A GENERAL HISTORY OF THE BAPTIST
DENOMINATION IN AMERICA, AND OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD
By David Benedict

1813
London: Printed by Lincoln & Edmands, No. 53, Cornhill, for the Author

MASSACHUSETTS

There was not any church of the Baptist order founded in this State, until more than forty years after its settlement; but there were at first, and all along during this period, some persons of the Baptist persuasion, or to speak in the language of that day, persons tinctured with Anabaptistical errors, intermixed with the inhabitants. And before we proceed to the churches and associations in this Commonwealth, we shall exhibit it in one view, the number, names, circumstances, and sufferings of our brethren, and of those who were baptistically inclined, in this boasted asylum of religious freedom, up to the year 1883, when the first church in Swansea was founded.

It is asserted by Dr. Mather, in his Magnalia, that "some of the first planters in New England were Baptists;" and this assertion is corroborated by some of the laws and letters which will be mentioned in the following sketches. Roger Williams was not a Baptist practically while he resided in this government, but he, nevertheless, began here his baptistical career, and it is evident that the fear of the consequences of his popular ministry induced the priest-led magistrates to pass the cruel sentence of banishment against him. While he was at Plymouth, it was feared "that he would run the same course of rigid separation and Anabaptistry, which Mr. John Smith of Amsterdam had done;" and after he went to Salem, it is said, that "in one year?s time he filled that place with principles of rigid separation, tending to Anabaptism" [Backus, vol. i. p. 56]. Anabaptism, in the view of the Massachusetts people, was a heretical monster, of which they were most terribly afraid. It has always been found that the leading principles of the first reformers, when carried forward to their legitimate consequences, will endanger the cause of infant baptism. "Bishop Sanderson says, that the Revelation Archbishop Whitgift, and the learned Hooker, men of great judgment and famous in their times, did long since foresee, and declare their fear, that if ever Puritanism should prevail among us, it would soon draw in Anabaptism after it. This, Cartwright and the Disciplinarians denied, and were offended at. But these good men judged right, they considered only as prudent men, that Anabaptism had its rise from the same principles the Puritans held, and its growth from the same course they took; together with the natural tendency of their principles and practices toward it; especially that one principle, as it was then by them misunderstood, that the Scripture was adequata agendorum regula, so as nothing might be lawfully done without express warrant, either from some command or example therein contained; which clue, if followed as far as it would go, would certainly in time carry them as far as the Anabaptists had then gone." "This," says Mr. Callender, "I beg leave to look on as a most glorious concession, of the most able adversaries. One party contends that the scripture is the adequate rule of worship, and for the necessity of some command or example there; the other party say this leads to Anabaptism."

The Archbishop and Mr. Hooker were by no means mistaken in their conjectures; for so many of the Puritans as adhered strictly to that one principle, that the scripture is the adequate rule of worship, did become Anabaptists, as they were called; and the reason why all did not, was, that they would not allow this one powerful principle, which is sufficient to demolish the whole fabric of human inventions, to operate in all its force against infant baptism, but threw in its way Abraham?s covenant, and the traditions of the fathers.

The first settlers of New England knew by what they had seen at home, the danger of the Puritans running into Anabaptism; or to speak correctly, their disposition to revive to its apostolic purity the ordinance of baptism; they therefore continually made use of every precaution, to hush all inquiries, and to close every avenue of light upon the subject; and although we condemn their methods, we must at the same time confess that they were attended with too much success.

It was a long time before the Baptists could gain much ground in either of the colonies of Plymouth or Massachusetts. It is probable however that they would have gained establishments here much sooner than they did, notwithstanding the vehement zeal with which they were opposed, had not the glorious liberties of the little colony of Rhode Island offered them an asylum so much to their mind. But notwithstanding all their attempts to keep them out and to beat them down, it is evident there have been Baptists in this state, from its first settlement, which is now a period of upwards of a hundred and ninety years; and some distinguished persons resided here for a time, who became Baptists after they left the colony and settled in other parts. Hansard Knollys, who afterwards became a very distinguished Baptist minister in London, came over to this country in 1638, and landed at Boston, but afterwards went to Dover on the Piscataqua river, where he tarried a few years, and then went back to England.

In 1659, it seems there was an attempt to found a Baptist church at Weymouth, a town about fourteen miles southeast of Boston, which was, however, frustrated by the strong arguments of interposing magistrates. John Smith, John Spur, Richard Sylvester, Ambrose Morton, Thomas Mackpeace, and Robert Lenthal, were the principal promoters of this design. They were all arraigned before the General Court at Boston, March 13, 1639, where they were treated according to the order of the day; Smith, who was probably the greatest transgressor, was fined twenty pounds, and committed during the pleasure of the Court. Sylvester was fined twenty shillings and disfranchised. Morton was fined ten pounds, and counselled to go to Mr. Mather for instruction. Mackpeace had probably no money; he was not fined, but had a modest hint of banishment, unless he reformed. Lenthal it seems compromised the matter with the court for the present; consented to appear before it at the next session; was enjoined to acknowledge his fault, and soon. How matters finally terminated with him I do not find; but it is certain he soon after went to Mr. Clark?s settlement on Rhode Island, and began to preach there before the first church in Newport was formed.

The court having thus dispersed the heretical combination, "thought fit to set apart a day of humiliation, to seek the face of God, and reconciliation with him by our Lord Jesus Christ, etc." [Backus? History, etc. vol. i. p. 113, 114].

In 1640, Mr. Charles Chauncey came over to this country; he was an advocate for the doctrine of dipping in baptism, but at the same time held that infants were proper subjects of the ordinance. He was esteemed a great scholar and a godly man. The church in Plymouth were anxious to settle him amongst them; but they were as strenuous for sprinkling as he was for immersion. "There was much trouble about the matter. The magistrates and the elders there, and the most of the people, withstood the reviving of that practice, (that is immersion) not for itself so much as for fear of worse consequences, as the annihilating our baptism, etc." [Winthrop?s journal as quoted by Backus.] The church finally proposed that Mr. Reyner, their other minister, with whom he was to be associated, should do all the sprinkling, so that he should not be obliged to administer the sacred rite, only in his own way; but with this temporizing proposal, "he did not see light to comply." For although he was but half right, yet he was strong so far as he had gone. From Plymouth, Mr. Chauncey went to Scituate, a town on the Massachusetts Bay, about twenty-eight miles southeast of Boston, where he was settled and resided many years. We are told that "here he persevered in his opinion of dipping in baptism, and practiced accordingly, first upon two of his own children, which being in very cold weather, one of them swooned away; another having a child about three years old, but fearing it would be frightened, as others had been, carried it to Boston, with testimonials from Chauncey, where the seal of the covenant was impressed upon it in a milder form."

Mr. Backus well observes, that "Mr. Chauncey?s grand difficulty in burying in Baptism, was his admitting subjects, who had not the faith or discretion necessary for such an action" [Backus? History, etc. vol. i. p. 115 and 145, 146].

There is, it must be acknowledged, a conformity between babes and sprinkling. Both of them are puerile things, and seem well fitted for each other.

The same year in which Mr. Chauncey came over, a female of considerable distinction, whom Governor Winthrop calls the Lady [Deborah] Moody, and who, according to the account of that candid statesman and historian, was a wise, amiable, and religious woman, "was taken with the error of denying baptism to infants." She had purchased a plantation at Lynn, ten miles northeast of Boston, of one Humphrey, who had returned to England. She belonged to the church in Salem, to which she was near, where she was dealt with by many of the elders and others; but persisting in her error, and to escape the storm which she saw gathering over her head, she removed to Long Island and settled among the Dutch. "Many others infested with Anabaptism removed thither also." Eleven years after Mrs. Moody?s removal, Messrs. Clark, Holmes, and Crandal, went to visit some Baptists at Lynn, by the request of an aged brother, whose name was William Witter. This circumstance makes it probable, that although many Anabaptists went off with this lady, yet there were some left behind. We shall soon have occasion to take more particular notice of the Baptists in this place.

In 1644, we are informed by Mr. Hubbard, that "a poor man, by the name of [Thomas] Painter, was suddenly turned Anabaptist, and having a child born would not suffer his wife to carry it to be baptized. He was complained of for this to the court, and enjoined by them to suffer his child to be baptized. But poor Painter had the misfortune to dissent both from the church and court. He told them that infant baptism was an antichristian ordinance, for which he was tied up and whipt. He bore his chastisement with fortitude, and declared that he had divine help to support him. The same author who recorded this narrative, intimates that this poor sufferer "was a man of very loose behavior at home." This accusation was altogether a thing of course; it would have been almost a miracle, for a poor Anabaptist to have been a holy man. Governor Winthrop tells us he belonged to Hingham, and says he was whipt "for reproaching the Lord?s ordinance." Upon which Mr. Backus judiciously inquires, "did not they who whipt this poor, conscientious man, reproach infant sprinkling, by taking such methods to support it, more than Painter did?" [Backus? History, vol. i. p. 147, 148.]

About this time Mr. [Roger] Williams returned from England, with the charter for Rhode Island, and landed at Boston. He brought with him a letter, signed by twelve members of Parliament, addressed to the Governor, Assistants, and people of Massachusetts, exhorting them to lenient measures towards their dissenting brethren, and towards Mr. Williams in particular. The sentence of banishment yet lay upon him, which these noble advocates for liberty besought them to remove. But every avenue of compunction and mercy was closed; "Upon the receipt of this letter the Governor and magistrates of Massachusetts found, upon examination of their hearts, no reason to condemn themselves for any former proceedings against Mr. Williams, etc." [Hubbard, as quoted by Backus, vol. i. p. 155-6.]

The Baptists and those inclined to their sentiments were, doubtless, emboldened by the favor which Mr. Williams had obtained at home, and by knowing that he had obtained the royal assent for a colony which would afford them an asylum in time of danger. About this time, we are told by Winthrop, that "the Anabaptists increased and spread in Massachusetts." This increase was a most fearful and ungrateful sight to the rulers of this colony, and was doubtless the means of leading the General Court to pass the following act for the suppression of this obnoxious sect.

"Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of commonwealths, and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been, and that they, who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do) concealed the same, till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this kind have, since our coming into New England, appeared, amongst ourselves, some whereof (as others before them), denied the ordinance of magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table; which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed that if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the court willfully and obstinately to continue therein after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be sentenced to banishment."

This was the first law which was made against the Baptists in Massachusetts. It was passed November 13th, 1644, about two months after Mr. Williams landed in Boston as above related. Two charges, which it contains, Mr. Backus acknowledges are true, namely that the Baptists denied infant baptism and the ordinance of magistracy; or as a Baptist would express it, the use of secular force in religious affairs; but all the other slanderous invectives he declares are utterly without foundation. He furthermore asserts, that he had diligently searched all the books, records, and papers, which he could find on all sides, and could not find an instance then (1777) of any real Baptist in Massachusetts being convicted of, or suffering for any crime, except the denying of infant baptism, and the use of secular force in religious affairs.

If a Puritan Court in the seventeenth century, professing to be illuminated with the full blaze of the light of the Reformation, could thus defame the advocates for apostolic principles, will any think it strange if we suspect the frightful accounts which were given of them in darker ages by a set of monkish historians, who believed that fraud and falsehood were christian virtues, if they could be made subservient to the good of the church? Mr. Hubbard, one of their own historians, speaking of their making this law says, "but with what success it is hard to say; all men being naturally inclined to pity them that suffer, etc." The clergy doubtless had a hand in framing this shameful act, as they, at this time, were the secretaries and counsellors of the Legislature.

Mr. Backus? observations upon these measures, and the men by whom they were promoted, are very judicious. "Much (says he) has been said to exalt the characters of the good fathers of that day: I have no desire of detracting from any of their virtues; but the better the men were, the worse must be the principles that could ensnare them in such bad actions."

Mr. Hubbard informs us, that "at a General Court in March, 1645, two petitions were preferred, one for suspending (if not abolishing) a law made against the Anabaptists the former year; the other was for easing a law of like nature made in Mrs. Hutchinson?s time, forbidding the entertaining of any strangers, without license of two magistrates, etc. But some, continues the same author, at this time were much afraid of the increase of Anabaptism. This was the reason why the greater part prevailed for the strict observation of the aforesaid laws, although peradventure a little moderation as to some cases might have done very well, if not better.

Many books, coming out of England in this year, some in defense of Anabaptism and other errors, and for liberty of conscience as a shelter for a general toleration of all opinions, led the ministers of all the United Colonies to meet at Cambridge, etc. One of the Anabaptist books above referred to was sent by the famous John Tombes. It was an examination of a sermon in defense of infant baptism, preached by Stephen Marshall, and dedicated to the Westminster Assembly. Soon after the news reached England of the law to banish the Baptists, Mr. Tombes sent a copy of his work to the ministers of New England, and with it an epistle dated from the Temple in London, May 25, 1645, "hoping thereby to put them upon a more exact study of that controversy, and to allay their vehemency against the Baptists." "But the Westminster Assembly, says Backus, were more ready to learn severity from this country, than these were to learn lenity from any."

Soon after Mr. Tombes sent over his book and letter, Sir Henry Vane, whose interest was then very great in Parliament, wrote to Governor Winthrop as follows:

"Honored Sir, I received yours by your son, and was unwilling to let him return without telling you as much. The exercise and troubles which God is pleased to lay upon these kingdoms, and the inhabitants in them, teaches us patience and forbearance one with another in some measure, though there be difference in our opinions, which makes me hope, that from the experience here, it may also be derived to yourselves, lest, while the Congregational way amongst you is in its freedom, and is backed with power, it teach its oppugners here, to extirpate it and root it out, from its own principles and practice. I shall need say no more, knowing your son can acquaint you particularly with our affairs. Sir, I am your affectionate friend, and servant in Christ, H. VANE June 10, 1645"

All these remonstrances, however, were unavailing, and the bigoted New Englanders persisted in their persecuting career. And lest their exterminating laws should not effect the business, the press was set to work to prevent the alarming progress of Anabaptistical errors. In this year, three pieces were written for this purpose by Messrs. Cotton of Boston, Cobbet of Lynn, and Ward of Ipswich, then called by its Indian name Agawam. Cotton and Cobbet lay some strange charges against the devil, for seeking to undermine the cause of infant baptism, because it is not commanded in the Scripture. The reader will doubtless be astonished at this assertion; but let him read the following quotations fairly made, and then he may judge whether it is not correct. Mr. Cotton says, Satan, despairing of success by more powerful arguments, "chooseth rather to play small game, as they say, than lost all. He now pleadeth no other argument in these stirring times of reformation, than may be urged from a main principle of purity and reformation, namely That no duty of God?s worship, nor any ordinance of religion is to be administered in the church, but such as hath just warrant from the word of God. And in urging this argument against the baptism of children, Satan transformeth himself into an angel of light," [Cotton?s Grounds and Ends of Children?s Baptism, p. 3, 4, as quoted by Backus, vol. i. p. 176] and so on. This was the great Mr. Cotton, who, for many years, was the bishop and legislator of New England. He was doubtless a great and good man; he reasoned well on many subjects, and the absurdity of his arguments here must be ascribed to the weakness of the cause which they were intended to support. His successors have made great improvements in arguing this point, but we must acknowledge that the Baptists have made none at all. What was their main principle then, is their main principle now. They wish it not to be altered or amended, but are willing it should stand just as Mr. Cotton has stated it. It has ever proved an insurmountable barrier against all the assaults of their enemies, and so far as it is permitted to operate, is sure to beat down all the inventions of men. But the greatest curiosity is, that this Reverend Divine accuses the devil of helping them to it.

Mr. Cobbet accuses Satan of having a special spite at the seed of the church. He says it is one of Satan?s old tricks to create scruples in the hearts of God?s people about infant baptism. And Thus it is written, and Thus saith the Lord, according to this singular divine, are nothing but "satanical suggestions."

The Baptists feel perfectly secure against this kind of logic, and the deceivers of mankind would doubtless be much obliged to his adversaries if they would never assault his kingdom with any more powerful weapons. The last of this mighty triumvirate does not lay so much of the blame to satan; but his arguments are, if possible, still more weak and contemptible. He accuses the Anabaptists of a " high pitch of boldness in cutting a principal ordinance out of the kingdom of God." He also charges them with the crime of "dislocating, disgooding, unhallowing, transplacing, and transtiming a stated institution of Jesus Christ." "What a cruelty is it," says he, "to divest children of that only external privilege, which their heavenly Father hath bequeathed them, to interest them visibly in himself, his Son, his Spirit, his covenant of peace, and the tender bosom of their careful mother, the church. What an inhumanity it is, to deprive parents of that comfort they may take from the baptism of their infants dying in their childhood!" [Backus, vol. i. p. 184.]

Had the Pedobaptists in Massachusetts assaulted our brethren with no weapons more powerful than their pens, they would have had nothing to fear. But if the arguments of their divines were weak and contemptible, those of their magistrates were strong and cruel as we shall soon have occasion to observe.

Hitherto but few instances of corporal punishments had taken place among our brethren in the Massachusetts colony. Most of the fathers of it were yet alive, and had grown gray in the midst of their persecutions at home, and their labors here. It is charitably doubted by some, whether they had it in their hearts at first to imitate the bloody scenes from which they had fled. Such would suppose that their threatening legislative acts were intended merely to be hung out as a terror to dissenters from the idol uniformity which they had set up. But be that as it may, they had established a principle fraught with blood. Roger Williams, secure in his little colony at Providence, foresaw the sanguinary storm, which was approaching, and which, according to his prediction, soon burst upon this Commonwealth, and blotted its annals with an indelible stain. With a view to open the eyes of his old neighbors and associates to the tendency of their maxims, he published his piece, entitled, "The Bloody Tenet," etc. as early as 1644. But remonstrances were vain. The bloody tenet was scrupulously maintained, and hurried forward to its baneful consequences, so that in 1651, the Baptists were unmercifully whipped, and not long after, the Quakers were murderously hung.

We are now prepared to give an account of a scene of suffering peculiarly cruel and afflictive.

PERSECUTION AGAINST CLARK, HOLMES, CRANDAL

We have already seen that there were some Baptists at Lynn, in 1640, when the lady Moody left the place, and it is probable that a little band remained there until the period now under consideration. In July, 1651, Messrs. Clark, Holmes, and Crandal, "being the representatives of the church in Newport, upon the request of William Witter of Lynn, arrived there, he being a brother in the church, who, by reason of his advanced age, could not undertake so great a journey as to visit the church." This account is found among the records of the ancient church at Newport. The circumstance of these men being representatives, lead us to infer that something was designed more than an ordinary visit. Mr. Witter lived about two miles out of the town, and the next day after his brethren arrived, being Lord?s day, they concluded to spend it in religious worship at his house. While Mr. Clark was preaching from Revelation 3:10, "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also, will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth," and illustrating what was meant by the hour of temptation and keeping the word with patience, "two constables, (says he) came into the house, who, with their clamorous tongues, made an interruption in my discourse, and more uncivilly disturbed us than the pursuivants of the old English bishops were wont to do, telling us that they were come with authority from the magistrate to apprehend us. I then desired to see the authority by which they thus proceeded, whereupon they plucked forth their warrant, and one of them with a trembling hand, (as conscious he might have been better employed) read it to us; the substance whereof was as followeth: 'By virtue hereof, you are required to go to the house of William Witter, and so to search from house to house, for certain erroneous persons, being strangers, and them to apprehend, and in safe custody to keep, and tomorrow morning at eight o?clock to bring before me, Robert Bridges.'

"When he had read the warrant, I told them, Friends, there shall not be, I trust, the least appearance of a resisting of that authority by which you come unto us; yet I tell you, that by virtue hereof, you are not strictly tied, but if you please you may suffer us to make an end of what we have begun, so may you be witnesses either to or against the faith and order which we hold. To which they answered they could not. Then said we, notwithstanding the warrant, or any thing therein contained, you may. They apprehended us and carried us away to the alehouse or ordinary, where at dinner one of them said unto us, Gentlemen, if you be free I will carry you to the meeting. To whom it was replied, Friend, had we been free thereunto we had prevented all this; nevertheless we are in thy hand, and if thou wilt carry us to the meeting thither will we go. To which he answered, Then will I carry you to the meeting. To this we replied, If thou forcest us into your assembly, then shall we be constrained to declare ourselves, that we cannot hold communion with them. The constable answered, That is nothing to me, I have not power to command you to speak when you come there, or to be silent. To this I again replied, Since we have heard the word of salvation by Jesus Christ, we have been taught, as those that first trusted in Christ, to be obedient unto him both by word and deed; wherefore, if we be forced to your meeting, we shall declare our dissent from you both by word and gesture. After all this, when he had consulted with the man of the house, he told us he would carry us to the meeting; so to their meeting we were brought, while they were at their prayers and uncovered; and at my first stepping over the threshold I unveiled myself, civilly saluted them, and turned into the seat I was appointed to, put on my hat again, and sat down, opened my book and fell to reading. Mr. Bridges being troubled, commanded the constable to pluck off our hats, which he did, and where he laid mine, there I let it lie, until their prayers, singing, and preaching was over; after this, I stood up and uttered myself in these words following: I desire as a stranger to propose a few things to this congregation, hoping in the proposal thereof, I shall commend myself to your consciences to be guided by that wisdom that is from above, which, being pure, is also peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated; and therewith made a stop, expecting that if the Prince of peace had been among them, I should have had a suitable answer of peace from them. Their pastor answered, We will have no objections against what is delivered. To which I answered, I am not about at present to make objections against what is delivered, but as by my gesture at my coming into your assembly, I declared my dissent from you, so lest that should prove offensive unto some whom I would not offend, I would now by word of mouth declare the grounds, which are these: First, from consideration we are strangers each to other, and so strangers to each other?s inward standing, with respect to God, and so cannot conjoin and act in faith, and what is not of faith, is sin. And in the second place, I could not judge that you are gathered together, and walk according to the visible order of our Lord. Which, when I had declared, Mr. Bridges told me I had done, and spoke that for which l must answer, and so commanded silence. When their meeting was done, the officers carried us again to the ordinary, where being watched over that night as thieves and robbers, we were the next morning carried before Mr. Bridges, who made our mittimus, and sent us to the prison at Boston."

About a fortnight after, the court of assistants passed the following sentences against these persecuted men, namely that Mr. Clark should pay a fine of twenty pounds, Mr. Holmes of thirty, and Mr. Crandal of five, or be publicly whipped. They all refused to pay their fines, and were remanded back to prison. Some of Mr. Clark?s friends paid his fine without his consent. Mr. Crandal was released upon his promise of appearing at their next court. But he was not informed of the time until it was over, and then they exacted his fine of the keeper of the prison. The only crime alleged against Mr. Crandal was his being in company with his brethren. But Mr. Holmes was kept in prison until September, and then the sentence of the law was executed upon him in the most cruel and unfeeling manner. In the course of the trial against these worthy men, Mr. Clark defended himself and brethren with so much ability, that the court found themselves much embarrassed. "At length, says Mr. Clark, the Governor stepped up and told us we had denied infant baptism, and being somewhat transported, told me I had deserved death, and said he would not have such trash brought into their jurisdiction; moreover he said, "you go up and down, and secretly insinuate into those that are weak, but you cannot maintain it before our ministers. You may try and dispute with them." To this I had much to reply, but he commanded the gaoler to take us away. So the next morning, having so fair an opportunity, I made a motion to the court in these words following:

"To the honourable court assembled at Boston. Whereas it pleased this honored court yesterday, to condemn the faith and order which I hold and practise; and after you had passed your sentence upon me for it, were pleased to express, I could not maintain the same against your ministers, and thereupon publicly proffered me a dispute with them: Be pleased by these few lines to understand, I readily accept it, and therefore desire you to appoint the time when, and the person with whom, in that public place where I was condemned, I might with freedom, and without molestation of the civil power, dispute that point publicly, where I doubt not by the strength of Christ to make it good out of his last will and testament, unto which nothing is to be added, nor from which nothing is to be diminished. Thus desiring the Father of lights to shine forth, and by his power to expel the darkness, I remain your well-wisher, JOHN CLARK From the prison, this 1st day, 6th month, 1651"

This motion, if granted, I desire might be subscribed by their Secretary?s hand, as an act of the same court, by which we were condemned."

This motion was presented, and after much consultation, one of the magistrates informed Mr. Clark, that a disputation was granted to be the next week. But on the Monday following, the clergy held a consultation, and made no small stir about the matter, for although they had easily foiled these injured men in a court of law, yet they might well anticipate some difficulty in the open field of argument, which they were absolutely afraid to enter, as will soon appear. Near the close of the day, the magistrates sent for Mr. Clark into their chamber, and inquired whether he would dispute upon the things contained in his sentence, etc. "For," said they, "the court sentenced you, not for your judgment and conscience; but for matter of fact and practice." To which Mr. Clark replied, "You say the court condemned me for matter of fact and practice: be it so. I say that matter of fact and practice was but the manifestation of my judgment and conscience; and I make account, that man is void of judgment and conscience, with respect unto God, that hath not a fact and practice suitable thereunto. If the faith and order which I profess do stand by the word of God, then the faith and order which you profess must needs fall to the ground; and if the way you walk in remain, then the way that walk in must vanish away; they cannot both stand together: to which they seemed to assent; therefore I told them, that if they please to grant the motion under the Secretary?s hand, I would draw up the faith and order which I hold, as the sum of that I did deliver in open court, in three or four conclusions, which conclusions I will stand by and defend, until he, whom you shall appoint, shall, by the word of God, remove me from them; in case he shall remove me from them, then the disputation is at an end. But if not, then I desire like liberty by the word of God, to oppose the faith and order which he and you profess, thereby to try whether I may be an instrument in the hand of God to remove you from the same. They told me the motion was very fair, and the way like unto a disputant, saying, because the matter is weighty, and we desire that what can, may be spoken, when the disputation shall be, therefore would we take a longer time. So I returned with my keeper to prison again, drew up the conclusions, which I was resolved, through the strength of Christ, to stand in defense of, and through the importunity of one of the magistrates, the next morning very early I showed them to him, having a promise I should have my motion for a dispute granted under the Secretary?s hand."

Mr. Clark?s resolutions were four in number, and contain the leading sentiments of the Baptists, which have been the same in every age respecting positive institutions, the subjects and mode of baptism, and gospel liberty and civil rights. But while he was making arrangements and preparing for a public dispute, his fine was paid, and he was released from prison.

Great expectations had been raised in Boston and its vicinity respecting this dispute, and many were anxious to hear it. And Mr. Clark, knowing that his adversaries would attribute the failure of it to him, immediately on his release drew up the following address:

"Whereas, through the indulgency of tender-hearted friends, without my consent, and contrary to my judgment, the sentence and condemnation of the court at Boston (as is reported) have been fully satisfied on my behalf, and thereupon a warrant hath been procured, by which I am secluded the place of my imprisonment, by reason whereof I see no other call for present but to my habitation, and to those near relations which God hath given me there; yet, lest the cause should hereby suffer, which I profess is Christ?s, I would hereby signify, that if yet it shall please the honored magistrates, or General Court of this colony, to grant my former request under their Secretary?s hand, I shall cheerfully embrace it, and upon your motion shall, through the help of God, come from the island to attend it, and hereunto I have subscribed my name, JOHN CLARK 11th day, 6th month, 1651"

This address was sent next morning to the magistrates, who were at the commencement at Cambridge, a short distance from Boston, and it was soon noised abroad that the motion was accepted, and that Mr. Cotton was to be the disputant on the Pedobaptist side. But in a day or two after, Mr. Clark received the following address from his timorous adversaries:

Mr. John Clark,

"We conceive you have misrepresented the Governor?s speech, in saying you were challenged to dispute with some of our elders; whereas it was plainly expressed, that if you would confer with any of them, they were able to satisfy you, neither were you able to maintain your practice to them by the word of God, all which we intended for your information and conviction privately; neither were you enjoined to what you were then counselled unto; nevertheless, if you are forward to dispute, and that you will move it yourself to the court or magistrates about Boston, we shall take order to appoint one, who will be ready to answer your motion, you keeping close to the questions to be propounded by yourself, and a moderator shall be appointed also to attend upon the service; and whereas you desire you might be free in your dispute, keeping close to the points to be disputed on, without incurring damage by the civil justice, observing what hath been before written, it is granted; the day may be agreed, if you yield the premises. JOHN ENDICOTT, Governor THOMAS DUDLEY, Deputy Governor RICHARD BELLINGHAM, WILLIAM HIBBINS, INCREASE NOWEL. 11th day of the 6th month, 1651."

This communication Mr. Clark answered in the following manner:

"To the honored Governor of the Massachusetts, and the rest of that Honorable Society these present. Worthy Senators,

I received a writing subscribed with five of your hands, by way of answer to a twice repeated motion of mine before you, which was grounded as I conceive sufficiently upon the Governor?s words in open court, which writing of yours doth no way answer my expectation, nor yet that motion which I made; and whereas (waving that grounded motion) you are pleased to intimate that if I were forward to dispute, and would move it myself to the court, or magistrates about Boston, you would appoint one to answer my motion, etc. be pleased to understand, that although I am not backward to maintain the faith and order of my Lord the King of saints, for which I have been sentenced, yet am I not in such a way so forward to dispute, or move therein lest inconvenience should arise. I shall rather once more repeat my former motion, which, if it shall please the honored General Court to accept, and under their Secretary?s hand shall grant a free dispute, without molestation or interruption, I shall be well satisfied therewith; that what is past I shall forget, and upon your motion shall attend it; thus desiring the Father of mercies, not to lay that evil to your charge, I remain your well-wisher, JOHN CLARK From prison, this 14th day, 6th month, 1651"

Thus ended Mr. Clark?s chastisement and the Governor?s challenge. The last communication, which he had from his fearful opponents, was indeed signed by the heads of departments, but it was not made in official manner. Mr. Clark all alone kept in view the law which had been made seven years before, which threatened so terribly anyone, who should oppose infant baptism. This was the reason of his requesting an order for the dispute in a legal form. But it was abundantly evident to him, as it will be to every impartial reader, that neither the great Mr. Cotton, nor any of his clerical brethren, dared to meet him in a verbal combat. Infant baptism was safe while defended by the sword of the magistrate, but they dared not risk it in the field of argument. Mr. Clark therefore left his adversaries in triumph; but poor Mr. Holmes was retained a prisoner, and in the end experienced the full weight of their cruel intolerance. An account of his sufferings is thus related by himself.

"Unto the well-beloved brethren, John Spillsbury, William Kiffen, and the rest that in London stand fast in the faith, and continue to walk stedfastly in that order of the gospel, which was once delivered unto the saints by Jesus Christ: Obadiah Holmes, an unworthy witness that Jesus is the Lord, and of late a prisoner for Jesus? sake, at Boston, sendeth greeting.

"Dearly beloved and longed after, My heart?s desire is to hear from you, and to hear that you grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, etc.

"Not long after these troubles (at Rehoboth which he relates in the first part of this letter) I came upon occasion of business into the colony of the Massachusetts, with two other brethren, as brother Clark being one of the two can inform you, where we three were apprehended, carried to Boston, and so to the court, and were all sentenced; what they laid to my charge you may here read in my sentence;* upon the pronouncing of which, as I went from the bar, I expressed myself in these words: I bless God I am counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus. Whereupon John Wilson (their pastor, as they call him) struck me before the judgment seat, and cursed me, saying, the curse of God or Jesus go with thee: So we were carried to the prison, where not long after I was deprived of my two loving friends, at whose departure the adversary stepped in, took hold of my spirit, and troubled me for the space of an hour, and then the Lord came in and sweetly relieved me, causing to look to himself, so was I stayed, and refreshed in the thoughts of my God; and although during the time of my imprisonment, the tempter was busy, yet it pleased God so to stand at my right hand, that the motions were but sudden, and so vanished away; and although there were that would have paid the money, if I would accept it, yet I durst not accept of deliverance in such a way, and therefore my answer to them was, that although I would acknowledge their love to a drop of cold water, yet could I not thank them for their money, if they should pay it. So the court drew near, and the night before I should suffer according to my sentence, it pleased God I rested and slept quietly; in the morning my friends came to visit me, desiring me to take the refreshment of wine and other comforts; but my resolution was not to drink wine nor strong drink that day, until my punishment was over; and the reason was, lest in case I had more strength, courage, and boldness, than ordinarily could be expected, the world should either say he is drunk with new wine, or else that the comfort and strength of the creature hath carried him through; but my course was this: I desired brother John Hazel to bear my friend?s company, and I betook myself to my chamber, where I might communicate with my God, commit myself to him, and beg strength from him. I had no sooner sequestered myself, and come into my chamber, but satan lets fly at me, saying, Remember thyself, thy birth, breeding, and friends, thy wife, children, name and credit; but as this was sudden, so there came in sweetly from the Lord as sudden an answer, Tis for my Lord, I must not deny him before the sons of men, (for that were to set men above him, but rather lose all, yea, wife, children, and mine own life also: To this the tempter replies, Oh, but that is the question, is it for him? and for him alone? is it not rather for thy own or some other?s sake? thou hast so professed and practiced, and now art loth to deny it; is not pride and self at the bottom? Surely this temptation was strong, and thereupon I made diligent search after the matter, as formerly I had done, and after a while there was even as it had been a voice from heaven in my very soul, bearing witness with my conscience, that it was not for any man?s case or sake in this world, that so I had professed and practiced, but for my Lord?s cause and sake, and for him alone; whereupon my spirit was much refreshed; as also in the consideration of these three scriptures, which speak on this wise, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God?s elect? Although I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, thy rod and thy staff, they shall comfort me. And he that continueth to the end, the same shall be saved. But then came in the consideration of the weakness of the flesh to bear the strokes of a whip, though the spirit was willing, and thereupon I was caused to pray earnestly unto the Lord, that he would be pleased to give me a spirit of courage and boldness, a tongue to speak for him, and strength of body to suffer for his sake, and not to shrink or yield to the strokes, or shed tears, lest the adversaries of the truth should thereupon blaspheme and be hardened, and the weak and feeble-hearted discouraged, and for this I sought the Lord earnestly; at length he satisfied my spirit to give up, as my soul, so my body unto him, and quietly to leave the whole disposing of the matter to him; and so I addressed myself in as comely a manner as I could, having such a Lord and Master to serve in this business. And when I heard the voice of my keeper come for me, even cheerfulness did come upon me, and taking my Testament in my hand, I went along with him to the place of execution, and after a common salutation there stood. There stood by also one of the magistrates, by name Increase Nowel, who for a while kept silent, and spoke not a word, and so did I, expecting the Governor?s presence, but he came not. But after a while Mr. Nowel bade the executioner do his office. Then I desired to speak a few words, but Mr. Nowel answered, it is not now a time to speak. Whereupon I took leave, and said, men, brethren, fathers, and countrymen, I beseech you give me leave to speak a few words, and the rather because here are many spectators to see me punished, and I am to seal with my blood, if God give strength, that which I hold and practice in reference to the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus. That which I have to say in brief is this; although I confess I am no disputant, yet seeing I am to seal what I hold with my blood, I am ready to defend it by the word, and to dispute that point with any that shall come forth to withstand it. Mr. Nowel answered me, now was no time to dispute. Then said I, then I desire to give an account of the faith and order I hold, and this I desired three times, but in comes Mr. Flint, and saith to the executioner, Fellow, do thine office, for this fellow would but make a long speech to delude the people. So I being resolved to speak, told the people, that which I am to suffer for is the word of God, and testimony of Jesus Christ. No, saith Mr. Nowel, it is for your error, and going about to seduce the people. To which I replied, not for error, for in all the time of my imprisonment, wherein I was left alone, (my brethren being gone) which of all your ministers in all that time, came to convince me of an error; and when upon the Governor?s words a motion was made for a public dispute, and upon fair terms so often renewed, and desired by hundreds, what was the reason it was not granted? Mr. Nowel told me, it was his fault that went away and would not dispute; but this the writings will clear at large. Still Mr. Flint calls to the man to do his office: so before, and in the time of his pulling off my clothes, I continued speaking, telling them, that I had so learned, that for all Boston I would not give my body into their hands thus to be bruised upon another account, yet upon this I would not give the hundredth part of a wampum peague [a wampum peague is the sixth part of a penny with us] to free it out of their hands, and that I made as much conscience of unbuttoning one button as I did of paying the 30 pounds in reference thereunto. I told them moreover, the Lord having manifested his love towards me, in giving me repentance towards God, and faith in Jesus Christ, and so to be baptized in water, by a messenger of Jesus, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, wherein I have fellowship with him in his death, burial and resurrection, I am now come to be baptized in afflictions by your hands, that so I may have further fellowship with my Lord, and am not ashamed of his sufferings, for by his stripes am I healed. And as the man began to lay the strokes upon my back, I said to the people, though my flesh should fail, and my spirit should fail, yet my God would not fail. So it pleased the Lord to come in, and so to fill my heart and tongue as a vessel full, and with an audible voice I broke forth, praying unto the Lord not to lay this sin to their charge; and telling the people, that now I found he did not fail me, and therefore now I should trust him forever, who failed me not; for in truth, as the strokes fell upon me, I had such a spiritual manifestation of God?s presence, as the like thereof I never had nor felt, nor can with fleshly tongue express, and the outward pain was so removed from me, that indeed I am not able to declare it to you, it was so easy to me, that I could well bear it, yea, and in a manner, felt it not, although it was grievous, as the spectators said, the man striking with all his strength (yea, spitting in his hands three times, as many affirmed) with a three corded whip, giving me therewith thirty strokes. When he had loosed me from the post, having joyfulness in my heart and cheerfulness in my countenance, as the spectators observed, I told the magistrates, you have struck me as with roses; and said moreover, although the Lord hath made it easy to me, yet I pray God it may not be laid to your charge. After this, many came to me rejoicing to see the power of the Lord manifested in weak flesh; but sinful flesh takes occasion hereby to bring others in trouble, informs the magistrates hereof, and so two more are apprehended as for contempt of authority; their names were John Hazel and John Spur, who came indeed and did shake me by the hand, but did use no words of contempt or reproach unto any; no man can prove that the first spoke any thing, and for the second, he only said thus, blessed be the Lord; yet these two for taking me by the hand, and thus saying after I had received my punishment, were sentenced to pay forty shillings, or be whipped. Both were resolved against paying their fine; nevertheless, after one or two days imprisonment, one paid John Spur?s fine, and he was released; and after six or seven days? imprisonment of brother Hazel, even the day when he should have suffered, another paid his, and so he escaped, and the next day went to visit a friend about six miles from Boston, where the same day he fell sick, and within ten days ended his life. When I was come to the prison, it pleased God to stir up the heart of an old acquaintance of mine, who with much tenderness, like the good Samaritan, poured oil into my wounds, and plaistered my sores; but there was present information given what was done, and inquiry made who was the surgeon, and it was commonly reported he should be sent for, but what was done I yet know not. [In a manuscript of Governor Joseph Jenks, wrote near one hundred years ago, he says, "Mr. Holmes was whipped thirty stripes, and in such an unmerciful manner, that in many days, if not some weeks, he could not take no rest but as he lay upon his knees and elbows, not being able to suffer any part of his body to touch the bed whereon he lay."] Yet thus it hath pleased the Father of mercies so to dispose of the matter, that my bonds and imprisonments have been no hindrance to the gospel, for before my return, some submitted to the Lord and were baptized, and divers were put upon the way of inquiry. And now being advised to make my escape by night, because it was reported there were warrants forth for me, I departed; and the next day after, while I was on my journey, the constable came to search at the house where I lodged, so I escaped their hands, and was, by the good hand of my heavenly Father, brought home again to my near relations, my wife and eight children. The brethren of our town and Providence, having taken pains to meet me four miles in the woods where we rejoiced together in the Lord. Thus have I given you as briefly as I can, a true relation of things; wherefore my brethren, rejoice with me in the Lord, and give glory to him, for he is worthy, to whom be praise forevermore; to whom I commit you, and put up my earnest prayers for you, that by my late experience who have trusted in God, and have not been deceived, you may trust in him perfectly. Wherefore my dearly beloved brethren, trust in the Lord, and you shall not be ashamed nor confounded; so I also rest, Yours in the bond of charity, OBADIAH HOLMES"

[* "The sentence of Obadiah Holmes, of Seaconk, the 31st of the fifth month, 1651. Forasmuch as you, Obadiah Holmes, being come into this jurisdiction about the 21st of the 5th month did meet at one William Witter?s house, at Lynn, and did here privately (and at other times, being an excommunicate person, did take upon you to preach and baptize) upon the Lord?s day or other days, and being taken then by the constable, and coming afterward to the assembly at Lynn, did, in disrespect to the ordinance of God and his worship, keep on your hat, the pastor being in prayer, insomuch that you would not give reverence in vailing your hat, till it was forced off your head, to the disturbance of the congregation, and professing against the institution of the church, as not being according to the gospel of Jesus Christ; and that you, the said Obadiah Holmes, did, upon the day following, meet again at the said William Witter?s in contempt to authority, you being then in the custody of the law, and did there receive the sacrament, being excommunicated and that you did baptize such as were baptized before, and thereby did necessarily deny the baptism that was before administered to be baptism, the churches no churches, and also other ordinances, and ministers, as if all were a nullity, and did also deny the lawfulness of baptizing of infants; and all this tends to the dishonour of God, the despising the ordinances of God among us, the peace of the churches, and seducing the subjects of this commonwealth from the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and perverting the straight ways of the Lord, the court doth fine you 30 pounds, to be paid, or sufficient sureties that the said sum shall be paid by the first day of the next Court of Assistants, or else to be well whipped, and that you shall remain in prison till it be paid, or security given in for it. By the Court, Increase Nowell"]

Warrants were issued out against thirteen persons, whose only crime was showing some emotions of sympathy towards this innocent sufferer. Eleven of them escaped, and two only were apprehended; their names were John Spur and John Hazel. Spur was probably the man who had been apprehended at Weymouth. Hazel was one of Mr. Holmes? brethren of Rehoboth. Both of these men were to receive ten lashes or pay forty shillings apiece. The latter they could not do with a clear conscience, and were therefore preparing for such another scourging as they had seen and pitied in their brother Holmes. But some without their knowledge paid their fines. Mr. Backus has given an account of their trial, and the depositions which were preferred against them, in which nothing more was pretended than that they took Mr. Holmes by the hand when he came from the whipping post, and blessed God for the strength and support he had given him. But this was "a heinous offense," and called for the vengeance of the civil arm. Mr. Hazel was upwards of sixty years old, and died a few days after he was released, before he reached home. Mr. Clark went to England this same year, where he published a narrative of these transactions, from which the preceding sketches have been selected.

These measures of intolerance and cruelty tended to promote rather than retard the Baptist cause. And many Pedobaptists, both here and in England, remonstrated with much severity against the intemperate zeal of their persecuting brethren. And among the rest, Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the Massachusetts magistrates then in England, wrote to Mr. Cotton and Wilson of Boston in the following manner:

"Reverend and dear friends, whom I unfeignedly love and respect, -- It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New England, as that you fine, whip, and imprison men for their consciences. First, you compel such to come into your assemblies as you know will not join you in your worship, and when they show their dislike thereof, or witness against it, then you stir up your magistrates to punish them for such (as you conceive} their public affronts. Truly, friends, this your practice of compelling any in matters of worship to do that whereof they are not fully persuaded, is to make them sin, for so the apostle, (Romans 14:8) tells us, and many are made hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man for fear of punishment. We pray for you, and wish you prosperity every way, hoped the Lord would have given you so much light and love there, that you might have been eyes to God?s people here, and not to practice those courses in a wilderness, which you went so far to prevent. These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints. I do assure you I have heard them pray in the public assemblies that the Lord would give you meek and humble spirits, not is strive so much for uniformity, as to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace."

MR. COTTON?S ANSWER:

Honored and dear Sir,

"My brother Wilson and self do both of us acknowledge your love, as otherwise formerly, so now in the late lines we received from you, that you grieve in spirit to hear daily complaints against us. Be pleased to understand we look at such complaints as altogether injurious in respect of ourselves, who had no hand or tongue at all is promote either the coming of the persons you aim at into our assemblies, or their punishment for their carriage there. Righteous judgement will not take up reports, much less reproaches against the innocent. We are amongst those, whom (if you knew us better) you would account peaceable in Israel. Yet neither are we so vast in our indulgence or toleration, as to think the men you speak of, suffered an unjust censure. For one of them, (Obadiah Holmes) being an excommunicate person himself, out of a church in Plymouth patent, came into this jurisdiction, and took upon him to baptize, which I think himself will not say he was compelled to perform. [What an evasion is this! Sir Richard spoke of compelling persons into their worship, and Cotton here turns it as if he meant compelling persons out of one government into another to worship in their own way.] And he was not ignorant that the rebaptizing of an elder person, and that by a private person out of office and under excommunication, are all of them manifest contestations against the order and government of our churches established, we know, by God?s law, and he knoweth, by the laws of the country. As for his whipping, it was more voluntarily chosen by him than inflicted on him. His censure by the court, was to have paid, as I know, 30 pounds or else be whipped; his fine was offered to be paid by friends for him freely, but he chose rather to be whipped; in which case, if his suffering of stripes was any worship of God at all, surely it could be accounted no better than will-worship. ["Although the paying of a fine seems to be but a small thing in comparison of a man?s parting with his religion; yet the paying of a fine is the acknowledging of a transgression; and for a man to acknowledge that he has transgressed when his conscience tells him he has not, is but little, if anything at all, short of parting with his religion; and it is likely that this might be the consideration of those sufferers. Governor Jenks"] The other, (Mr. Clark) was wiser in that point, and his offense was less, so was his fine less, and himself as I hear, was contented to have it paid for him, whereupon he was released. [If the reader will look back to page 369 and read Mr. Clark?s letter to the magistrates, he will see how contrary this is to truth.] The imprisonment of either of them was no detriment. I believe they fared neither of them better at home, and, I am sure, Holmes had not been so well clad for many years before.

"But be pleased to consider this point a little further, You think, to compel men in matter of worship is to make them sin. If the worship be lawful in itself, the magistrate compelling him to come to it, compelleth him not to sin, but the sin is in his will that needs to be compelled to a christian duty. If it do make men hypocrites, yet better be hypocrites than profane persons. Hypocrites give God part of his due, the outward man, but the profane person giveth God neither outward nor inward man. You know not, if you think we came into this wilderness to practice those courses here which we fled from in England. We believe there is a vast difference between men?s inventions and God?s institutions; we fled from men?s inventions, to which we else should have been compelled; we compel none to men?s inventions. If our ways (rigid ways as you call them) have laid us low in the hearts of God?s people, yea, and of the saints, (as you style them) we do not believe it is any part of their saint-ship. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, we have tolerated in our churches some Anabaptists, some Antinomians, and some Seekers, and do so still at this day. We are far from arrogating infallibility of judgment to ourselves or affecting uniformity; uniformity God never required, infallibility he never granted us.

Such was Mr. Cotton?s logic in support of persecution, and Mr. Ivimey well observes, "that we have happily arrived at a period when arguments are not necessary to prove the absurdity of his reasoning;" and he also observes, "that the severities were not so much the result of the disposition of these New England persecutors, as of the principles which they had adopted."

What on earth can be more shocking to any being, who has human feelings, than to see a humble and devout christian, who renders to Caesar what is his due, merely for not believing some things which his brethren believe, arrested in his peaceful and pious course sentenced to be tied to a public whipping post like a malefactor, and there to have his body barbarously scourged, to chastise and cure the conscientious scruples of his mind; and all this by his countrymen, his neighbours; yea, by his fellow christians, who profess to worship the same God, and trust for salvation in the same Redeemer! Who can contemplate such a scene of barbarity without being sickened at the sight, and retiring from it with disgust and horror! To say nothing of hanging, burning, and torturing to death, with all the murderous engines, which hellish ingenuity can invent, the circumstance merely of one christian beating another thirty strokes with a three-corded whip, for conscience?s sake, is a scene on which heaven must frown, the earth on which it is perpetrated must groan, and candid devils (if such there are) must be astonished and confounded at the folly and absurdity of men.

In the period now under review, I find but one more event, of any considerable importance as it respects the Baptists or their sentiments, and that was the case of PRESIDENT DUNSTAR. This learned gentleman was the first President of Cambridge College or Harvard University. He was a native of England, but when and where he was born I do not find; he became the President of this then infant institution in 1640, in which office he continued with much reputation and success about thirteen years. By the united testimonies of Johnson, Hubbard, and Prince, he was a man of profound erudition, and "an orthodox preacher of the truths of Christ." This eminent man, in 1653, was brought so far on to the Baptist ground, that he not only forbore to present an infant of his own unto baptism, but also thought himself under some obligations to bear his testimony in some sermons, against the administration of baptism to any infant whatever." For this defection he was immediately opposed with violence, and soon after removed from the town, and settled at Scituate in Plymouth Colony, where he spent the remainder of his days. What progress President Dunstar made in his pursuit of Baptist principles I do not find, but it does not appear that he ever openly espoused the Baptist cause. Captain Cudworth, writing to Mr. John Brown of Rehoboth, then in England, in 1658, says, "Through mercy we have yet among us worthy Mr. Dunstar, whom the Lord hath made boldly to bear testimony against the spirit of persecution." Morton says that he fell asleep in the Lord, in 1659.

It is said by Mr. Backus, that President Dunstar was led to inquire into the Baptist sentiments, by the persecutions against Messrs. Holmes, Clark, and Crandal, and that his preaching against infant baptism set Thomas Gould to examining the subject; and his examination issued in the founding of the first Baptist church in Boston. While this learned advocate for apostolical baptism was yet in Cambridge, Mr. Jonathan Mitchel, the minister of the place, went to converse with him on the subject. "When I came from him, (says he) I had a strange experience; I found hurrying and pressing suggestions against Pedobaptism, and injected scruples and thoughts, whether, the other way might not be right, and infant baptism an invention of men; and whether I might, with a good conscience, baptize children, and the like." But all these "unreasonable suggestions," he ascribed to the devil, and resolved with Mr. Hooker, that "he would have an argument able to remove a mountain before he would recede from, or appear against a truth or practice received among the faithful!" What an expeditious way of silencing one?s doubts and convictions! How many have reason to believe, in order to avoid going over to the despised Baptists, have entrenched themselves with barriers equally irrational and strong! "But sure I am," says Mr. Backus, "that if any Baptist minister had told such a story, and made such an absurd resolution, our adversaries would then have such grounds to charge us with willfulness and obstinacy as they never yet had" [Backus, vol. i. p. 284, 320, 821].

From these brief sketches of the early Baptists in this commonwealth, we shall proceed to a more systematical narration of their subsequent affairs, and give some detailed accounts of the churches and Associations, which have arisen within its bounds.

It is highly probable, that the late severities exercised towards our brethren in this jurisdiction, set many to examining into their principles, and we may also suppose, that those Baptists, who had hitherto traveled in communion with the Pedobaptist churches, some of whom were accused of the profane trick of turning their backs, when infants were sprinkled, were now constrained to come out and separate themselves from a church, whose tenets were bloody, and which had now begun its persecuting career. These events I state as probabilities, not being in possession of authentic details. But certain it is that the Baptists now began to be more numerous; they were also encouraged to take a bolder stand against the encroachments of their adversaries, their terrible legislative threatenings, and their merciless scourgings notwithstanding.

In 1666, a church was founded in Swansea, and two years after the church was begun, which afterwards took the name of the first in Boston. In 1685, a church was begun in Dartmouth, about seventy miles southwesterly from Boston. But so slow was the progress of the Baptists in this government, that in a hundred years from the organization of the church in Swansea, they had planted but eighteen churches, which had acquired a permanent standing. Some few besides had arisen during the century which had lost their visibility before its close. Many were the oppressions and privations, which our brethren suffered in this boasted asylum of liberty, until the American War. That calamitous scene, so distressing to the country otherwise, was nevertheless peculiarly auspicious to the cause of religious liberty in this commonwealth, as well as in other colonies, where religious establishments were domineering with tyrannic sway.

Although the war shook very sensibly the system of religious oppression, it was not the cause of its demolition here as it was the case in Virginia. Many of its bands were indeed broken, yet some by the vigilance of a watchful priesthood were preserved entire. In the unsettled state of affairs, which succeeded the war, the Baptists with Mr. Backus at their head preferred a petition to the Legislature, praying "that ministers should in future be supported by Christ?s authority, and not at all by assessment and secular force." And had statesmen been let alone in their discussions, it is highly probable that this petition would have been regarded; but the clergy, poor men, were afraid to be left on this precarious ground; they therefore put forth their cries; legislators heard them, pitied their dangerous condition, and disgraced their State Constitution with an article to regulate religious worship, and so on.

But notwithstanding the failure of this righteous request, our brethren, under the new government, found their circumstances materially improved. The predominant party, it is true, still had the power of oppressing them in certain cases, but it was used less frequently than formerly; many became convinced of the truth of Baptist sentiments, and embraced their communion, and many others, who went not so far, were constrained to let them alone. Many new churches soon arose in different parts of the State, so that by the year 1784, their whole number amounted to sixty-four. Twenty more were added to this number during the ten succeeding years. And the number of churches, as well as communicants, have been increasing in about the same proportion, from the last mentioned period to the present time. Their number will be exhibited in the General Table. In this commonwealth are a part of the Warren Association, all the Boston except one or two small churches, part of those named Sturbridge, Leyden, Westfield, and Shaftsbury. Four of these six associations, namely the Boston, Sturbridge, Leyden, and Westfield, are considered as having their seat in Massachusetts, and those of Warren and Shaftsbury have always had a large portion of their members and influence in this State. I have thought proper in farther prosecuting the history of this State, to consider it under two divisions; and the line, which we shall fix upon, will be drawn from about the northeast corner of the State of Rhode Island, and extend northerly to the State of New Hampshire. That portion of the State which lies east of this line, I shall consider the first division, and that which lies west of it the second.

FIRST DIVISION

This division comprehends the oldest settlements as well as the oldest churches in the state, and in it are situated the Warren and Boston Associations. It embraces the counties of Essex, Middlesex, a part of Worcester, the whole of Suffolk, Norfolk, Bristol, Plymouth, Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket. It is bounded east and south by the Atlantic ocean. In this division we find a number of churches distinguished for age and sufferings, and those now called the first in Swansea and Boston, stand the foremost on the list; their history will of necessity occupy more room than that of the rest. They are dated, the first in 1663, and the other in 1665; but both of them were in reality begun a number of years before. Although the Swansea church is the oldest, yet as we shall regard the local and relative situation of the churches about to be described, we shall begin with the one in Boston, and then take notice of the other churches in the northern part of this division, before we come to Swansea and those in the southern.

First Church in Boston. The date of this church has already been given; it existed a few years in Charlestown [Charlestown is separated from Boston by Charles River], where it was founded, and then its seat was removed to Noddle?s Island, a little out in the Massachusetts Bay, where it remained some time before it was established in the town from which it received its name.

We have given a general account of the Baptists in this government up to about the time of the founding of this body, which originated as follows: Mr. Hubbard, one of the Massachusetts historians, observes, that "while some were studying how baptism might be enlarged and extended to the seed of the faithful in their several generations, there were others as studious to deprive all unadult children thereof, and restrain the privilege only to adult believers" [Backus, Vol. 1 p. 355].

"Infant baptism," says Dr. Mather, "hath been scrupled by multitudes in our day, who have been, in other points, most worthy christians, and as holy, watchful, fruitful, and heavenly people, as perhaps any in the world." Some few of these people, he says, were among the first settlers in New England. Some of their names have been mentioned, and many things make it probable that there were many more who never happened to fall under the lash of the law, and whose names for that reason do not appear on the page of history; for the Baptists at this time had no one to tell their story, and we never get a view of them, except at the tribunals of their adversaries, in their prisons, or at their whipping posts.

After being long harassed in courts and churches, a few of our brethren, despairing of better times, and being prepared for the worst, took the bold step of embodying themselves into a church of the Baptist order. The constituents were nine in number; their names were Thomas Gould, Thomas Osburn, Edward Drinker, John George, Richard Goodall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Goodall, and Mary Newell. Gould and Osburn were members of the Pedobaptist church in Charlestown. Goodall was a member of a Baptist church in London, of which Mr. Kiffin was pastor. His wife was probably a member of the same church. Turner and Lambert were members of a church in Dartmouth, England, whose pastor was a Mr. Stead. Of the others we have not so particular information. Turner accepted a captain?s commission in king Philip?s war, and lost his life in the defense of a colony, in which he was most cruelly oppressed. The founding of this church was considered by the Massachusetts people, as a most heinous and heaven-daring offense, and many of the members of it spent most of their time in courts and prisons; they were often fined, and some of them were banished, or at least were ordered to depart out of the jurisdiction, or desist from the error of their way; neither of which however would they do; they were of course denounced obstinate heretics, and suffered accordingly. "It would take a volume," says Morgan Edwards, "to contain an account of all their sufferings for ten or twelve years."

The ostensible reason, which their enemies urged for distressing them, was, that they had formed a church without the approbation of their ministers and rulers. "This principle," says Mr. Neal, "condemns all the dissenting congregations, which have been formed in England since the act of uniformity in the year 1662." The fact was they were determined that no churches should be formed only upon their own plan, Our brethren well knew that no such permission would be granted, and, besides, they could not in principle solicit the favor. And finding by experience that the churches, established by law, would not suffer them to live quietly in their communion, nor peaceably separate from it, they resolved to set up a standard of their own, and united in a solemn covenant in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to walk in fellowship and communion together, in the practice of all the holy appointments of Christ, which he had, or should further make known to them."

"The king?s commissioners being here," says Mr. Backus, "caused the court not to lay hold of these people so soon as otherwise they might have done. But in August a note was entered in Roxbury church records, and published in an Almanac, which has been communicated to me in these words: "The Anabaptists gathered themselves into a church, prophesied one by one, and some one among them administered the Lord?s supper after he was regularly excommunicated by the church at Charlestown; they also set up a lecture at Drinker?s house, once a fortnight."

THOMAS GOULD was the founder of this church, and for many years had the principal share of the sufferings it underwent. The manner in which he came to embrace the Baptist sentiments, and the treatment of the church in Charlestown towards him are thus related by himself:

"It having been a long time a scruple to me about infant baptism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me by the rule of the gospel, that children were not capable nor fit subjects for such an ordinance, because Christ gave this commission to his apostles, first to preach to make them disciples, and then to baptize them, which infants were not capable of; so that I durst not bring forth my child to be partaker of it; so looking that my child had no right to it, which was in the year 1655, when the Lord was pleased to give me a child; I stayed some space of time and said nothing, to see what the church would do with me. On a third day of the week when there was a meeting at my house, to keep a day of thanksgiving to God, for his mercy shown to my wife, at that time one coming to the meeting brought a note from the elders of the church to this effect, that they desired me to come down on the morrow to the elder?s house, and to send word again what time of that day I would come, and they would stay at home for me; and if I could not come that day, to send them word. I looking on the writing with many friends with me, I told them I had promised to go another way on the morrow. Master Dunstar (probably President Dunstar) being present, desired me to send them word that I could not come on the morrow, but that I would come any other time that they would appoint me; and so I sent word back by the same messenger. The fifth day, meeting with elder Green, I told him how it was, he told me it was well, and that they would appoint another day when he had spoken with the pastor, and then they would send me word. This lay about two months before l heard any more from them. On a first day in the afternoon one told me I must stop, for the church would speak with me. They called me out, and Master Sims told the church, that this brother did withhold his child from baptism, and that they had sent unto him to come down on such a day to speak with them, and if he could not come on that day, to set a day when he would be at home; but he refusing to come, would appoint no time, when we wrote to him to take his own time, and send us word. I replied that there was no such word in the letter, for me to appoint the day; but what time of that day I should come. Mr. Sims stood up and told me, I did lie, for they sent to me to appoint the day. I replied again that there was no such thing in the letter. He replied again, that they did not set down a time, and not a day, therefore he told me it was a lie, and that they would leave my judgment, and deal with me for a lie and told the church, that he and the elder agreed to write, that if I could not come that day, to appoint the time when I could come, and that he read it after the elder wrote it, and the elder affirmed it was so; but I still replied there was no such thing in the letter, and thought I could produce the letter. They bid me let them see the letter, or they would proceed against me for a lie. Brother Thomas Wilder, sitting before me, stood up and told them, that it was so in the letter as I said, for he read it when it came to me. But they answered, it was not so, and bid him produce the letter, or they would proceed with me; he said I think I can produce the letter, and forthwith took it out of his pocket, which I wondered at; and I desired him to give it to Mr. Russel to read, and so he did, and he read it very faithfully, and it was just as I had said, that I must send them word what time of that day I would come down; so that their mouths were stopped, and master Sims put it off and said he was mistaken, for he thought he had read it otherwise; but the elder said, it is nothing, let us proceed with him for his judgment. Now let any man judge what a fair beginning this was, and if you wait awhile you may see as fair an ending. They called me forth to know why I would not bring my child to baptism? My answer was, I did not see any rule of Christ for it, for that ordinance belongs to such as can make profession of their faith, as the Scripture doth plainly hold forth. They answered me, that was meant of grown persons and not of children. But that which was most alleged by them was, that children were capable of circumcision in the time of the law, and therefore as capable in the time of the gospel of baptism; and asked me, why children were not to be baptized in the time of the gospel, as well as children were circumcised in the time of the law? My answer was, God gave a strict command in the law for the circumcision of children; but we have no command in the gospel, nor example, for the baptizing of children. Many other things were spoken, then a meeting was appointed by the church the next week at Mr. Russell?s.

"Being met at Mr. Russell?s house, Mr. Sims took a writing out of his pocket, wherein he had drawn up many arguments for infant baptism, and told the church that I must answer those arguments, which I suppose he had drawn from some author, and told me I must keep to those arguments. My answer was, I thought the church had met together to answer my scruples, and to satisfy my conscience by a rule of God, and not for me to answer his writing. He said he had drawn it up for the help of his memory, and desired we might go on. Then I requested three things of them. First. That they should not make me offender for a word. Second. They should not drive me faster than I was able to go. Third. That if any present should see cause to clear up anything that is spoken by me, they might have their liberty without offense; because here are many of you that have their liberty to speak against me if you see cause. But it was denied, and Mr. Sims was pleased to reply, that he was able to deal with me himself, and that I knew it. So we spent four or five hours speaking to many things to and again, but so hot both sides, that we quickly forgot and went from the arguments that were written. At last one of the company stood up and said, I will give you one plain place of Scripture where children were baptized. I told him that would put an end to the controversy. That place is in the second of the Acts, 39th and 40th verses. After he had read the Scripture, Master Sims told me that promise belonged to infants, for the Scripture saith, The promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off; and he said no more; to which I replied, Even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Mr. Sims replied that I spoke blasphemously in adding to the Scriptures. I said, pray do not condemn me, for if I am deceived, my eyes deceive me. He replied again, I added to the scripture, which was blasphemy. I looking into my Bible, read the words again, and said it was so. He replied the same words a third time before the church. Mr. Russell stood up and told him it was so as I had read it. Ay, it may be so in your Bible, saith Mr. Sims. Mr. Russell answered, yea, in yours too if you will look into it. Then he said he was mistaken, for he thought on another place; so after many other words we broke up for that time.

"At another meeting, the church required me to bring out my child to baptism. I told them I durst not do it, for I did not see any rule for it in the word of God. They brought many places of Scripture in the Old and New Testament, as circumcision and the promise to Abraham, and that children were holy, and they were disciples. But I told them that all these places made nothing for infant baptism. Then stood up W. D. in the church and said, "Put him in the court! Put him in the court!" But Mr. Sims said, "I pray forbear such words." But it proved so, for presently after they put me in the court, and put me in seven or eight courts, whilst they looked upon me to be a member of their church. The elder pressed the church to lay me under admonition, which the church was backward to do. Afterwards I went out at the sprinkling of children, which was a great trouble to some honest hearts, and they told me of it. But I told them I could not stay, for I looked upon it as no ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment, I might stay, for they knew I did not join with them. So I stayed and sat down in my seat when they were at prayer and administering that service to infants. Then they dealt with me for my irreverent carriage. One stood up and accused me, that I stopped my ears; but I denied it.

"At another meeting they asked me if I would suffer the church to fetch my child and baptize it? I answered, if they would fetch my child and do it as their own act, they might do it; but when they should bring my child, I would make known to the congregation that I had no hand in it; then some of the church were against doing of it. A brother stood up and said, "Brother Gould, you were once for children?s baptism, why are you fallen from it?" I answered, "It is true, and I suppose you were once for crossing in baptism, why are you fallen from that?" The man was silent, but Mr. Sims stood up in a great heat, and desired the church to take notice of it, that I compared the ordinance of Christ to the cross in baptism; this was one of the great offenses they dealt with me for. After this, the deputy-governor, Mr. Bellingham, meeting me in Boston, called me to him and said, "Goodman Gould, I desire you that you would let the church baptize your child." I told him that "if the church would do it upon their own account, they should do it, but I durst not bring out my child." So he called to Mrs. Norton of Charlestown, and prayed her to fetch Goodman Gould?s child and baptize it. So she spake to them, but not rightly informing them, she gave them to understand I would bring out my child. They called me out again, and asked me if I would bring forth my child? I told them "No, I durst not do it, for I see no rule for it."

In much the same manner the church proceeded with their obnoxious brother, until Master Sims, who was not only a petulant but an ignorant priest, put on him the second admonition. "This," says he, ?continued a long time before they called me out again. In the mean time, I had some friends, who came to me out of old England, who were Baptists, and desired to meet at my house on a first day, which I granted; of these was myself, my wife, and Thomas Osbourne, that were of their church. Afterward they called me forth, and asked why I kept the meeting in private on the Lord?s day, and did not come to the public? My answer was, "I know not what reason the church had to call me forth." They asked me if I was not a member of that church? I told them they had not acted toward me as a member, who had put me by the ordinances of Christ seven years ago; they had denied me the privileges of a member. They asked whether I looked upon admonition as an appointment of Christ? I told them "yes but not to lie under it above seven years, and to be put by the ordinances of Christ in the church; for the rule of Christ is first to deal with men in the first and second place, and then in the third place before the church; but the first time that ever they dealt with me, they called me before the whole church." Many meetings we had about this thing, whether I was a member or not, but could come to no conclusion; for I still affirmed that their actings rendered me no member. Then Mr. Sims told the church that I was ripe for excommunication, and was very earnest for it; but the church would not consent."

It was not till some time after this, that they "delivered him up to Satan for not hearing the church."

This account was found by Mr. Backus among Mr. Callender?s papers. It gives the reader a view of the spirit of the times, and also of the deliberate manner in which Mr. Gould proceeded amidst a constant scene of irritation and abuse. It appears from a number of expressions in different parts of the narrative, which have not been extracted, that he would have preferred remaining with his Pedobaptist brethren, if they would have permitted him to enjoy his Baptist principles in peace; but because he could not in conscience bring out his babe to be christened, they drove him on to a separation, which he did not meditate at first. The names of the first members of the Baptist church which he founded, have already been mentioned. The sufferings which they endured for a number of years are related by Mr. Backus in a more extensive manner than we can do it here. But it is sufficient to say, that they were many and grievous, and were similar to those to which the Baptists of that day were everywhere exposed, where the defense of the church was entrusted with the civil power. This little Anabaptist church consisting of only nine members, a part of whom were females, and the rest itinerate mechanics, made full employ for the rulers of Massachusetts a number of years. The innocent people, who gave them so much trouble, were accused of no other crime than that of forming a church without their permission, and of meeting in their own houses to worship their Maker according to the dictates of their consciences. And for these heinous offenses, they were incessantly stunned with the harangues of the priests and lawyers, and distressed and ruined by courts, legislatures, forfeitures, and prisons.

The New England persecutors we would charitably believe, were actuated more by their principles than dispositions. They certainly conducted the business in a bungling and ridiculous manner, and at times manifested some misgivings for their injustice and absurdity.

After Mr. Gould and his companions had been condemned as heretics and law-breakers, fined and imprisoned for non-conformity, they were challenged to a public dispute upon their peculiar sentiments, that it might be determined whether they were erroneous or not! The six following divines, namely Messrs. John Allen, Thomas Cobbet, John Higginson, Samuel Danforth, Jonathan Mitchell, and Thomas Shepard were nominated to manage the dispute on the Pedobaptist side, which was appointed to be April 14, 1668, in the meeting house in Boston, at 9 o?clock in the morning. But lest these six learned clergymen should not be a match for a few illiterate Baptists, the Governor and magistrates were requested to meet with them. The news of this dispute soon spread abroad, and Mr. Clark?s church in Newport sent William Hiscox, Joseph Tory, and Samuel Hubbard, to assist their brethren in Boston in it, who arrived there three days before it was to come on. No particular account of this dispute has been preserved. Mr. Backus has made an extract of considerable length from a paper supposed to have been written by Mr. Gould?s wife, in which some things respecting it are mentioned, and by which it appears that the Baptists instead of having full liberty to vindicate their sentiments, were called together only to be tantalized and abused. "When the disputants were met, there was a long speech made by one of them of what vile persons the Baptism were, and how they acted against the churches and government here, and stood condemned by the court. The others desiring liberty, to speak, they would not suffer them, but told them they stood there as delinquents, and ought not to have liberty to speak. Then they desired they might choose a moderator as well as they; but they denied them. Two days were spent to little purpose. In the close, Master Jonathan Mitchell pronounced that dreadful sentence against them in Deuteronomy, 17th chapter, from the 8th to the end of the 12th verse." The passage is as follows:

"If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy, within thy gates; then shall thou arise, and get thee up into the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose: And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place, which the Lord shall choose, shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law, which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man, that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest, that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel." (Deuteronomy 17:8-12.)

This was the same Mitchell, who was afraid to converse with President Dunstar, lest his mind should be shaken upon infant baptism; who found such satanical scruples against it, that he had much ado to write his sermons for Sunday; and who, in the end, resolved that he would have an argument able to remove a mountain, before he would give it up.

So far as we can gain information of the management of this dispute, on the part of the Pedobaptists, it exceeded in cowardly and contemptible tyranny, any thing of the kind we read of in England. [Neal somewhere mentions that an English Bishop got so exasperated against the dissenters around him, that he appointed a day in which he would dispute with them, and prove them all heretics, etc. When the day came, a vast concourse assembled, and when the bishop began to raft, the Quakers paid him in his own coin, and browbeat him so hard that he was forced to yield; as he was going to his house they followed him with shouts, "The hireling fleeth! The hireling fleeth!"] We will excuse in part the men, and lay the most of the blame at the door of their popish, ever hurtful principles of confounding together the Jewish and Christian dispensations, of placing Aaron and Moses in the same chair, and of committing the defense of the church to the civil power.

This curious disputation was in April. The May following the Assembly enacted, that

"Whereas the council in March last did for the further conviction, etc. appoint a meeting of divers elders, and required the said persons to attend the said meeting, which was held in Boston with a great concourse of people. This court, being sensible of their duty to God and the country, and being desirous that their proceedings in this great cause might be clear and regular, do order that the said Gould and company be required to appear before this court, on the seventh instant, at eight in the morning, that the court may understand from themselves, whether upon the means used, or other considerations, they have altered their former declared resolution, and are willing to desist from their former offensive practice, that accordingly a mete effectual remedy may be applied to so dangerous a malady. At the time they made their appearance, and after the court had heard what they had to say for themselves, proceeded. Whereas, Thomas Gould, William Turner, and John Farnum, sen. obstinate and turbulent Anabaptists, have sometime since combined themselves with others in a pretended church estate, without the knowledge and approbation of the authority here established, to the great grief and offense of the godly orthodox; the said persons did, in open court, assert their former practice to have been according to the mind of God, that nothing that they had heard convinced them to the contrary; which practice, being also otherwise circumstanced with making infant baptism a nullity, and thereby making us all to be unbaptized persons, and so consequently no regular churches, ministry, or ordinances; as also renouncing all our churches, as being so bad and corrupt, as they are not fit to be held communion with; denying to submit to the government of Christ in the church, and entertaining of those who are under church censure, thereby making the discipline of Christ to be of none effect, and manifestly tending to the disturbance and destruction of these churches; opening the door for all sorts of abominations to come in among us, to the disturbance not only of ecclesiastical enjoyments, but also contempt of our civil order, and the authority here established; which duty to God and the country doth oblige us to prevent, by using the most compassionate effectual means to attain the same; all which considering, together with the danger of disseminating their errors, and encouraging presumptuous irregularities by their examples, should they continue in this jurisdiction; this court do judge it necessary that they be removed to some other part of this country, or elsewhere, and accordingly doth order, that the said Thomas Gould, William Turner, and John Farnum, sen. do before the twentieth of July next remove themselves out of this jurisdiction; and that if after the said 20th of July, either of them be found in any part of this jurisdiction, without license had from this court or the council, he or they shall be forthwith apprehended and committed to prison by warrant from any magistrate, and there remain without bail or mainprise, until he or they shall give sufficient security to the Governor or any magistrate, immediately to depart the jurisdiction, and not to return as above raid. And all constables and other officers are required to be faithful and diligent in the execution of this sentence. And it is further ordered, that the keepers of all prisons, whereto the said Thomas, or any of them shall be committed, shall not permit any resort of companies of more than two at one time to any of the said persons. And our experience of their high obstinate and presumptuous carriage, doth engage us to prohibit them any further meeting together, on the Lord?s day or other days, upon pretense of their church estate, or for the administration or exercise of any pretended ecclesiastical functions or dispensation of the seals or preaching; wherein, if they shall be taken offending, they shall be imprisoned until the tenth of July next, and then left at their liberty within ten days to depart the jurisdiction upon penalty as aforesaid. And whereas Thomas Gould is committed to prison in the county of Middlesex, by the last court of assistants, for non-payment of a fine imposed, this court judgeth it meet, after the sentence of this court is published, this day after the lecture to them, that the said Gould shall be discharged from imprisonment in Middlesex as to his fine, that so he may have time to prepare to submit to the judgment of this court."

It is truly difficult to preserve one?s patience while reviewing these tyrannical proceedings. We would gladly draw a veil over the hurts of the fathers of Massachusetts; but what is history, but a relation of facts, whether pleasant or painful? The injuries sustained by Thomas Gould and his associates excited the compassion of many, who did not think with them, both in Europe and America. While they were suffering in prison because they would not go into exile, a petition was presented to the court in their favor, signed by sixty-six persons, among whom are said to have been Captain Hutchinson, Captain Oliver, and others of note in the country. But the court was under the influence of the clergy; and so far were they," says Backus, from listening to the petition, that the chief promoters of it were fined, and the others were compelled to make all acknowledgment for reflecting on their honours." About this time, the following letter was sent from England, which exhibits a very correct view of the inquity of these measures.

"My Dear Brother,

The ardent affection and great honors that I have for New England transport me, and I hope your churches shall ever be to me as the gates of heaven. I have ever been warmed with the apprehension of the grace of God towards me in carrying me thither. I have always thought that of the congregational churches of New England in our days. But now it is otherwise, with joy as to ourselves, and grief as to you, be it spoken. Now the greater my love is to New England the more am I grieved at their failings. It is frequently said here, that they are swerved aside towards Presbytery; if so, the. Lord restore them all. But another sad thing, that much affects us is, to hear that you, even in New England, persecute your brethren; men sound in the faith; of holy life; agreeing in worship and discipline with you; only differing in the point of baptism. Dear brother, we here do love and honor them, hold familiarity with them, and take sweet counsel together; they lie in the bosom of Christ, and therefore they ought to be laid in our bosoms. In a word, we freely admit them into churches; few of our churches, but many of our members are Anabaptists; I mean baptized again. This is love in England; this is moderation; this is a right New Testament spirit. But do you now (as is above said) bear with, yea, more than bear with the Presbyterians? yea, and that the worst sort of them, namely those who are the corruptest, rigidest, whose principles tend to corrupt the churches; turning the world into the church, and the church into the world; and which doth no less than bring a people under mere slavery? It is an iron yoke, which neither we nor our congregational brethren in Scotland were ever able to bear. I have heard them utter these words in the pulpit, that it is no wrong to make the independents sell all they have, and depart the land: and many more things I might mention of that kind; but this I hint only, to show what cause there is to withstand that wicked tyranny which was once set up in poor miserable Scotland, which I verily believe was a great wrong and injury to the reformation. The generality of them here, even to this day, will not freely consent to our enjoyment of our liberty; though through mercy, the best and most reformed of them do otherwise. How much more, therefore, would it concern dear New England, to turn the edge against those, who, if not prevented, will certainly corrupt and enslave, not only their own, but also their churches? Whereas Anabaptists are neither spirited nor principled to injure nor hurt your government nor your liberties; but rather these be a means to preserve your churches from apostasy, and provoke them to their primitive purity, as they were in the first planting, in admission of members to receive none into your churches but visible saints, and in restoring the entire jurisdiction of every congregation complete and undisturbed. We are hearty and full for our Presbyterian brethren enjoying equal liberty with ourselves. Oh, that they had the same spirit towards us! But, oh, how it grieves and affects us, that New England should persecute! Will you not give what you take? Is liberty of conscience your due? and is it not as due unto others that are sound in the faith? Read the preface to the declaration of the faith and order, owned and practiced in the Congregational churches in England. Amongst many other scriptures, that in the 14th of Romans much confirms me in liberty of conscience thus stated; to him that esteems any thing unclean, to him it is unclean. Therefore, though we approve of the baptism of the immediate children of church members, and of their admission into the church when they evidence a real work of grace; yet to those that in conscience believe the said baptism to be unclean, to him it is unclean. Both that and mere ruling elders, though we approve of them, yet our grounds are mere interpretations of, and not any express scripture. I cannot say so clearly of anything else in our religion, neither as to faith or practice. Now must we force our interpretation upon others pope-like! In verse 5th of that chapter, the Spirit of God saith, let everyone be fully persuaded in his own mind; therefore this being the express will of God, who shall make a contrary law, and say, persuaded or not persuaded, you shall do as we say, and as we do! And verse 2nd, what is not of faith is sin; therefore there must be a word for what we do, and we must see and believe it, or else we sin if we do not. And Deuteronomy 12 and last, as we must not add, nor may we diminish. What is commanded we must do. Also 8th of Matthew. And what principles is persecution grounded upon? Domination and infallibility. This we teach is the truth. But are we infallible, and have we the government? God made none, no not the apostles, who could not err, to be lords over faith; therefore, what monstrous pride is this! At this rate, any persuasion getting uppermost may command, and persecute them that obey them not; all non-conformists must be ill-used. Oh wicked and monstrous principle! Whate?er you can plead for yourselves against those that persecute you, those whom ye persecute may plead for themselves, against you. Whatever they can say against the poor men, your enemies say against you. And what is that horrid principle crept into precious New England; who have felt what persecution is, and have always pleaded for liberty of conscience! Have not those run equal hazards with you for the enjoyment of their liberties; and how do you cast a reproach upon us, that are congregational in England, and furnish our adversaries with weapons against us? We blush and are filled with shame and confusion of face, when we hear of these things. Dear brother, we pray that God would open your eyes and persuade the hearts of your magistrates, that they may no more smite their fellow-servants, nor thus greatly injure us their brethren; and that they may not thus injure the name of God, and cause his people to be reproached, nor the holy way of God (the congregational way) to be evil spoken of. My dear brother, pardon my plainness and freedom, for the zeal of God?s house constrains me. What cause have we to bless God who gives us to find favor in the eyes of his Majesty? and to pray God to continue him, and to requite it graciously to him in spiritual blessings. Well, strive I beseech you with God by prayers, and use all lawful ways and means even to your greatest hazard, that those poor men may be set free. For be assured, that this liberty of conscience, as we state it, is the cause of God; and hereby you may be a means to divert the judgments of God from falling upon dear New England, for our Father in faithfulness will afflict us if we repent not. Doth not the very gospel say, what measure we mete to others, shall be measured to us? God is not unrighteous. What is more provoking to him than the persecuting of his saints! Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm; did he not reprove kings for their sake? Those who have the unction the apostle John speaks of, and the spirit and gift of prophecies. With what marvellous strength did holy Mr. Burroughs urge that place against persecution? Persecution is bad in wicked men, but it is most abominable in good men, who have suffered and pleaded for liberty of conscience themselves. Discountenance men that certainly err, but persecute them not. I mean gross errors. Well, we are travelling to our place of rest. With joy we look for new heavens and new earth. We shall ere long be in the fullness of bliss, holy, harmless in the bosom of Christ. Let us pray the earth may be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, that they may not hurt nor destroy in all his holy mountain. The Lord grant we may by the next hear better things of the government of New England. My most hearty love to your brother and to all the brethren. My respects and service to my dear cousin Leveret and to Mr. Francis Willoughby. The Lord make them instrumental for his glory, in helping to reform things among you. I shall be glad to hear from you. I remember our good old sweet communion together. My dear brother, once again pardon me, for I am affected! I speak for God, to whose grace I commit you all in New England, humbly craving your prayers for us here, and remain,

Your affectionate brother, ROBERT MASCALL. Finsbury, near Morefield, the 25th of March, 1669."

Another letter of a similar import was about this time addressed to the Governor, signed by twelve dissenting ministers in London, among whom were the learned Dr. Goodwin, Dr. Owen, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Caryl.

But all remonstrances were without effect, and Mr. Backus concludes from the best information he could gain, that these turbulent Anabaptists were imprisoned more than a year after the sentence of banishment was pronounced against them. After Mr. Gould was released, he went to live on Noddle?s Island in Boston harbour, where the church assembled for some years. At what time it was removed to Boston, is not certain; but it was not till after the year 1672.

The next members, who were added to it after its constitution were Isaac Hull, John Yarnurn, Jacob Barney, John Russell, jr. John Johnson, George Farlow, Benjamin Sweetser, and Ellis Callender, all before 1669. After them were added Joshua Turner, Thomas Foster, John Russell, senior, William Hamlit, James Loudon, Thomas Skinner, John Williams, Philip Squire, Mary Gould, Susanna Jackson, Mary Greenleaf, etc.

Mr. Gould died in 1675. I can learn nothing more of his history than what has been related in the preceding sketches. It is much to be regretted that a more particular account of him has not been preserved; his name ought to be recorded on the tallest page of the history of the New England Baptists; and when the reader considers that the church, which he founded, included the whole of the Baptist interest in the colony of Massachusetts, for about seventy years, he will not think it improper to give this lengthy and particular account of its origin.

Mr. Gould was succeeded in the pastoral office by Isaac Hull. How long he continued among them, their records do not show.

John Russell was his successor, and it seems probable that both of these ministers preached in the church at the same time. They were companions in sufferings, having both been fined and imprisoned for nonconformity. Of Mr. Hull, we have scarce any account. Of Mr. Russell, the following sketches have been preserved. He was ordained in 1679, but died the next year. Previous to his death he wrote a narrative of the sufferings of this little flock, which was sent over to London, and printed in 1680, with a preface to it by Messrs. William Kiffin, Daniel Dyke, William Collins, Hansard Knollys, John Harris, and Nehemiah Cox. These eminent Baptist ministers made some very severe but judicious reflections on the unaccountable conduct of the New England fathers. It seems strange, said they, that christians in New England should pursue the very same persecuting measures, which they fled from Old England to avoid! This argument they knew not how to withstand, and their reasonings against it were altogether frivolous and contemptible. Protestants, said they, ought not to persecute Protestants, yet that Protestants may punish Protestants cannot be denied! Because Mr. Russell was by occupation a shoe-maker, many low, abusive reflections were made upon him, even after he was dead. One of the Boston divines published an answer to his narrative with a Latin title, the English of which was, Cobler keep to your Last. Dr. Mather published a piece in which he accused the Baptists of the sin of Jeroboam, in making priests of the lowest order of the people, etc. Mr. Willard said, "Truly if Goodman Russell was a fit man for a minister, we have but fooled ourselves in building colleges and in instructing children in learning." Hubbard, who was generally more candid and fair than the rest, in speaking of the narrative, etc. observed, "One John Russell, a wedder drop?d shoe-maker, stitched up a pamphlet, wherein he endeavors to clear the innocency of those commonly (though falsely he says) called Anabaptists." In this scurrilous manner was this honest and worthy minister treated by his impotent adversaries. But had he and his associates met with nothing more than the revilings of priests, their case would have been less deplorable, but to these were added forfeitures, stripes, and prisons.

Those three eminent ministers of Swansea, Job, Russell, and John Mason, were great-grand-children of this worthy but much despised man. From him also descended the Russells of Providence, Rhode Island; and Jonathan Russell, Esq. late Charge de Affairs in France and England, is one of his descendants.

In 1678, this church built them a house for worship, out of which, however, they were soon shut, and a long difficulty ensued upon the matter. They had been often reproached for meeting in private houses, "but since," said they, "we have for our convenience, obtained a public house, on purpose for that use, we are become more offensive than before." Their leaders were convented before the General Court, who not finding any old law to suit their purpose, made a new one, which forbid their assembling, and they furthermore enacted that their house, and all houses for worship, which were built without legal permission, together with the premises, appurtenances, etc. should be forfeited to the use of the county, and be disposed by the county-treasurer, by sale or demolishing, as the court that gave judgment in the case should order.

This affair went the whole round of courts and legislatures. The patient little flock submitted quietly to the orders of the sanctimonious court, and "waited to see what God would do for them."

Not long after this, the king of England wrote to the Massachusetts rulers, "requiring that liberty of conscience should be allowed to all protestants, so as that they might not be discountenanced from sharing in the government, much less that no good subjects of his, for not agreeing in the Congregational way, should by law be subjected to fines and forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same, which, said his majesty, is a severity the more to be wondered at, whereas liberty of conscience was made a principal motive for your transportation into those parts." But this remonstrance from the throne was disregarded by the priest-led magistrates.

Deplorable indeed, says Mr. Backus, was the case of these brethren; but having information of the king?s letter in their favor, they again presumed to meet in their house, which they had done but a few times before they were again called before the canting, vexatious court to answer for their high offense of worshipping God contrary to law. But being emboldened by the royal mandate in their favor, they began to take a bolder stand against the unrighteous encroachments of their adversaries.

But the next thing we hear of, the doors were nailed up by the Marshall, and a paper put on them, which said,

"All persons are to take notice, that by order of the court, the doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any meeting, or to open the doors thereof without license from authority, til the General Court take further order, as they will answer the contrary at their peril. Dated at Boston, 8th March, 1680, EDWARD RAWSON, Secretary"

The church thought fit to regard this paper blockade, and accordingly the next Lord?s day assembled in their yard; and in the ensuing week erected a shed for their covering. But when they came together the second Lord?s day, they found their doors opened, and since then they have been left to the care of the sexton, and not constables and sheriffs. But the leaders of the church were convented before the Assembly, the May following, where they plead, First, That the house was their own. Second, That it was built when there was no law to forbid it, there, therefore, they were not transgressors. Third, That it was the express will and pleasure of the king, that they should enjoy their liberty. After some reviling speeches were cast upon them, they were publicly admonished by the Governor, pardoned for their past offenses, but prohibited from meeting in their house for the future without permission from the authority. But it does not appear that this prohibition was regarded either by the church or the rulers.

These scenes transpired during the lives of Elders Hull and Russell. They were the principal leaders of the church through all this perplexing affair, and for that reason we have thought proper to relate it in connection with their history.

Mr. Hull survived Mr. Russell nine years, and how much longer the records of the church do not show; but being aged and feeble and often incapable of ministerial work, they sent over to England, and obtained for their next pastor John Emblen, who arrived here in 1684, and continued in office until 1699, when he died. Nothing farther can be learnt of his character, than that he was well esteemed.

After Mr. Emblen?s death, this church wrote again to England for another minister, but could not obtain one. They next applied to Mr. Sereyen, of Charleston, South Carolina, who had been one of their number; but he informed them that he could by no means be spared. "But if," said he, "the Lord do not please to supply you, in the way you expected, your way will be to improve the gifts you have in the church. Brother Ellis Callender and Joseph Russell, I know have gifts that may tend to edification, etc."

Pursuant to this advice, the church called Mr. Callender to the ministry shortly after, and in 1708, he was ordained their pastor, which office he sustained to the edification of his flock a number of years. He had been a member of the church thirty-nine years before he was ordained, and "continued in high esteem among them, till 1726," when he must have been not far from eighty years of age.

His son, Elisha Callender, became his successor, and continued in the pastoral office, until his death, which happened in 1788. He appears to have been the first learned pastor of this flock, and was distinguished for a pious and successful ministry. He was educated at Cambridge, and was ordained in 1718, by the assistance of three Pedobaptist ministers, namely Dr. Increase Mather, Dr. Cotton Mather, and Mr. John Webb. This was a