The Puritans and Sex

The Puritans and Sex
Author(s): Edmund S. Morgan

Source: The New England Quarterly , Dec., 1942, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Dec., 1942), pp. 591-607
Published by: The New England Quarterly, Inc.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/361501
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
The New England Quarterly, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The New England Quarterly
This content downloaded from

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE
NEW ENGLAND
Q ARTERLY
DECEMBER, 1942
THE PURITANS AND SEX
EDMUND S. MORGAN
T ENRY ADAMS once observed that Americans have
I "ostentatiously ignored" sex. He could

two American writers who touched upon t
any degree of boldness-Walt Whitman and Bret Harte.
Since the time when Adams made this penetrating observa-
tion, American writers have been making up for lost time in
a way that would make Bret Harte, if not Whitman, blush.
And yet there is still more truth than falsehood in Adams's
statement. Americans, by comparison with Europeans or
Asiatics, are squeamish when confronted with the facts of
life. My purpose is not to account for this squeamishness, but
simply to point out that the Puritans, those bogeymen of
the modern intellectual, are not responsible for it.
At the outset, consider the Puritans' attitude toward mar-
riage and the role of sex in marriage. The popular assumption
might be that the Puritans frowned on marriage and tried
to hush up the physical aspect of it as much as possible, but
listen to what they themselves had to say. Samuel Willard,
minister of the Old South Church in the latter part of the
seventeenth century and author of the most complete text-
591

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
592 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
book of Puritan divinity, more than once expressed his horror
at "that Popish conceit of the Excellency of Virginity."
Another minister, John Cotton, wrote that
Women are Creatures without which there is no comfortable

Living for man: it is true of them what is wont to be said
Governments, That bad ones are better than none: They ar
sort of Blasphemers then who dispise and decry them, and ca
them a necessary Evil, for they are a necessary Good.2
These sentiments did not arise from an interpretation o

marriage as a spiritual partnership, in which sexual inte
course was a minor or incidental matter. Cotton gave
opinion of "Platonic love" when he recalled the case of
one who immediately upon marriage, without ever approachi

the Nuptial Bed, indented with the Bride, that by mutual con
sent they might both live such a life, and according did seques
ing themselves according to the custom of those times, from
rest of mankind, and afterwards from one another too, in the
retired Cells, giving themselves up to a Contemplative life; an
this is recorded as an instance of no little or ordinary Vertu
but I must be pardoned in it, if I can account it no other tha
an effort of blind zeal, for they are the dictates of a blind m
they follow therein, and not of that Holy Spirit, which sa
It is not good that man should be alone.3
Here is as healthy an attitude as one could hope to fin

anywhere. Cotton certainly cannot be accused of ignorin
human nature. Nor was he an isolated example among th
Puritans. Another minister stated plainly that "the Use
the Marriage Bed" is "founded in mans Nature," and t
consequently any withdrawal from sexual intercourse up
the part of husband or wife "Denies all reliefe in Wedlo
1 Samuel Willard, A Compleat Body of Divinity (Boston, 1726), 125 a

608-613.
2 John Cotton, A Meet Help (Boston, 1699), 14-15.
3 A Meet Help, 16.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
PURITANS AND SEX 593
vnto Human necessity: and sends it for supply vn
ity when God gives not the gift of Continency."
words, sexual intercourse was a human necessity
riage the only proper supply for it. These were t
the New England clergy, the acknowledged leade
community, the most Puritanical of the Puritan
that their congregations concurred with them, on
the case in which the members of the First Church of Boston
expelled James Mattock because, among other offenses, "he
denyed Coniugall fellowship vnto his wife for the space of
2 years together vpon pretense of taking Revenge upon him-
self for his abusing of her before marryage." 5 So strongly
did the Puritans insist upon the sexual character of marriage
that one New Englander considered himself slandered when
it was reported, "that he Brock his deceased wife's hart with
Greife, that he wold be absent from her 3 weeks together
when he was at home, and wold never come nere her, and
such Like." 6
There was just one limitation which the Puritans placed

upon sexual relations in marriage: sex must not interfere
with religion. Man's chief end was to glorify God, and all
earthly delights must promote that end, not hinder it. Love
for a wife was carried too far when it led a man to neglect
his God:
... sometimes a man hath a good affection to Religion, but the

love of his wife carries him away, a man may bee so transported to
his wife, that hee dare not bee forward in Religion, lest hee dis-
please his wife, and so the wife, lest shee displease her husband,
and this is an inordinate love, when it exceeds measure.7
4 Edward Taylor, Commonplace Book (manuscript in the library of the

Massachusetts Historical Society).
5 Records of the First Church in Boston (manuscript copy in the library
of the Massachusetts Historical Society), 12.
6 Middlesex County Court Files, folder 42.
7 John Cotton, A Practical Commentary ... upon the First Epistle Gen-
erall of John (London, 1656), 126.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
Sexual pleasures, in this respect, were treated like other
kinds of pleasure. On a day of fast, when all comforts were
supposed to be foregone in behalf of religious contemplation,
not only were tasty food and drink to be abandoned but
sexual intercourse, too. On other occasions, when food, drink,
and recreation were allowable, sexual intercourse was allow-
able too, though of course only between persons who were
married to each other. The Puritans were not ascetics; they
never wished to prevent the enjoyment of earthly delights.
They merely demanded that the pleasures of the flesh be
subordinated to the greater glory of God: husband and wife
must not become "so transported with affection, that they
look at no higher end than marriage it self." "Let such as
have wives," said the ministers, "look at them not for their
own ends, but to be fitted for Gods service, and bring them
nearer to God." 8
Toward sexual intercourse outside marriage the Puritans
were as frankly hostile as they were favorable to it in mar-
riage. They passed laws to punish adultery with death, and
fornication with whipping. Yet they had no misconceptions
as to the capacity of human beings to obey such laws. Al-
though the laws were commands of God, it was only natural-
since the fall of Adam-for human beings to break them.
Breaches must be punished lest the community suffer the
wrath of God, but no offense, sexual or otherwise, could be
occasion for surprise or for hushed tones of voice. How
calmly the inhabitants of seventeenth-century New England
could contemplate rape or attempted rape is evident in the
following testimony offered before the Middlesex County
Court of Massachusetts:
The examination of Edward Wire taken the 7th of october and

alsoe Zachery Johnson. who sayeth that Edward Wires mayd be-
ing sent into the towne about busenes meeting with a man that
dogd hir from about Joseph Kettles house to goody marches.
8 A Practical Commentary, 126.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
She came into William Johnsones and desired Zachery
to goe home with her for that the man dogd hir. acco
went with her and being then as far as Samuell Phips
the man over tooke them. which man caled himselfe b
of peter grant would have led the mayd but she opose
times: and coming to Edward Wires house the said gr
have kist hir but she refused itt: wire being at prayer
the mayd between the said wiers and Nathanill fro
house. hee then flung the mayd downe in the stre
atop hir; Johnson seeing it hee caled vppon the fe
sivill and not abuse the mayd then Edward wire came
ran to the said grant and took hold of him asking hi
did to his mayd, the said grant asked whether she w
for he did nothing to his wife: the said grant swearin
be the death of the said wire. when he came of the mayd;
he would bring ten men to pul down his house and so
and they followed him as far as good[y] phipses house
mett with John Terry and George Chin with club
hands and soe they went away together. Zachy Johnso
Constable Heamans, and wire going home. there
Terry to his house to ask for beer and grant was in t
but afterward departed into the towne, both Johnso
both aferme that when grant was vppon the mayd sh
severall times.
Deborah hadlocke being examined sayth that she mett with the
man that cals himselfe peeter grant about good prichards that he
dogd hir and followed hir to hir masters and there threw hir
downe and lay vppon hir but had not the use of hir body but
swore several othes that he would ly with hir and gett hir with
child before she got home.
Grant being present denys all saying he was drunk and did not
know what he did.*
The Puritans became inured to sexual offenses, because

there were so many. The impression which one gets from
reading the records of seventeenth-century New England
9 Middlesex Files, folder 48.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
courts is that illicit sexual intercourse was fairly common.
The testimony given in cases of fornication and adultery-
by far the most numerous class of criminal cases in the rec-
ords-suggests that many of the early New Englanders pos-
sessed a high degree of virility and very few inhibitions. Be-
sides the case of Peter Grant, take the testimony of Elizabeth
Knight about the manner of Richard Nevars's advances
toward her:
The last publique day of Thanksgiving (in the year 1674) in

the evening as I was milking Richard Nevars came to me, and
offered me abuse in putting his hand, under my coates, but I
turning aside with much adoe, saved my self, and when I was
settled to milking he agen took me by the shoulder and pulled me
backward almost, but I clapped one hand on the Ground and
held fast the Cows teatt with the other hand, and cryed out, and
then came to mee Jonathan Abbot one of my Masters Servants,
whome the said Never asked wherefore he came, the said Abbot
said to look after you, what you doe unto the Maid, but the said
Never bid Abbot goe about his businesse but I bade the lad to
stay.10
One reason for the abundance of sexual offenses was the

number of men in the colonies who were unable to gratif
their sexual desires in marriage."1 Many of the first settlers ha
wives in England. They had come to the new world to mak
a fortune, expecting either to bring their families after them
or to return to England with some of the riches of Americ
Although these men left their wives behind, they brough
their sexual appetites with them; and in spite of laws whic
required them to return to their families, they continued
to stay, and more continued to arrive, as indictments agains
them throughout the seventeenth century clearly indicate.
11 Another reason was suggested by Charles Francis Adams in his scholarly
article, "Some Phases of Sexual Morality and Church Discipline in Coloni
New England," Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, xxv
477-516.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
Servants formed another group of men, and of w
who could not ordinarily find supply for hum
within the bounds of marriage. Most servants
homes of their masters and could not marry w
consent, a consent which was not likely to be
the prospective husband or wife also belonged t
household. This situation will be better understood if it is
recalled that most servants at this time were engaged by con-
tract for a stated period. They were, in the language of th
time, "covenant servants," who had agreed to stay with the
masters for a number of years in return for a specified re
ompense, such as transportation to New England or educati
in some trade (the latter, of course, were known more specifi
cally as apprentices). Even hired servants who worked for
wages were usually single, for as soon as a man had enoug
money to buy or build a house of his own and to get married,
he would set up in farming or trade for himself. It must
emphasized, however, that anyone who was not in busine
for himself was necessarily a servant. The economic organiz
tion of seventeenth-century New England had no place fo
the independent proletarian workman with a family of h
own. All production was carried on in the household by th
master of the family and his servants, so that most men were
either servants or masters of servants; and the former, of
course, were more numerous than the latter. Probably most
of the inhabitants of Puritan New England could remember
a time when they had been servants.
Theoretically no servant had a right to a private life. His
time, day or night, belonged to his master, and both religion
and law required that he obey his master scrupulously.12
But neither religion nor law could restrain the sexual im-
pulses of youth, and if those impulses could not be expressed
in marriage, they had to be given vent outside marriage.
Servants had little difficulty in finding the occasions. Though
12 On the position of servants in early New England see More Books, xvlI
(September, 1942), 311-328.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
they might be kept at work all day, it was easy enough to slip
away at night. Once out of the house, there were several
ways of meeting with a maid. The simplest way was to go to
her bedchamber, if she was so fortunate as to have a private
one of her own. Thus Jock, Mr. Solomon Phipps's Negro
man, confessed in court
that on the sixteenth day of May 1682, in the morning, betweene

12 and one of the clock, he did force open the back doores of the
House of Laurence Hammond in Charlestowne, and came in to
the House, and went up into the garret to Marie the Negro.
He doth likewise acknowledge that one night the last week he
forced into the House the same way, and went up to the Negro
Woman Marie and that the like he hath done at severall other
times before.l3
Joshua Fletcher took a more romantic way of visiting his lad
Joshua Fletcher... doth confesse and acknowledge that three

severall nights, after bedtime, he went into Mr Fiskes Dwelli
house at Chelmsford, at an open window by a ladder that
brought with him. the said windo opening into a chamber, wh
was the lodging place of Gresill Juell servant to mr. Fiske. an
there he kept company with the said mayd. she sometimes ha
ing her cloathes on, and one time he found her in her bed.14
Sometimes a maidservant might entertain callers in the parlo

while the family were sleeping upstairs. John Knight de
scribed what was perhaps a common experience for maste
The crying of his child awakened him in the middle of t
night, and he called to his maid, one Sarah Crouch, who w
supposed to be sleeping with the child. Receiving no answ
he arose and
went downe the stayres, and at the stair foot, the latch of doo
was pulled in. I called severall times and at the last said if shee

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
would not open the dore, I would breake it open, and
opened the doore shee was all undressed and Sarah La
her undressed, also the said Sarah went out of doores and
Dropped some of her clothes as shee went out. I enquired of
Sarah Crouch what men they were, which was with them. Shee
made mee no answer for some space of time, but at last shee tol
me Peeter Brigs was with them, I asked her whether Thoma
Jones was not there, but shee would give mee no answer.15
In the temperate climate of New England it was not alway

necessary to seek out a maid at her home. Rachel Smith wa
seduced in an open field "about nine of the clock at night
being darke, neither moone nor starrs shineing." She was
walking through the field when she met a man who
asked her where shee lived, and what her name was and shee told
him. and then shee asked his name, and he told her Saijing that
he was old Good-man Shepards man. Also shee saith he gave her
strong liquors, and told her that it was not the first time he had
been with maydes after his master was in bed.16
Sometimes, of course, it was not necessary for a servant to

go outside his master's house in order to satisfy his sexual
urges. Many cases of fornication are on record between ser-
vants living in the same house. Even where servants had no
private bedroom, even where the whole family slept in a
single room, it was not impossible to make love. In fact many
love affairs must have had their consummation upon a bed
in which other people were sleeping. Take for example the
case of Sarah Lepingwell. When Sarah was brought into court
for having an illegitimate child, she related that one night
when her master's brother, Thomas Hawes, was visiting the
family, she went to bed early. Later, after Hawes had gone to
bed, he called to her to get him a pipe of tobacco. After
refusing for some time,

16 Middlesex Files, folder 44-

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
at the last I arose and did lite his pipe and cam and lay do
one my one bead and smoaked about half the pip and siting
in my bead to giue him his pip my bead being a trundell be
at the sid of his bead he reached beyond the pip and Cauth m
by the wrist and pulled me on the side of his bead but I bid
him let me goe he bid me hold my peas the folks wold here
and if it be replyed come why did you not call out I Ansar I
posesed with fear of my mastar least my master shold think
it only to bring a scandall on his brothar and thinking thay
all beare witnes agaynst me but the thing is true that he did
begete me with child at that tim and the Child is Thomas Hau
and noe mans but his.
In his defense Hawes offered the testimony of another m

who was sleeping "on the same side of the bed," but the ju
nevertheless accepted Sarah's story.17
The fact that Sarah was intimidated by her master's brothe
suggests that maidservants may have been subject to sex
abuse by their masters. The records show that sometime
masters did take advantage of their position to force unwant
attentions upon their female servants. The case of Elizabe
Dickerman is a good example. She complained to the Midd
sex County Court,
against her master John Harris senior for profiring abus to h

by way of forsing her to be naught with him: ... he has tould
that if she tould her dame: what cariag he did show to her sh
had as good be hanged and shee replyed then shee would
away and he sayd run the way is befor you: ..she says if
should liwe ther shee shall be in fear of her lif.1s
The court accepted Elizabeth's complaint and ordered her

master to be whipped twenty stripes.
So numerous did cases of fornication and adultery become
in seventeenth-century New England that the problem of


207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
PURITANS AND SEX 6o01
caring for the children of extra-marit

one. The Puritans solved it, but in such
rather than decrease the temptation to
eral Court of Massachusetts ordered:
that where any man is legally convicted to be the Father of

Bastard childe, he shall be at the care and charge to maintain and
bring up the same, by such assistance of the Mother as nature re-
quireth, and as the Court from time to time (according to cir-
cumstances) shall see meet to Order: and in case the Father of a
Bastard, by confession or other manifest proof, upon trial of the
case, do not appear to the Courts satisfaction, then the Man
charged by the Woman to be the Father, shee holding constant
in it, (especially being put upon the real discovery of the truth
of it in the time of her Travail) shall be the reputed Father, and
accordingly be liable to the charge of maintenance as aforesaid
(though not to other punishment) notwithstanding his denial,
unless the circumstances of the case and pleas be such, on the
behalf of the man charged, as that the Court that have the cog-
nizance thereon shall see reason to acquit him, and otherwise
dispose of the Childe and education thereof.19
As a result of this law a girl could give way to temptation

without the fear of having to care for an illegitimate child
by herself. Furthermore, she could, by a little simple lying
spare her lover the expense of supporting the child. When
Elizabeth Wells bore a child, less than a year after this
statute was passed, she laid it to James Tufts, her master's
son. Goodman Tufts affirmed that Andrew Robinson, servant
to Goodman Dexter, was the real father, and he brought the
following testimony as evidence:
Wee Elizabeth Jefts aged 15 ears and Mary tufts aged 14 ears
doe testyfie that their being one at our hous sumtime the last
winter who sayed that thear was a new law made concerning
bastards that If aney man wear aqused with a bastard and th
19 William H. Whitmore, editor, The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts.
Reprinted from the Edition of i66o (Boston, 1889), 257.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
60o THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY
woman which had aqused him did stand vnto it in her labor that
he should bee the reputed father of it and should mayntaine it
Elizabeth Wells hearing of the sayd law she sayed vnto vs that If
shee should bee with Child shee would bee sure to lay it vn to
won who was rich enough abell to mayntayne it wheather it wear
his or no and shee farder sayed Elizabeth Jefts would not you doe
so likewise If it weare your case and I sayed no by no means for
right must tacke place: and the sayd Elizabeth wells sayed If it
wear my Caus I think I should doe so.20
A tragic unsigned letter that somehow found its way into the
files of the Middlesex County Court gives more direct evi-
dence of the practice which Elizabeth Wells professed:
der loue i remember my loue to you hoping your welfar and i

hop to imbras the but now i rit to you to let you nowe that i am
a child by you and i wil ether kil it or lay it to an other and you
shal have no blame at al for I haue had many children and none
have none of them.... [i.e., none of their fathers is supporting
any of them.]21
In face of the wholesale violation of the sexual codes to

which all these cases give testimony, the Puritans could n
maintain the severe penalties which their laws provide
Although cases of adultery occurred every year, the deat
penalty is not known to have been applied more than thr
times. The usual punishment was a whipping or a fine, o
both, and perhaps a branding, combined with a symbolic
execution in the form of standing on the gallows for an hour
with a rope about the neck. Fornication met with a light
whipping or a lighter fine, while rape was treated in the sam
way as adultery. Though the Puritans established a code o
laws which demanded perfection-which demanded, in othe
words, strict obedience to the will of God, they neverthel
knew that frail human beings could never live up to t

21 Middlesex Files, folder 30o.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
code. When fornication, adultery, rape, or e
and sodomy appeared, they were not surpris
they so severe with the offenders as their codes o
lead one to believe. Sodomy, to be sure, they u
ished with death; but rape, adultery, and forn
regarded as pardonable human weaknesses, a
likely to appear in a religious community, wher
course of sin was stopped by wholesome law
Bradford, in recounting the details of an epide
misdemeanors in Plymouth, wrote resignedly:
it may be in this case as it is with waters when the

stopped or damned up, when they gett passage the
more violence, and make more noys and disturban
they are suffered to rune quietly in their owne ch
ednes being here more stopped by strict laws, and
nerly looked unto, so as it cannot rune in a comone
ty as it would, and is inclined, it searches every wh
breaks out wher it getts vente.22
The estimate of human capacities here expre

Puritans not only to deal leniently with sexual
also to take every precaution to prevent such offe
than wait for the necessity of punishment. On
was to see that children got married as soon as
wrong way to promote virtue, the Puritans tho
"ensnare" children in vows of virginity, as the
As a result of such vows, children, "not being
tain," would be guilty of "unnatural pollution
filthy practices in secret: and too oft of horrid
the fruit of their bodies," said Thomas Cobbet
to avoid fornication and perversion was for par
vide suitable husbands and wives for their children:
22 William Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation (Boston, 1912), II,

309.
23 Thomas Cobbett, A Fruitfull and Usefull Discourse touching the Hon-
our due from Children to Parents and the Duty of Parents towards their
Children (London, 1656), 174.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
Lot was to blame that looked not out seasonably for some fit
matches for his two daughters, which had formerly minded mar-
riage (witness the contract between them and two men in Sodom,
called therfore for his Sons in Law, which had married his
daughters, Gen. 19. 14.) for they seeing no man like to come into
them in a conjugall way... then they plotted that incestuous
course, whereby their Father was so highly dishonoured.... 24
As marriage was the way to prevent fornication, success-

ful marriage was the way to prevent adultery. The Puritans
did not wait for adultery to appear; instead, they took every
means possible to make husbands and wives live together
and respect each other. If a husband deserted his wife and
remained within the jurisdiction of a Puritan government,
he was promptly sent back to her. Where the wife had been
left in England, the offense did not always come to light
until the wayward husband had committed fornication or
bigamy, and of course there must have been many offenses
which never came to light. But where both husband and
wife lived in New England, neither had much chance of
leaving the other without being returned by order of the
county court at its next sitting. When John Smith of Med-
field left his wife and went to live with Patience Rawlins,
he was sent home poorer by ten pounds and richer by thirty
stripes. Similarly Mary Drury, who deserted her husband on
the pretense that he was impotent, failed to convince the
court that he actually was so, and had to return to him as
well as to pay a fine of five pounds. The wife of Phillip Point-
ing received lighter treatment: when the court thought that
she had overstayed her leave in Boston, they simply ordered
her "to depart the Towne and goe to Tanton to her hus-
band." The courts, moreover, were not satisfied with mere
cohabitation; they insisted that it be peaceful cohabitation.
Husbands and wives were forbidden by law to strike one
another, and the law was enforced on numerous occasions.
24 Cobbett, 177.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
But the courts did not stop there. Henry Flood wa
to give bond for good behavior because he had
wife simply by "ill words calling her whore and
her." The wife of Christopher Collins was pres
railing at her husband and calling him "Gurley gut
Apparently in this case the court thought that M
lins was right, for although the fact was proved b
nesses, she was discharged. On another occasion t
favored the husband: Jacob Pudeator, fined for st
kicking his wife, had the sentence moderated
court was informed that she was a woman "of gr
cation." 25
Wherever there was strong suspicion that an illicit relation

might arise between two persons, the authorities removed
the temptation by forbidding the two to come together. As
early as November, 1630, the Court of Assistants of Massa-
chusetts prohibited a Mr. Clark from "cohabitacion and fre-
quent keepeing company with Mrs. Freeman, vnder paine
of such punishment as the Court shall thinke meete to inflict."
Mr. Clark and Mr. Freeman were both bound "in XX
apeece that Mr. Clearke shall make his personall appeara
att the nexte Court to be holden in March nexte, and in
meane tyme to carry himselfe in good behaviour toward
people and espetially towards Mrs. Freeman, concerne
whome there is stronge suspicion of incontinency." Forty-fi
years later the Suffolk County Court took the same kind
measure to protect the husbands of Dorchester from
temptations offered by the daughter of Robert Spurr. Sp
was presented by the grand jury
for entertaining persons at his house at unseasonable times b

by day and night to the greife of theire wives and Relations
25 Samuel E. Morison and Zechariah Chafee, editors, Records of

Suffolk County Court, z67z-z68o, Publications of the Colonial Societ
Massachusetts, xxix and xxx, 121, 410, 524, 837-841, and 1158; Georg
Dow, editor, Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex Cou
Massachusetts (Salem, 1911-1921), I, 274; and v, 377-

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
The Court having heard what was alleaged and testified again
him do Sentence him to bee admonish't and to pay Fees of Co
and charge him upon his perill not to entertain any married
to keepe company with his daughter especially James Minott
Joseph Belcher.
In like manner Walter Hickson was forbidden to keep c

pany with Mary Bedwell, "And if at any time hereafter
bee taken in company of the saide Mary Bedwell with
other company to bee forthwith apprehended by the C
stable and to be whip't with ten stripes." Elizabeth Whe
and Joanna Peirce were admonished "for theire disorde
carriage in the house of Thomas Watts being married wo
and founde sitting in other mens Laps with theire Arm
about theire Necks." How little confidence the Puritans had
in human nature is even more clearly displayed by another
case, in which Edmond Maddock and his wife were brought
to court "to answere to all such matters as shalbe objected
against them concerning Haarkwoody and Ezekiell Euerells
being at their house at unseasonable tyme of the night and
her being up with them after her husband was gone to bed."
Haarkwoody and Everell had been found "by the Constable
Henry Bridghame about tenn of the Clock at night sitting
by the fyre at the house of Edmond Maddocks with his wyfe
a suspicious weoman her husband being on sleepe [sic] on
the bedd." A similar distrust of human ability to resist temp-
tation is evident in the following order of the Connecticut
Particular Court:
James Hallett is to returne from the Correction house to his

master Barclyt, who is to keepe him to hard labor, and course
dyet during the pleasure of the Court provided that Barclet is
first to remove his daughter from his family, before the sayd
James enter therein.
These precautions, as we have already seen, did not eliminate

fornication, adultery, or other sexual offenses, but they doubt-

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC
less reduced the number from what it would otherwise
have been.26
In sum, the Puritan attitude toward sex, though directed
by a belief in absolute, God-given moral values, never neg-
lected human nature. The rules of conduct which the Puri-
tans regarded as divinely ordained had been formulated for
men, not for angels and not for beasts. God had created man-
kind in two sexes; He had ordained marriage as desirable for
all, and sexual intercourse as essential to marriage. On the
other hand, He had forbidden sexual intercourse outside of
marriage. These were the moral principles which the Puritans
sought to enforce in New England. But in their enforcement
they took cognizance of human nature. They knew well
enough that human beings since the fall of Adam were in-
capable of obeying perfectly the laws of God. Consequently,
in the endeavor to enforce those laws they treated offenders
with patience and understanding, and concentrated their
efforts on prevention more than on punishment. The result
was not a society in which most of us would care to live, for
the methods of prevention often caused serious interference
with personal liberty. It must nevertheless be admitted that
in matters of sex the Puritans showed none of the blind zeal
or narrow-minded bigotry which is too often supposed to
have been characteristic of them. The more one learns about
these people, the less do they appear to have resembled the
sad and sour portraits which their modern critics have drawn
of them.
26 Records of the Suffolk County Court, 442-443 and 676; John Noble,
editor, Records of the Court of Assistants of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay
(Boston, 1901-1928), 11, 8; Records of the Particular Court of Connecticut,
Collections of the Connecticut Historical Society, xxII, 2o; and a photostat in
the library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, dated March 29, 1653.

207.235.52.106 on Sat, 19 Sep 2020 20:41:07 UTC

The Puritans and Sex

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Puritans and Sex

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Puritans and Sex

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Puritans and Sex

Author(s): Edmund S. Morgan

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/361501

This content downloaded from