At the obsequies of General Strong the fact was made apparent that a man had passed away whom a great busy community, felt called upon to honor, and the tenderest tributes of love, respect, and admiration were laid on his grave. Said one who paid tribute to his character and worth as a man and patriot: “It is befitting to preserve in memory and hand down to the generations something about a man who has helped to make citizens heroic soldiers, and to render possible the triumph of liberty and manhood. While his was a beneficent existence of many manly years, it seems to the view of man that he died before his time. It is but just to say of him that his conduct as a soldier, sprang from a truly patriotic, martyr spirit which enabled him to dare unflinchingly, with a smile to the green earth, and a smile to the bright heavens, and a cheer to his companions.”
Of striking appearance, pleasing manners and great personal magnetism, he drew around him a circle of friends which was composed of many of the men best known in public and official life, in the world of trade and commerce, and in the various professions. These men were drawn to him by his geniality, his candor, his culture, his broad liberality and his unswerving fidelity to his friends. He was of that chivalrous nature which was regarded as the distinguishing characteristic of the Preux Chevalier in the days of knight errantry and with it all, was the practical, level-headed man of affairs.
A brave soldier, a good citizen, a courteous gentleman, General Strong was a splendid type of American manhood.
Howard Louis Conard.
MISTAKES IN HISTORY—THE PILGRIMS NOT PURITANS BUT SEPARATISTS.
Among the wrong impressions and mistaken ideas which have been conveyed by writers and speakers during the last two hundred and fifty years, and even down to the present day, there are, perhaps, none more prominent and important than those relating to, and connected with, that most interesting body of people and most important event in our history—the Pilgrims and their coming to America. In no instance that is now called to mind, of the settling of a country or planting of a colony, have the motives and purposes of the colonists been so misrepresented and falsified, and so much fiction made to hang about their acts, as in the case of the Pilgrims. It is proposed in the present article to deal with two main ideas—who were the Pilgrims, and what were their objects or motives in coming to this country.
With regard to the first idea there seems to be great and unpardonable ignorance and confusion, for they were not Puritans nor Persecutors, as the latter became both in England and early in America, but were Separatists. Much has been done by Mr. Benjamin Scott, Chamberlain of the City of London, towards setting this matter right and putting it in proper shape before the public, and, he in turn, obtained much information through the studies and investigations of Dr. Waddington. The latter says: “The ignorance still existing on this subject is almost incredible. We find men of education who seem to have no exact information respecting the Pilgrim Fathers. Quarterly reviewers, members of Parliament, Christian divines and ecclesiastical historians speak of them with the same complacent disregard of facts.” The church presumed to dictate as to what kind of christians the Puritans should be, and the form and manner of worship they should adopt and be governed by. To these requirements there was a partial submission.
The Pilgrims separated from them because of this church imposition, and so became “Separatists.” Parliament declared, in Mary’s reign, the Pope to be the spiritual head of the church in England. When Elizabeth ascended to the throne 1558, she was confronted with this state of affairs respecting these matters, and issued a proclamation forbidding any change in the forms of religion, until they should be determined according to law. Thus it happened that there was no freedom to worship according to conscience for either Roman Catholics or Protestants. Elizabeth was opposed to Popery, but she was just as vindictive toward Protestants who did not shape their religious course and belief in accordance with her standard and the law of the State.
This Act of Supremacy, which she caused to be passed soon after she came into power, was not long after followed by the Act of Uniformity, which required everybody to worship, not only as the State directed, but also in the parish churches. Two years later came the crowning act in the adoption of the Articles of Religion; and the Church of England was established by the highest authority of the realm, and then commenced separations and persecutions. There were a few people, a small band, who found some errors yet left in the wake of the Reformation against which they protested. They also objected to any human power assuming that headship which they claimed belonged alone to Christ, and also asked the privilege of worshiping according to the simplicity of form and practice of the primitive Christians. Minor questions, such as baptism and the like, which have since given rise to divisions and sects, were not considered, and this little band of people, together with the Roman Catholics, were the only persons throughout England who objected to the church as the law had established it. Accordingly they formed themselves into distinct bodies, or associations, or churches, chose their own teachers and determined their own affairs. They claimed that the church was a spiritual association and should, therefore, be separated from the world, and was amenable only to the laws of Christ as given in the New Testament. Hence the name “Separatists.” They were simple in their manners and conduct and morals, and all these things rendered them unpopular and drew upon them the ill-will and enmity of the church, which found plenty of reason and many excuses and opportunities for persecuting them. There arose at this period another party, some of whom were English reformers, who had been driven from the country and had returned on the ascension of Elizabeth, but were disappointed to find that religious matters and laws had been settled and established.
Many of them however, accepted the change, including Royal Supremacy, Uniformity of Worship and Articles of Religion. They were nevertheless much dissatisfied, but hoped to effect still further changes and reformations. But in this they failed. This as will be seen, was a party within a party, a church within a church, or a party within the “establishment,” and they were the “Puritans.” In other words, the Protestants may be said to have been divided into three classes. The High Ritualists, Puritans and Separatists. High Ritualists claimed divine authority for the form of government, and the ceremonial of the Church of England. The king, they claimed, was the head of the church, as well as supreme in all civil matters and had power and authority over persons and property. The Puritans, on the contrary, believed none of these doctrines, although they were as devoted to the Church of England as was the other party, the High Ritualists, and the reforms they desired, they sought to make from within the church. Separation they regarded as the rankest kind of an offense, a terrible sin. To draw a comparison, or to make an illustration—the Puritans were Episcopalians—the low-church wing of that period. In another sense there was a difference or distinction between Puritans and Pilgrims: The Puritans had among their number, as influential persons, many of the nobility, men of business, capitalists and educated, fashionable and accomplished people. Indeed, during the entire reign of James I, they formed a majority in the House of Commons, and no person not a communicant of the Church of England could then sit in that body.