uncas might put Miantonimoh to death "so soon as he came within his own jurisdiction," in giving an account of the fact, represents it as occurring between those two towns. The jurisdiction The jurisdiction of Uncas was on the borders of the Thames and its branches. What probability there is, that Uncas kill ed his prisoner so far from his own dominions, and almost under the eyes of the commissioners, is not very apparent. But the proof that Miantonimoh was put to death on Sachem's plain, in the neighborhood of the city of Norwich, is in our view conclusive, so far as such a fact can be ascertained from tradition and the attending circumstances. The tradition has been uniform, and, we believe, uncontradicted, except by Winthrop. We well remember hearing, more than half a century ago, a very intelligent female, then in advanced life, a native of Preston, and who when young lived near Sachem's plain, often tell the story of Miantonimoh, much in the same way as we find it in the history of Dr. Trumbull; and this, before that history was published. She said that Narraganset Indians were long accustomed to visit that place, and to add to or to repair the heap of stones on what they considered Miantonimoh's grave. After seeing the doubts on this subject expressed by Mr. Savage, we inquired of a gentleman in Norwich, who was well informed in the early history of that town and vicinity, what he knew of this tradition. His re

ply was, that his father, who was born before 1700, and who had heard the subject of Miantonimoh's death often talked about by those who were old when he was a boy, always spoke of the place and circumstances of this event much as Dr. Trumbull has recorded them. Other testimonies to the same effect might be mentioned. That when the commissioners of the united colonies had decided that Uncas might kill Miantonimoh within his own jurisdiction, a plain within this jurisdiction should have been called, certainly from very early times, Sachem's plain, in commemoration of Miantonimoh's death, that a heap of stones should have long marked what was considered the grave of the chief,-that Indians should have long visited the spot, as the place where one of their great men fell, and that there should have been no tradition of a contrary character, can be accounted for, we suppose, only by admitting the truth of the commonly received story. That Gov. Winthrop should have been misinformed, seems neither impossible nor very improbable. At least, in balancing probabilities, the preponderance is certainly against him.

In the "Commentaries on Ame. rican Law," by Chancellor Kent, where the author is treating on the progress of religious liberty and toleration in the United States, we find the following statement. "In Connecticut the early settlers established, and enforced by law, a uniformity of religious belief and worship and made it requisite that every person holding a civil office, should be a church member. The severity of such a religious establishment was from time to time relaxed, until at last, by the constitution of 1818, perfect freedom of religious profession and worship, without discrimi nation, was ordained."* As this is so novel an account, it is much to

* Vol. II, p. 34, fourth edition, note.

be regretted that the author has made no reference to the sources from which his information is derived. From the high character of Chancellor Kent, his great accuracy, and his knowledge of the importance of good authority for facts stated, very few, we suppose, would hesitate at once to adopt this report of the progress of legislation in Connecticut respecting religion, as undoubted historical truth. Hence the importance of inquiring into its accuracy. Without saying that the Chancellor is here mistaken in seve ral important particulars, till we are better informed of the grounds of his representation, there can be no impropriety in referring to a few facts, which are thought to have a direct bearing on this subject. In January, 1639, there having been three towns settled on Connecticut river, Hartford, Windsor and Wethersfield, all the free planters convened at Hartford, and adopted a constitution of government. In this instrument, which may be seen in the appendix of the first volume of Trumbull's History of Connecticut, we find no restriction on the choice of magistrates, except that it was ordained, that the governor "be always a member of some approved congregation;" but it is not said, that he must be a "church member." This is the more deserving of attention, as these first colonists of Connecticut emigrated from Massachusetts, where they had resided several years, and where no persons but church members were allowed to vote. This failure to adopt the Massachusetts qualification of voters, is strong, if not conclusive evidence, that in forming the first constitution of Connecticut, the planters had this restriction of the right of suffrage to church members directly in view, and deliberately rejected it. From the first formation of the government to the time of the charter of Charles II, which was granted in 1662, we know of no statute of the

colonial legislature, by which "a uniformity of religious belief and worship was established and enfor ced," or by which it was made “requisite that every person holding a civil office, should be a church member." In the royal charter, we find no provision relating to this subject. In the colony of New Haven, the Massachusetts qualification of voters was required, but it was abolished on the union of that colony with Connecticut in 1665. After the union of the two colonies, to the year 1818, at which time we are told that "perfect freedom of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, was ordained," we know of no act of the government, on which the representation above quoted from the Commentaries could be grounded. There was a small property qualification made requisite for voting; but no religious test, either for those who gave their votes, or for those who were candidates for office, so far as we have been able to discover, was ever imposed. How this subject was viewed in 1665, may be seen in the report of the King's commissioners, who had visited the colony of Connecticut to ascertain its condition. On the subject of religion, it is said that the people of Connecticut had

66

a scholar to their minister in every town or village," and that the colony

"will not hinder any from enjoying the sacraments and using the common prayer book, provided that they hinder not the maintenance of the public minister." At this time the people of Connecticut were all Congregationalists, and continued so for nearly half a century later. It would seem, that when the royal commissioners visited the colony, there was no such uniformity of religious belief and worship enforced, as to exclude the church of England; much less does it appear, that there was any religious test whatever for any part of the magistracy. In this respect the colony

differed very widely from the parent country.

In 1708, there was introduced into Connecticut, what was called an established religion; that is, certain churches were "owned and acknow. ledged established by law;" but it was provided that nothing in the act on which this establishment was founded, should be construed "to hinder or prevent any society or church, that is or shall be allowed by the laws of this government, who soberly differ or dissent from the united churches hereby established, from exercising worship and discipline in their own way, according to their consciences." We see here no allusion to political rights. It is not said, that none but church members of the established churches shall vote, or that none but church members of the established churches shall be chosen to office. On these points the act is silent. There were, without doubt, severe laws in Connecticut respecting religion, some of which were passed under peculiar circumstances; but we can point to no statute, by which political privileges were confined to one sect.

In several of the colonies, laws existed respecting religion, much more rigid and exclusive than any in Connecticut. As an illustration of this fact it may be mentioned, that if Connecticut, in compliance with the recommendation of the commissioners of the united colonies, had a law by which Quakers who came within the colony might be imprisoned till they could "conveniently be sent out of the jurisdiction," New York had a law, at a later period, by which all Jesuits, seminary priests, &c. were ordered from the province; if they were found within its boundaries after a specified time, they were liable to perpetual imprisonment; and if they should escape from confinement, they were considered as felons, and if retaken, were to be punished with death. We might proceed with this

comparison through the Connecticut code; but further detail is unnecessary. How it happens, that Connecticut is so often represented (we do not now refer to what is said by Chancellor Kent) as affording an example of the extreme of religious intolerance in the early British American colonies, we will not now inquire. The investigation, however, of this topic might not be without its use. The disposition to give Connecticut this preeminence, early discovered itself. Douglass, an author by no means partial to puritanism, remarks in his Summary, published in 1760, "I never heard of any persecuting spirit in Connecticut; in this they are egregiously aspersed." We would here repeat our regret that Chancellor Kent has not referred to authorities. If he is right, we should like to be right also; and if he is wrong, we conclude only that even he has a portion of human infirmity, and makes occasional mistakes.

There is a passage in an oration* lately delivered in New Haven, which seems to call for a few remarks, by way of correction. Its reference, indeed, is not to an event in the early history of Connecticut, but in that of Massachusetts; but which by a species of metonymy is usually ascribed to all New England. The passage to which we refer is the following. "Not many generations have passed away since the witch mania of Europe added an unimaginable gloom to the decrepitude of old age, and made gray hairs no longer venerable tokens of sage experience, but signals of fiendish malignity and unholy associations. And still more recently in our own bright land, the same dark insanity of excited ignorance spread for a time its blighting influences, consigning to torture and to

* An Oration delivered at New Haven, before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, August 17th, 1842, by S. Henry Dickson, M. D.

death the old and the young, the parent and the child, the pastor and his flock." The allusion here is clearly to the Salem witchcraft. But is it true, that in 1692 the "witch mania" of Europe had ceased? For this seems to be implied. History certainly informs us, that witches were executed in England and Scot land, as well as on the continent of Europe, long after the tragedy at Salem. We have no wish to thrust the "witch mania" which prevailed in Massachusetts into the shade; nor would we give it any more prominence than belongs to it. The magistrates, clergymen, and others concerned in the executions at Salem, were supported in their opinions and proceedings by the highest authorities, both civil and ecclesias tical, in the parent country. Who would they look up to with more confidence as a patron and guide, than Sir Matthew Hale? But he condemned witches. And why should Cotton Mather be set down as a mere driveler, because he believed in witchcraft, when others of the same faith are looked upon as sane men, or, as the case may be, made the subjects of panegyric? Says Bishop Jewell-and who has a higher and more deserved reputation in the English church?-to Queen Elizabeth, "It may please your Grace to understand, that witches and sorcerers, within these four last years, are marvelously in creased within your Grace's realm. Your Grace's subjects pine away even unto death, their color fadeth, their flesh rotteth, their speech is benumbed, their senses are bereft; I pray God, they never practice further, than upon the subject." The language of Judge Blackstone has often been quoted, and will bear to be again. "To deny," says he, "the possibility, nay actual exist ence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the re

vealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament; and the thing itself is a truth to which every nation in the world hath in its turn borne testimony, either by examples seemingly well tested, or by prohibitory laws; which at least suppose the possibility of a commerce with evil spirits." Why, then, should the executions at Salem in 1692, deserve to be singled out, as something most extraordinary in the history of human imperfection and imbecility? In a general view of similar delusions, they dwindle into insignificance. We do not add these remarks on account of Dr. Dickson, whose mistake is probably a mere slip of the pen; but because we sometimes discover a disposition to associate a belief in witchcraft, and the punishment of it as a reality, with some one class of Christians. Nothing is more certain, than that men, women and children, have been put to death for this supposed crime in most, if not all, the coun tries of Europe, both Catholic and Protestant. To attempt to fix a stigma on one form of faith for every fault in the treatment of witches, betrays a great lack of knowledge or something worse. Thus we have heard, since August last, a public speaker in New Haven, sneer at Cotton Mather and the colonists of Massachusetts, and laud Sir Matthew Hale, in almost the same breath; but judging from the other parts of his performance, we conclude that he knew no better; and a sin of ignorance may be winked at. We have no inclination or wish to say any more, than the truth will plainly warrant, in defense of those who have been concerned in hanging or burning witches; but we are of the opinion, that bad men and mistaken men may be abused, and that all, even the worst, should have their due.

but by those of Köster, an earlier writer!

THE defenders of divine revelation often show an unnecessary fear of their opponents. They shrink from grappling with those whom they suppose to be giants, and feel that discretion is the better part of valor.' The neologist announces his decisions in such a dogmatic tone, and, with an air so contemptuous, pours forth his prodigious stores of learning, that the modest friend of the Bible stands abashed. But this boasted erudition is often allied to a credulity which is nearly incredible. Professing himself to be wise, the neologist becomes a fool. He builds up imposing theories on the slightest basis, which no sane man would think to be worth the trouble of refuting. The great image, that looks formidable in the distance, is seen, on closer inspection, to rest on a foundation of miry clay. The learning, which appeared so immense, is often nothing more than a heterogeneous conglomerate, whose looseness betokens its speedy downfall. We have only to wait a little time, and the author will furnish his own refutation. Stability is one of the least characteristic marks of a neological hypothe sis. A palpable instance of this has just come to our knowledge. It is well known, that the German writers, such as Rosenmüller and De Wette, have attacked the integrity of the prophecy of Zechariah, contending that the last six chapters are so unlike the first eight, that they must have had a different and much earlier authorship. Hengstenberg, among others, replied to these attacks. Now De Wette, in the last edition of his Introduction to the Old Testament, informs us, that he has given up his skepticism, and is willing to admit the integrity of the book, though he was not convinced by the arguments of Hengstenberg,

No book of the Old Testament has been subjected to more frequent and merciless assaults than that of Daniel. Old Porphyry blew the trumpet of war. The latest blast, so far as we have heard, is from Zengerke, a rationalist professor at Königsberg. Every possible objection has been urged, internal and external, doctrinal and moral, historical and chronological. Daniel was a dreamer of dreams. His prophecy has this signal advantage over others, as it is an oraculum post eventum. He had the first book of the Maccabees to guide him in his pretended insight into the future. All that is true in his predictions, says Porphyry, was written after their fulfillment. All that really had respect to the future, never came to pass, so that Daniel was an historian and nothing else. These, and similar allegations of the new Platonist, are the foundation of the greater part of what has been subsequently adduced against the book, though stores of learning and powers of acute criticism, of which Porphyry knew nothing, have been marshalled by his German descendants, the great doctors of neology.

No book, in our opinion, has been more unreasonably dealt with. If we can not make this appear to the satisfaction of our readers, it will not be for want of good reasons, but from lack of skill in the advocate. Two positions must be conceded in the outset. First, there is nothing in the miracles which are recorded in the book of Daniel, which should lead us, a priori, to reject them, or to put them over among the myths and sagas of Greek or Norse mythology. God could as easily, if occasion demanded, keep three men from being