ELDER G BEEBE - HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE part 10

[T Adams]

Dear Brethren and Friends,

I again submit to you the next chapter from Elder Beebe's book entitled "The History of Protestant Priestcraft in America and Europe."  

This submission starts Part 2 of the book. I hope that all that are given to be reading these have been edified and encouraged so far for the times that we are living in and the freedoms that we currently have. Though, as I am reading further on I see quite a few parallels of what went on back during these times that Beebe is writing about and what I fear our future here may hold. 

This second part is more on the History of America. As you are reading this, please keep in mind that ALL that is written here took place ONLY 400 years ago. It's not like these things occurred in the Old Testament times. NO! these are fairly recent!  It is maddening to me to read a lot of the persecution of those whom we would consider brethren. With those whom we disagree doctrinally with I completely understand not wanting to have anything to do with them for Scripture says: 

"If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (II John 1:10-11 [KJV])"

But what Scripture has to say about it is completely different than what you will read in this second part of the book.

As always, any comments are appreciated.  If nothing else, it shows that these are actually being read. :)

A Sinner in Hope,
Tom

==============================

THE HISTORY OF PROTESTANT PRIEST-CRAFT IN AMERICA AND EUROPE
Elder Gilbert Beebe
BANNER OF LIBERTY
1865

PART II

CHAPTER I

In Part I of our History it was conclusively proven that the pretended Reformers or Puritan Protestants, instead of having been the lamb-like, pions, and peaceably christian characters represented by their own historical writers, were of the most bigoted, persecuting, cruel and unchristian character, exceeding in their atrocities against those who differed from them any well authenticated persecutions for religious opinion, in any age or country. Although in the beginning they proclaimed perfect religious liberty as their motto, and thereby drew to their support all dissenters from the church of Rome, no sooner did they obtain political power in Great Britain or Germany than they exhausted their ingenuity to invent outrages to perpetrate upon all who opposed even the most absurd and immaterial of their dogmas. In fact, their true character was well illustrated by a comedian who, in one of his farces, represents one of them as saying, at a time when all were free to act according to the dictates of conscience in religious matters –

“I wish I were free – I wish I were free.”
“Are you not free?” was asked, – “can you not do as you have a mind to?”
“Ah, yes, but I cannot make you do as I have a mind to.” ¹

The same idea of what constitutes religious freedom seems to have characterized the Puritans from the first, and has been ever acted out in their history in America, as well as in Europe, giving rise to the most wicked oppressions and persecutions of all who differed from them.

With these prefatory remarks, we shall commence our second part, devoted to the History of Puritanic Persecution in America of Baptists, Quakers, Catholics, and other dissenters, by the following extract from “Benedict’s History of the Baptists,” a most elaborate and invaluable work:

The first permanent settlement in New England was effected at Plymouth, in 1620, and although this colony of pilgrims was at first entirely distinct from those who commenced a settlement at Salem, in 1628, and who two years after removed the seat of their operations to Boston, yet as they have long since been merged in one, we shall consider them as one body in the following narratives of the rise of the Baptists in Massachusetts, where the oldest church of the Baptist order is that at Swansea, on the southern side, near to the Rhode Island line, which was formed in 1663. Two years after, viz., in 1665, is the date of the first church in Boston.

It thus appears to have been over forty years from the landing of the pilgrim fathers, before the organization of any Baptist community in this ancient Commonwealth. But during all this time, and from the first settlement of the colony, there were individuals of this belief, and the constant fear of their influence was the source of alarming apprehensions to the ministers and rulers of those times. 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.

As our brethren in the mother country had been much intermixed with the dissenting pædobaptists, it is highly probable that the early immigrants of this class to the infant colony, continued to be so for the first years of their settlement here, and while they continued in this state of quiescence or concealment, they met with no trouble or opposition. And upon all the principles which the colonists had advanced in the commencement of their undertaking at home, and after their arrival in their new and wilderness location, they should have remained unmolested – freedom or conscience to all who united in the hazardous enterprise, should have been invariably maintained. Dissent or toleration were terms which ought to have had no place in their chronicles or vocabularies. Whatever were their dogmas or their rites, they were all on a level. As they had fled from a common enemy – as their charters from home gave them no power to establish religious tests – as the hostile aborigines looked upon them all, without distinction, as blasphemers of their gods, and intruders on their soil; they should have nourished the fraternal feeling of a common brotherhood, and rallied around a common standard for mutual protection and safety. And but for the grand mistake of forming the monstrous and dangerous union of Church and State, and of transferring to the civil arm the punishment of religious offenders, this might have been done, as well in this, as in the adjoining State of Rhode Island.

On the 23d of August, 1630, on board the ship Arabella, before they landed, at the first meeting of the Court of Assistants, the first dangerous act was performed by the rulers of this incipient government, which led to innumerable evils, hardships, and privations to all who had the misfortune to dissent from the ruling powers in after times.

The question propounded was, How shall the ministers be maintained? “It was ordered, that houses be built for them with convenient speed at the public charge, and their salaries were established.”

This was the viper in embryo; here was an importation and establishment in the outset of the settlement, of the odious doctrine of Church and State, which had thrown Europe into confusion – had caused rivers of blood to be shed – had crowded prisons with innocent victims; and had driven the pilgrims themselves, who were now engaged in the mistaken legislation, from all that was dear in their native homes. From these resolutions, on board this floating vessel, which by subsequent acts became a permanent law, subjecting every citizen, whatever was his religious belief, to support the ministry of the established church, and to pay all the taxes which the dominant party might impose, for their houses of worship, their ordinations, and all their ecclesiastical affairs, proceeded the great mistake of the Puritan fathers. And from the same incipient measure grew all the unrighteous tithes and taxes – the vexatious and ruinous law suits – the imprisonment and stripes of the multitudes who refused to support a system of worship which they did not approve.

From this same principle of doing all in religion at the public charge, proceeded the odious name of the colonists abroad, and the infinite trouble to all parties at home; and finally it led on to the cruel scenes of banishment of now inconsiderable number of their valuable citizens, male and female, and in the end, to the more horrid and appalling tragedies of delivering over to the hangman’s bloody functions, and sending from the ignoble scaffold into the eternal world, the innocent or misguided victims of their sanguinary laws.

Roger Williams plainly foretold them in the beginning of their dangerous career, as early as 1643, when his book, the Bloody Tenet, was published, that their principles would end in blood.

The first principles of the early settlers, laid the foundation for an infant hierarchy, the evils of which run through all the New England states, except the little repudiated territory of R. I.; but by slow digress, all at last have adopted her original policy, and have found by long experience of a contrary cause, “that a most flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with a full liberty in religious concernments.”

“The provident foresight and pious care of the Puritan fathers, to provide by law for the support of religion, that their ministers should not be left to the uncertain donations of their flocks,” have been the subject of commendation and eulogy by many of their descendants. The plan was indeed specious in appearance, but could they have foreseen all the evils which followed it, through all the colonies – could they have had a full view in their early movements, of all the distress to individuals and families, which their legal policy for many generations occasioned and of the frightful extremities to which it soon conducted them, they must have shuddered at the prospect, and faltered in their course.

The most charitable exposition we can give of this unpleasant subject is, that good men with bad principles were led astray; that although they were driven by persecution from their native land, and here intended to form an asylum for the oppressed who should fly to them for shelter, of every nation and of every creed; yet from the strength of habit, and the general opinion of mankind, in that age, they dare not leave the sacred cause to its own inherent influence; and the spirit of the times rather than the disposition of the men, hurried them forward to those persecuting measures which have fixed an indelible stain on their otherwise fair name.

Soon after the commencement of their operations, so numerous were the accessions to their number, and so great were the prospects of a splendid religious commonwealth, all to be stereotyped in their own way, more by the laws of Moses than of the gospel, that they lost sight of their original design, so far as its benevolent character was concerned. And then the pride of opinion, the overweening confidence in the correctness of their ecclesiastical establishment, and to close the whole, the stimulating influence of their secular coadjutors, who had been made to believe that the church was in danger without their legal and fostering care; that all the avenues of componition were closed; they became deaf to all the remonstrances from their friends at home; to all the complaints and entreaties of those who suffered under their iron rule; and to all the reproaches from the throne itself for going counter to the principles which led them into the western wilds.

Having made these preliminary remarks, we shall proceed to give some details of Baptist affairs in this State, and especially of their sufferings up to the time when the two oldest churches, viz.: those at Swansen and Boston were formed.

We get but a faint glimpse of this people, in a few insulated situations, until we come to the heart-rending sufferings which were inflicted on John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes and others.

Although some of the first planters in this State were Baptists, yet it was a long time before they gained much ground in either of the colonies of Plymouth or Massachusetts. One reason for this may have been, that all who came over to their sentiments, or who were inclined to embrace them, were induced to remove to the neighboring colony of Rhode Island, where thy found an asylum congenial to their mind.

Hansard Knollys, who afterwards held a conspicuous place among the Baptist ministers in London, landed and tarried awhile in Boston in 1638.

In 1639, the same year in which the first church in Providence was founded, an attempt was made in Weymouth, a town about fourteen miles south-east from Boston, to gather a small company of Baptist believers. John Spur, John Smith, Richard Sylvester, Ambrose Morton, Thomas Makepeace, 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 counseled to go to Mr. Mather for instruction. Makepeace 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, &c. How matters finally terminated with him I do not find; but it is certain he soon after went to Mr. Clarke’s settlement on Rhode Island, and began to preach there before the first church at Newport was formed.

In 1640, Rev. Mr. Chauncey, a minister of the pædopapist order, became an open advocate for the doctrine of immersion, but still held on to infants as proper subjects for the rite. This innovation, however trifling as it was, made no small stir among the magistrates and elders of the church. But president Dunster, at Cambridge College, soon after this went much further, and openly renounced the whole system of infant baptism; but I do not find that he ever united with any Baptist church.

About this time, a lady of much distinction in those times, whom Governor Winthrop calls the Lady 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 north-east from Boston, of one Humphrey, who had returned to England. She belonged to the church in Salem, to which she was dealt with by many of the elders and others, but persisted 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 infected with anabaptism removed hither also.” Eleven years after Mrs. Moody’s removal, Messrs. Clarke, Holmes, and Crandale, went to visit some Baptists at Lynn, by the request of an aged brother, whose name was William Witter. This circumstance makes it probably 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, a poor man by the name of Painter was suddenly turned anabaptist, and for refusing to have his child baptized, he was complained of to the court, who, with judicial dignity, interposed their authority in the case in favor of the child. And because the poor man gave it as his opinion that infant baptism was an anti-christian ordinance, he was tied up and whipped.”²

About this time, Mr. Williams returned from England with the first charter for the Rhode Island colony, and landed in Boston.

He brought with a letter signed by twelve members of Parliament, addressed to the governor, assistants, and people of Massachusetts, exhorting them to lenient measures toward their dissenting brethren, and toward Mr. Williams I particular.³

But this appeal had no effect to mitigate the keenness of their resentment, or the severity of their measures.

The Baptists, or 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 used 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 among 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 the 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 much 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 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 wailfully 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, viz.: 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 has diligently searched all the books, records, and papers, which he could find on all sides, and could not find an instance then (1777) of an real Baptist in Massachusetts being convicted of, or suffering for any crime, except 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 thing it strange if we suspect the frightful accounts which were given of them in darker ages by monkish historians?

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, &c.” The clergy doubtless had a hand in framing this shameful act, as they, at this time, were the secretaries and counselors 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.”⁴

According to Hubbard, in the following year a petition came into the general court against this singular law, and against one more singular still, which had been made some years before forbidding any one to entertain strangers without a license from two magistrates. The traveling merchant in the tow, as well as the wandering pilgrim in the wilderness, all fell under this prohibition. The men of business complained of it as hurtful to their trade, and a multitude of others as an encroachment on the right of hospitality, which they were willing to exercise towards the houseless and benighted stranger, who might seek a shelter in the darkness of the night from the raging storm.

Although the magistrates might be far away, and far apart, their signatures must be had before the threshold of the remotest and humblest cottage could be passed.

So fearful were these bigoted puritans that some infectious Anabaptists, Quaker, churchman, or other contaminating heretic should lead their people astray.

Such police regulations as this were probably never known in the most despotic countries.


Sufferings of Obadiah Holmes, John Clarke, and others. – We are now prepared to give an account of a scene of suffering peculiarly cruel and afflictive, and to see the Bloody Tenet literally exemplified.

We have already seen that there were some Baptists at Lynn, in 1640, when 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. Clarke, Holmes, and Crandall, “being the representatives of the church at 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, leads 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 Sunday, they concluded to spend it in religious worship at his house. While Mr. Clarke 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 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 where was as follows:

‘By virtue hereof, you are requested 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 to-morrow 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 thereof, you are not strictly tied; but if you please, you may suffer us to make an end of that 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 anything therein contained, you may. They apprehended us, and carried us 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 which 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 we will 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 hard 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 gestures.’ After all this, when we had consulted with the man of the house, he told us he would carry us to the meeting; so to the 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 praying, singing, and preaching were 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 conscience, 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 any gesture on my coming into your assembly, I declared my dissent from you, so last that should prove offensive unto some I would not offend, I would now by word of mouth declare the grounds, which are these: First, from consideration that we are strangers to each 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 I 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 then next morning carried before Mr. Bridges, who made our mittimus, and sent us to the prison to Boston.”

About a fortnight after, the court of assistants passed the following sentence against these persecuted men, viz.: that Mr. Clarke should pay a fine of twenty pounds, Mr. Holmes of thirty, and Mr. Crandall of five, or be publicly whipped.

“They all refused to pay their fines, and were remanded back to prison. Some of Mr. Clarke’s friends paid his fine without his consent. Mr. Crandall 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. Crandall 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. Clarke defended himself and brethren with so much ability that the court found themselves much embarrassed. ‘At length (says Mr. Clarke) 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 jailer to take us away.

“So, the next morning, having so fair an opportunity, I made a motion to the court in the words following:

To the honorable Court assembled at Boston.
“Whereas it pleased this honored court yesterday, to condemn the faith and order which I hold and practice; 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 powers, 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 dispel the darkness, I remain your well-wisher,
JOHN CLARKE.
From the prison, this 1st day, 6th mo., 1651.

“This motion, if granted, I desire might be subscribed by the 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. Clarke 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. Clarke into their chamber, and, inquired whether he could dispute upon the things contained in his sentence, &c. “For,” said they, “the court sentenced you, not for your judgment and conscience, but for matter-of-fact and practice.”

To which Mr. Clarke 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 I walk in must vanish away – they cannot both stand together: to which they seemed to assent. Therefore I told them, that if they pleased 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 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 that I should have my motion for a dispute under the Secretary’s hand.”

Mr. Clarke’s resolutions were four in number, and contained 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. Clarke, knowing that his adversaries would attribute the failure of it to him, immediately on his release, drew up the following address:

“Whereas, though 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 excluded the place of my imprisonment, by reason whereof I see no other call for the 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 the Secretary’s, 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 hand,
JOHN CLARKE.
11th day, 6th mo., 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 pædobaptist side. But in a day or two after, Mr. Clarke received the following address from his timorous adversaries:

“Mr. John Clarke,
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 counseled 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 questions, you keeping close to 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, 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, Dep. Gov.
WILLIAM HIBBINS.
INCREASE NOWELL.
11th day of the 6th mo., 1651.”

This communication Mr. Clarke answered in the following manner:

“To the honor Governor of the Massachusetts, and the rest of that Honorable Society these present:

“Worthy Senators:

“I received a writing signed with five your your hands, by way of answer to a twice repeated motion of mine before you, which was grounded, 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, &c., 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 repeat my former motion, which, if it shall please the honored General Court to accept, and under their Secretary’s hand shall grant s free dispute, without molestation or interruption, I shall be well satisfied therewith; that what is pleased 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 CLARKE.
From prison, this 14th day, 6th month, 1651.”

Thus ended Mr. Clarke’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. Clarke all along had in view a law that had been made seven years before, which threatened so terribly any one 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 ina 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. Clarke 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 Kiffin, and the rest that in London stand fast in the faith, and continue to walk steadfastly 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, &c.

“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 Clarke 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 sentence⁵; 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, whee not long after I was deprived of my two loving friends, at whose departure the adversary stept 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 tot 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 I could not thank them for their money, if they should pay it. So the court drew near, and the night before I should suffer according tmy 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 rather 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 friends 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 loathe 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.”

Mr. Holmes proceeds in his narrative, and exhibits the strength of faith which bore him up in anticipation of the appalling scene which was before him.

“And when I heard the voice of my keeper come for 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 execution to 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 to 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 me 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 execution, 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 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 he went away and would not dispute; but this the writing 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 igive my body into their hands thus to be bruised upon another account, yet upon this I would not give the hundreth part of a waumpun peague⁶ 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 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 shold fail, and my spirit should fail, yet my God would not fail. So it pleased the Lord to come in, and so 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 thereof, and so two more are apprehended 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.”

In imitation of the persecutors of old these New England Puritans made it a capital offence for any one to show any sympathy to the victims of their severity, or to afford them any comfort or relief.⁷

“Now 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 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 taking 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.”

Warrants were issued out against thirteen persons whose only crime was showing some emotions of sympathy toward 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 at Rehoboth. Both of these me were to receive ten lashes, or pay forth 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 were pretended than that they took Mr. Holmes by the hand when he came from the whipping-post, and blessed God for strength and support he had given him. But this was “a heinous offence,” 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. Clarke 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 Pædobaptists, 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 Massachuset’s 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 matters of worship to do that whereof they are not fully persuaded, as to make them sin, for so the apostle (Rom. 14:23,) 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 have laid you 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 to 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 to promote either the coming of the persons you aim at into our assemblies, or their punishment for their carriage there. Righteous judgment 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 excommunicated 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 here to perform.⁸ And he was not ignorant that the re-baptizing 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 then inflicted on him. His censure by the court, was to have paid, as I know, £30 or else be whipt; his fine was offered to be paid by friends for him freely, but he chose rather to be whipt; 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.⁹ The other (Mr. Clarke) was wiser in that point, and his offence was less, so was his fine less, and himself, as I hear, was contented to have it paid for him, whereupon he was released. 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 matters of worship is to make them sin. If the worship be lawful in itself, the magistrates compelling him to come to it, compelleth him not to sin, but the sin is in his will that needs to be 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 we 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 non to man’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 saintship. 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 were the apologies of the great Mr. Cotton, who was unquestionably the most talented and distinguished man among the Pædobaptists of that day; and, as Mr. Ivimey well observes, “We have happily arrived at a period when arguments are not necessary to prove the absurdity of his reasoning,” and also, “That the severities of those times were not so much the result of the disposition of these New England persecutors as of the principles which they had adopted.”

Mr. Cotton’s education at Cambridge, in England, was of the most finished kind for those times, and all ascribe to him a character every way good. And even Roger Williams, his great antagonists, with his characteristic magnanimity, speaks of him with esteem and respect.

The city of Boston, as a compliment tot his illustrious man, was called after that of the same name in England, where he had been settled, and from which he fled in haste to escape the Bishop’s power. His life was long, active, and useful; and had he lived in after times, when the rights of conscience were better understood, he would no doubt have saved his great name from the odium which now rests upon it, as the main projector of an unjust law against a handful of Anabaptists and other dissenters, from the all-powerful sway of the infant hierarchy of which he was the omnis homo, or principle man.

Nothing but a blind infatuation in favor of a system which has since been doomed to condemnation and neglect, could have led such a man, so distinguished for his mild and amiable qualities, to have not only looked on with approbation, but to have hurried forward, by his powerful pen, his commending eloquence, the cruel scenes above described, which, by the request of some of the patrons of this work, I have given without abridgment, from the old edition.

The only crime alleged against these men, was going peaceably to the house of an aged brother, which should have been a castle to them all, and there, in a devout and quiet manner, commencing the worship of their common Lord. But the rulers of the church, who were terribly afraid of encroachment and innovation, had entrusted its guardianship to a set of ill-bred and unfeeling secular officials, who knew not how to do their business in a decent and respectful manner; and the conveying the men to their meeting, there to tantalize and abuse them, went beyond anything I remember to have read of in the mother country.

Dr. Clarke, the principal object of their resentment, soon after this event, was sent an ambassador to the British court, from the colony of Rhode Island.

So completely was he at home in the baptismal controversy, that he was evidently as desirous for the public discussion, as his opponents were to avoid it.

But although the Governor had incautiously thrown out the challenge, yet the ministers shrunk back from the encounter.

It is said by Mr. Backus that President Dunster was led to inquire into the Baptist sentiments by the persecutions which we have thus related, and it is highly probably that many others had their attention brought to the subject by these severities.

And we may also suppose that those Baptist members who had hitherto continued within the bounds of the Pædobaptist churches, some of whom were accused of the profane trick of turning their backs when infant subjects were brought forward to the baptismal rite, were constrained to separate themselves entirely from such a persecuting church.

These events I state as probabilities, not being in possession of authentic details. But certain it is, the Baptists now began to increase, and to take a bolder stand against the encroachments of their opponents, and in defense of their own peculiar views.

They were conscious of having the sympathy of the dissenters generally, from the mother country, and of many of the party at home from whom their late trials had proceeded.

But so slow was the progress of the denomination of this state, that in one hundred years from the organization of the first churches in Swansea and Boston, 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 war of the revolution; which calamitous scene in all other respects, was nevertheless peculiarly auspicious to the cause of religious liberty in this heretofore fast-bound commonwealth, as well as in all the colonies where religious establishments had exercised a domineering sway.

Although the church in Swansea was organized a short time before this, yet as that was in a remote part of the state, on the borders of R. I., its formation caused but little excitement at the head-quarters of the ruling powers. But the community now to be described was in the very centre of their operations. At this late period, when the principles of religious freedom are so far established, and all denominations are permitted without any impediment to form as many churches as they please, it is difficult to comprehend how such a feeble company of despised Anabaptists, without power or patronage, with no place of meeting but their own private and humble dwellings, should for many years in succession throw the whole power of the state, sacred and secular, into such unusual commotion, and lead them to resort to so many expedients to hinder and suppress them.

After a full survey of all the circumstances of the case, I am strongly inclined to the opinion that Mr. Gould and his associates had no definite plan as to their future operations in the commencement of their course. They were among “the multitude” referred to by Dr. Mather, “of holy, watchful, faithful, and heavenly people among the first settlers of New England, who had scruples as to infant baptism.”¹⁰

No company of people could more fully answer the Doctor’s very candid description than those whose history is before us. And as we have already suggested, there were probably many more of these quiet and pious dissenters in principle, who still traveled in connection with the puritan Anabaptists churches, in these infant settlements, as they had done in the mother country.

But the time had come for the advocates of believers’ baptism to take a stand by themselves, and lay the foundation for those immense results which have since followed, in the metropolis of this important state, and in this populous and intelligent community.

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 the several generations, there were others as studious to deprive all unadult children thereof, and restrain the privilege only to adult believers.¹¹

Mr. Thomas Gould, a man of very humble pretensions, with no official character of any kind, but a mere private member of a small country church, was designated by divine providence, to be the principal instrument in this difficult and dangerous enterprise, and the patient victim of all the sufferings and reproaches which it involved. And the simple fact of his modesty declining to present his new-born child at the baptismal font, was the means of opening the crusade against him on the part of the whole Pædobaptist community, which in the end enlisted all the logic, the stratagems, and bigotry of the whole corps of the priesthood, and a long train of legal enactments from the secular powers.

Ten thousand such omissions have since been silently overlooked by succeeding churches, and the offenders have continued in the fellowship and repose. And had the conscientious scruples of Gould been treated with that kindness and charity which every dictate of christian forbearance suggests, there is no probability that the foundation of the first Baptist church in Boston, at that time, would have been laid. But such was the spirit of the times – the bigotry of the men – and especially of master Sims, the pastor of the church to which Mr. Gould belonged, that they hurried the good man forward much beyond his first design.

The following narrative from the pen of Mr. Gould, was found by Mr. Backus among Mr. Callender’s papers, and as it is in a very plan and intelligent style, I have thought it best to insert it in its full extent, and in his own words, with the addition of such comments as naturally occur.

I would again remark that the term elder, is to be understood, not as with us, but in the Presbyterian sense of a secondary officer in the Church.

“It is having been a long time a scruple to me about infant baptism, I durst not bring forth my child to be a partaker of it; so seeing 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 work again what hour 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. In looking on the writing, with many friends with me, I told them I had promised to go another day on the morrow. Master Dunster (probably President Dunster) being present, desired me to send them word that I could not 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 laid about two months before I 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 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 stoop 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 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, stoop 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, this 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’s for it, for that ordinance belongs to such as can make profession of their faith, as the scripture doth plainly hold forth. They answer 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. May other things were spoken, then a meeting was appointed by the church, the next week, at Mr. Russell’s.”


The greatest stickler for baptismal regeneration, the absolute necessity of the rite for the salvation of children, and the certain and unavoidable destruction of all who died without it, in any of the ancient national hierarchies, could not have laid greater stress on infant baptism than did this Puritan church. And what could be more unlike the kindness, and candor, and fair and honest dealing of the christian and gentleman, than the conduct of Mr. Sims, the pastor of the church, in his treatment of this offending brother?

At the meeting held at Mr. Gould’s house, as a day of thanksgiving for his family mercies, it is probable that none attended but those who sympathized with this scrupulous man, which President Dunster, on account of his tinge of Baptist sentiments, would be willing to do. As for the church generally, they would hardly be willing to join in any acts of religious worship, on account of a child, whose baptism had, in their view, been thus criminally neglected.

“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 though 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:

“1st. That they should not make me an offender for a word.
2d. That they should not drive me faster than I was able to go.
3d. That if any present should see cause to clear up anything that was spoken by me, they might have liberty without offence; because here are many of you that have your 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 of many things for and against, but so hotly on 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 piece of scripture where children were baptized.’ I told him that would put an end to the controversy. That place is in the 2d of the Acts, 39th and 40th verses. After he had read the scripture, Mr. Sims told me that promise belonged to infants, for the scripture saith, The promise is to you and your children, and 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. Pray do not condemn me, for if I am deceived, my eyes deceive me. He replied again, I added to the scriptures, which was blasphemy. I looked into my bible, read the words again, and said it was so. He replied in the same words the third time before the church. Mr. Russell stood up and told him it was so, as I had read it. ‘Aye, it may be so in your bible,’ said 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.”

Mr. Gould’s three propositions, contained in this section of the narrative, shows him to have been a man, not only of good sense, but capable of a clear arrangement of ideas. It is also plain that he wished to secure for his friends who might wish to participate in the debate, a better opportunity than Mr. Sims, the chairman of the meeting, with his strong and unfriendly bias, would be likely to give.

“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. They stood up W. D. in the church and said, “Put him in the Court! put him in the Court!” But Mr. Sims answered, ‘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, while 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 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. They they dealt with me for my irreverent carriage. One stood up and accused me that I stopped my ears, but I denied it.”

“Put him in the court,” was the ultima ratio – the last argument of the mistaken church, which had so lately fled from the same kind of cruel discipline – from the strong arm of ecclesiastical tyranny at home. And here we see, in the acts of this religious commonwealth, the evil of committing to the civil power the regulation of religious affairs. Had it not been for the power of this infant court, the church in this case would have done this handful of Dissenters no personal harm. It would have been a mere verbal contest about dogmas and rites, and if they could not have reclaimed their delinquent members by the ecclesiastical disciple, their only alternative would have been to let them go, and close the door against them after their departure.

But they well understood that there was a power behind the church, to which they could appeal; and it is to the credit of Mr. Sims that he at first dissuaded his brethren from this cruel resort. But soon afterwards he must have joined in the measure.

“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 know to the congregation that I had no hand in it; then some of the church against doing it. A brother stood up and said, ‘Brother Gould, you were once for children’s baptism, why are you fall from it?’ I answered ‘It is true, and I suppose you were once for crossing in baptism, why are you fallen from that?’ That 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 that you will let the church baptize your child.’ I told him, ‘that if the church would do it on their own account, they might 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 spoke 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.”¹²

It is truly astonishing that the fact of one obscure child being withheld from the baptismal rite, should produce such an interest and sensation among all classes, high and low, in church and state. Seven years had thus rolled on in this religious warfare, and all parties seemed at a loss to know whether Mr. Gould was in the church or out of it. And he himself appears to have had no settled plan for his future action.

But about this time, says this afflicted man, some Baptist friends from England desired to hold a meeting at his house. They well understood how to manage cases of this kind, from their own experience at home. The meeting was accordingly commenced, and on the 28th of May, 1665, the church was formed, consisting of Thomas Gould, Thomas Osbourne, Edward Drinker, John George, Richard Goodall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Goodall, and Mary Newall.

Gould and Osbourne were members of the Puritan 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 Mr. Stead. Of the others we have no 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.

This little anabaptist church, consisting of only nine members, a part of whom were females, and the rest illiterate ploughmen and mechanics, made full employment for the rulers of Massachusetts for a number of years.¹³

Hitherto the secular powers had done but little; but in a few months after the organization of this feeble church, their legislation commenced, and continued with much severity for a number of years, and some of the members spent most of their time in courts and prisons; they were often fined, and finally the sentence of banishment was pronounced against them, which, however, they did not see fit to obey.

It would take a volume, says Morgan Edwards, to contain an account of all their sufferings for ten or twelve years.

The burden of all their complaints was that they had formed a church without the approbation of the ruling powers.

“This principle,” says Mr. Neale, “ condemns all the dissenting congregations which have been formed in England since the Act of Uniformity, in the year 1662.”

It is as difficult to reconcile the arguments of the New England fathers with common honesty in this case, as it is in all their legislation’s in church and state, so far as dissenters were concerned, with common sense.

From the first settlement of the country, the fixed and determined policy in both departments, civil and ecclesiastical, which were in substance the same, had been to establish and maintain a strict uniformity in church affairs, to the exclusion of all sects and parties, creeds and forms, not excepting the mother church, on whose civil functionaries they still hung in colonial dependence.

Not only were no provisions made, as in some despotic hierarchies, but all their laws were against any incipient movements of the kind.

Separation and anabaptistry were frightful chimeras in Roger Williams’ time:

“They felt a thousand death deaths in fearing one.”

Severe laws had been made against the Baptists, the Quakers, and all others who by word or deed should show any dislike to their established worship; and some of their own party had been banished, as well as others, for protesting against what Backus calls the idol of uniformity which these people had set up.

No fact can be more notorious than that they had resolved that no other church should exist but their own. And it was well known to our brethren that no license or permission would be granted under any circumstances whatever. How then could men who meant to be believed, assign the reason above stated for this long train of legal severities against this handful of conscientious men?

And equally absurd was their excuse for their treatment of men, who, in the language of the day, were excommunicate persons, when it was so well known that they were excluded from no fault but an honest difference of opinion with the dominant party.

And to crown the absurdity of these misguided leaders of a peculiar age, after Mr. Gould and his companions had been fined, imprisoned, and sentenced to banishment for opinions which the highest tribunals, with the greatest confidence and most solemn assurance, had condemned as incompatible with the laws of God and man; they were then challenged to a public dispute, to settle the question whether they were erroneous or not! and the six following clergymen, viz.: Messrs. John Allen, Thomas Cobbet, John Higginson, Samuel Danforth, Jonathan Mitchell, and Thomas Shepard, were nominated to mange the dispute on the Puritan side, which was appointed to be April 14th, 1668, in the meeting house in Boston, at 9 o’clock in the morning. But lest the six learned clergymen would not be a match for a few illiterate Baptists, the Governor and magistrates were requested to meet with them. The news of the dispute soon spread abroad, and Mr. Clarke’s church in Newport sent William Hiscox, Joseph Torry, and Samuel Hubbard, to assist their brethren in Boston in it, who arrived three days before it was to come on.

This dispute, different from the one proposed by John Clarke, in some sort, was actually held and continued two days to little purpose. But all turned out a solemn mockery, so far as the rights of the Baptists were concerned; and it appears in the end that they were called together only to be tantalized and abused.

When the disputants were met, there was a long speech made by one of their opponents showing what vile persons the Baptists were, and how they acted against the churches and government here, and stood condemned by the court. The others desired liberty speak, but they would not suffer them, but told them they stood there as delinquents, and ought not to have liberty to speak. Then they desired that they might choose a moderator as well as they; but this they denied them. In the close, Master Jonathan Mitchell pronounced that dreadful sentence against them in Deuteronomy, 17th chapter, from the 8th to the 12th verse.

The concluding sentence of this Old Testament anathema is as follows: – “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.”

This strange application of this terrible denunciation, was made by the same Mitchell who was afraid to converse with president Dunster, let his mind should be shaken upon infant baptism; who ascribed all his scruples on the subject to an infernal power; and who, in the end, resolved that he would have an argument able to remove mountains before he would give it up.

And according to Backus, he was most active in stimulating the rulers in their persecuting measures against the Baptists.

So far as we can gain information of the management of this singular dispute, in cowardly and contemptible tyranny, on the part of the Puritans, it exceeded anything of the kind which we read of in any age.¹⁴

The next month after this singular measure, the sentence of their banishment was pronounced against these obstinate and turbulent Puritans (such is the language of the law), who, in open court, asserted that nothing they had heard convinced them of the error of their ways.

The injuries sustained by Gould and his associates excited the compassion of many gentlemen whose religious views were different from theirs, both in Europe and America; and while they were suffering in prison because they would not go into exile, a petition was presented to the court in their favor, containing upwards of sixty names, among whom are said to have been Capts. Hutchinson and Oliver, and others of note in the country. But such was the strange infatuation of these Puritan defenders of the church, in which it is well understood that their ministers were deeply concerned, that instead of producing any abatement of their severities, on the contrary, the chief promoters of the petition were fined and others were compelled, as a matter of safety, to make concessions to the all-powerful tribunal whose clemency they had sought for these innocent sufferers.

And here it may be proper to observe that no small number of gentlemen, of much distinction, were all along opposed to these persecuting measures, among whom was Gov. Leverett, Lieut. Gov. Willoughby, Mr. Symonds, and many others. “These men,” says Backus, “were great opposers of these persecutions against the Baptists.”¹⁵ And many that did not take an open stand against them felt a decided disapprobation of these undue severities, on the score of sound policy and religious toleration.

The king’s commissioners, and all who acted under immediate appointments from the crown, of course, would do all in their power to neutralize and restrain these intemperate ebullitions or Puritan zeal, which they well understood was ready to be turned upon members of the establishment who would become obnoxious to the standing order.

But all these remonstrances were without effect, and Mr. Backus concludes, from the best information he could give, that these much-injured men were imprisoned more than a year after the sentence of their banishment was pronounced against them.

After his release, Mr. Gould, who was their principal speaker, went to live at noddle’s Island (now East Boston), and at his house the church assembled once a week for a number of years.

When the weather was unpleasant, the brethren resigning at and about Wobourn, assembled and attended the ministry of elder Russell. From these men arose the church at Wobourn.

“Elder Russell and his son, and brother Foster, were thrown into prison, and confined there for nearly six month.

“On the 20th of May, 1672, the General Court ordered their law books to be revised, and inserted another act, sentencing to banishment every person who should openly oppose or condemn the baptizing of infants.

“Thus the Baptists continued to be exposed to persecution, and two of them, Trumbel and Osborne, were, in 1673, fined twenty shillings each, for withdrawing from the public (that is the established) meetings.

“But this year, Mr. John Leveret, who had all along been opposed to the measures used against the Baptists, was chosen Governor, and they were permitted to enjoy their liberty for nearly six years.”

Of Mr. Gould’s history, I can learn nothing more than what has been related in the preceding sketches. And when we consider that the church which he was the principal instrument in founding, first in Charlestown, within call of Boston, in 1665, included the whole of the Baptist interest in the colony of Massachusetts for about seventy years, this full detail of enterprise and sufferings will not be regarded as improper.

The Swansea church was in the colony of Plymouth.

Of Mr. Hull, we have scarce any account; but of Mr. Russell, the following sketches have been preserved. He was ordered 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 was 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 an 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 shoemaker, may low and abusive reflections were made upon him on that account, even after he was dead, by some of the dignified doctors of the church.

“The church, under the occasional labor of Messrs. Russell, Hull, and Miles, who occasionally labored with them, and whose history will be given in that of the Swansea church, had become so large that they agreed to divide into two churches; but in January, 1678, they resolved ot unite, and erect a place of worship in Boston, having for fourteen years been destitute of a house for public worship, during which time they met for worship in their dwelling-houses in Charlestown, Boston, and Noddle’s Island.

Before the meeting-house was finished, Governor Leveret died, and former measures of severity were renewed against the Baptists.

On the 15th of February, 1679, the church met in their house for the first time. It was located at the corner of what is now called Stillman and Salem streets. But their enjoyment of this commodious sanctuary was of short duration: for, in the following May, the General Court, not finding any old law which would bear upon the case, enacted a new law to this effect.

“That no person should erect or make use of a house for public worship, without license from the authorities, under the penalty, that the house and land on which it stood should be forfeited to the use of the county, to be disposed of by the county treasurer, by sale, or demolished, as the court that gave judgment in the case should order.”

This affair went the old round of courts and legislatures. In the mean time the patient little flock, being in danger of the loss of the building which had cost them so much labor and care to erect, quietly submitted to these unrighteous demands, and “waited to see what God would do for them.”

“News of the proceedings having reached the powers at home, the King in due time wrote to the rulers here, “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 subject 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 these obstinate and resolute defenders of Puritanism yielded a very slow and reluctant compliance with this positive injunction from the throne.

Deplorable indeed, says Mr. Backus, was the case of these brethren. 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 have become more offensive than before.”

How long they were excluded from their own premises does not appear. Communications from one country to the other, at that time, were slowly made, and no doubt a number of months intervened before the royal summons arrived. But, at length, having information indirectly, it should seem, of the king’s letter in their favor, they presumed to re-enter their long deserted chapel. But three or four times, however, were they permitted to assemble before they were again called before the vexatious court to answer for the high offense; and soon they found the doors had been nailed up by the marshal, and a paper put on them to this effect:

“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 meetings, or to open the doors thereof without license from authority, till 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 had no alternative but to submit to the right of the strongest and as there was no law against it, the next Sunday they assembled in their yard, where they soon after erected a temporary covering. Such was the undue severity of these Puritan fathers, towards this small assembly of Baptist professors; and that in the face of the express command of their royal master then on the English throne.

But on the second Sunday, when they came together, they found their doors had been opened; and their assemblies continued without interruption, until the following May, when their leading men were again cited before the ever watchful Assembly. But our brethren took a bolder stand, and plead:

1. That the house was their own.
2. That it was built when there was no law to forbid it. Therefore they were not transgressors.
3. That it was the express will and pleasure of the King, that they should enjoy their liberty.

The remainder of this part of the narrative presents a strange compound of authority and neglect. After enduring some reviling speeches, as nullifiers of the infant rite, and disturbers of religious order, and having been admonished in open court by the Governor, Simon Bradstreet, and charged not to meet in their house again; they were then dismissed, and the court agreed to suspend any further proceedings against them.

_____________________________

1I used some editorial freedom to format it this way. It was not separated but was lumped together inside the paragraph in the original. - TRA

2Backus’ History, vol. 1, pp. 151, 148.

3Hubbard, as quoted by Backus, volume 1, p. 156.

4Mass. Records Hist., vol. I., p. 152, as quoted by Backus, vol. I.

5The Sentence of Obadiah Holmes, Seaconk, the 7th mo., 1661
“Forasmuch as you, Obadiah Holmes, being come into this jurisdiction about the 21st of the 5th mo., did meet at one William Witter’s house, at Lynn, and did there 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,k 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 excommunicate, and that you did baptize such as were baptized before, and thereby necessarily deny the 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 tends to the dishonor 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, 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 shipped, and that you shall remain in prison till it be paid, or security given in for it. By the Court, INCREASE NOWELL.”

6A waumpun peague is the sixth part of a penny, with us. – Backus.

7In a manuscript of Governor Joseph Jenks, written more than a hundred years ago, he says: “Mr. Holmes was whipt thirty stripes, and in such an unmerciful manner, that in many days if not some weeks, he could 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.”

8What an evasion is this! Sir Richard spake of compelling persons into their worship; and Cotton here turns it as if he meant a compelling persons out of one government into another, to worship in their own way. – Backus.

9Although 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. – Gov. Jenks.

10Backus, Vol. I., p. 355.

11This had reference to what was called the half-way covenant, which was a contrivance of those times to bring in all the children of succeeding generations, whether their parents were church-members or not.

12Backus, Vol. 1, pp. 359-365

13Mr. Backus has preserved the contents of a paper supposed to have been written by Mr. Gould’s wife, in which are the following comments on the charge that their churches were in danger of destruction from the infant efforts of the Baptists. “If,” says she, “eight or nine poor anabaptists, as they call them, should be the destruction of their churches, their foundation must be sandy indeed.” – Vol. I., p. 385.

14Disputes in England between the Ministers of the establishment and all classes of dissenters were managed with some degree of fairness; but the case was entirely different.

15Mass. Hist. as quoted by Backus, Vol. II. p. 382.