ordinances administered more authoritatively, he would not have contented himself with the one experiment, but would have gone forward to embody in practice any new light attained; that he would have sought either to con* vincc his Baptist brethren that something was lacking to the completeness of their apostolic standing, or to win others to his supposedly more apostolic and authoritative position. The fact is that he remained a Baptist in everything except in his demand for direct divine sanction for the restoration of the ordinances long since hopelessly lost. Mad Roger Williams been acquainted with the results of the latest researches in medieval history he would probably not have been so absolutely sure that the ordinances had been lost, even on the supposition that apostolic succession is a condition of their valid continuance. But he was manifestly in error in making the validity of Christian ordinances to depend upon any ceremonial or personal qualification of the administrator—the error of the Dona-tists in the early centuries, and of high-churchmen, Kpis-copal and Baptist, in modern times. As in the case of many great and good men before and since Roger Williams's time, his church life was wrecked and his Christian usefulness greatly impaired by his efforts to interpret the prophetical and apocalyptic Scriptures with reference to the events and movements of his own time—a procedure fraught with danger, invariably resulting in error, and oftentimes ending in disaster.
The history of the First Baptist Church of Providence after the withdrawal of Roger Williams is for some years involved in considerable obscurity. The original records have been lost, and some have sought to make it appear that for a time it ceased entirely to exist, and that the surviving organization is independent of the first. The chief interest involved in this contention has been a desire
to give precedence to the First Baptist Church of Newport, founded in 1644 or earlier.
According to Governor Winthrop's account, Williams was led to introduce believers' baptism and to organize a church on this basis by Mrs. Scott, a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson and the wife of Richard Scott, who, after walking in the Baptist way for some time along with Williams, and probably after the withdrawal of the latter, cast in his lot with the Quakers. It is not possible to be sure of the names of the entire number of those baptized by Williams. In July, 1639, the Salem church, under Hugh Peters, passed the " great censure " on Roger Williams and his wife, John Throckmorton and his wife, Thomas Olney and his wife, Stukely Westcot and his wife, Mary Holliman, and Widow Reeves. " These wholly refused to hear the church, denying it and all the churches of the Bay to be true churches, and (except two) are all rebaptized." (Felt, i., 379, 380.) Throckmorton, Westcot, and Olney were among those whom Williams admitted to an equal footing with him*clf in relation to the lands he had secured from his Indian friends, and who joined with him in organizing the community. Which of the Salem excommunicates were not •' rebaptized " we are not in a position to determine. Be* sides Throckmorton, Olney, Westcot, Holliman, and their wives, and Williams's wife, there must have been two other constituent members. These may have been Richard Scott and'his wife, mentioned above. Scott was not of the original company, but appears among those who were admitted by the vote of the company on the payment of thirty shillings each, along with Chad Brown and William Wicken-den, who were later to become the pastors of the Baptist church. These last, along with a considerable number of others admitted shortly after the organization of the community, seem to have been new arrivals from England,
as their names do not appear on the roll of Massachusetts freemen. It is highly probable that several of these, as well as some of the later arrivals, had been members of Baptist churches in England, and that some or most of this latter class were General (Arminian) Baptists. The early intrusion of Arminian elements was probably one cause of the discord that came perilously near wrecking this first Baptist church in America.
It is probable that after Williams's withdrawal Thomas Olhey, one of the constituent members of the church, succeeded to the leadership. The body had no regular meeting-place, but assembled out of doors in favorable weather and in private houses at other times. It is not likely that the work of evangelization was carried forward with much vigor, or that the leadership of the church was energetic. William Wickenden, Gregory Dexter, and Chad Brown seem to have united with the church soon after its organization, and to have held to Arminian views. Along with Arminianism they laid much stress on the ceremonial imposition of hands after baptism as an indispensable qualification, for church-fellowship. During the early history of the Providence church it appears that plurality of eldership prevailed. It is probable that Olney, Brown, Wickenden, and Dexter were coordinate elders at the time of the schism in 1652. Following the lead of the early Knglish Baptist churches, this church laid little stress on ordination to the ministry as a qualification for the administration of the ordinances, and gave the fullest scope to the exercise of" lay " gifts. It is doubtful whether any of these elders would have approved of the use of the title " Rev." in connection with their names. The complete informality of the organization and the services of this church, and the heterogeneity of the elements of which it was composed, as well as the influence of antinomians who
abounded in the community, would make a greater or leu degree of discord a thing to be expected. It U probable that differences of opinion as to the extent of Christ's re* demptive work were at the basis of the first agitations in the church. Roger Williams was a thoroughgoing Calvin-ist, and most of the original members of the church were probably at one with him in holding to particular redemption and related doctrines. Hrown, Wickcndcn, and Dexter seem to have curly declared themselves in favor of general redemption and related doctrines. Apnrt from lite fact that Calvinism was the system of the persecuting Puritans of England and America, a Sociniunizcd Armin-ianism represented by the Kngtish General Baptists was at this time making rapid headway in England and America, and this type of doctrine soon met with wide acceptance among the Providence and Newport Baptists.
From a remark in one of Williams's letters, it would seem that some meml>ers of the community had adopted radical views, involving tiniversalism, such as the denial of the reality of hell, etc. But the chief matter of controversy was the doctrine of the imposition of hands. Roger Williams himself laid considerable stress upon this ri^e, and placed it alongside of baptism and the Supper, as following the former and a condition of properly receiving the latter. The matter was agitated among the General Baptists of England from 1046 onward, and many churches made the passing under hands a term of communion. ■ Insistence on the imposition of hands was based on apostolic practice (as in Acts viii. 13, 19, and xix. 6, 7), and especially on Hebrews vi. 1,2. "As God hath promised to give his Holy Spirit," wrote Thomas Grantham, one of the ablest leaders of the English General Baptists (" Christ. I'rimitiv.," bk. ii., pt. ii., chap, iii., p. 31), " to all that are called of the Lord, so he hath appointed a solemn way
wherein his servants and handmaids arc to wait upon him for the reception thereof; which way is, the prayers of his church, performed by her ministers or pastors, with the laying on of hands; and this as a principle of Christ's doctrine, belonging to them in the minority of their Christian slate." In England as in America the laying on of hands was the occasion of much bitter controversy, those who advocated it regarding it not merely as an appropriate symbol of the receiving of the Holy Spirit, which might he employed or dispensed with, hut its it " foundatinii-principle " which could by no means properly be set aside. Finding it enumerated in Hebrews vi. I, 2. among "the first principles of Christ," along with " repentance from dead works," " faith toward God," " the teaching of baptisms," " the resurrection of the dead," and " eternal judgment," they insisted upon its observance along with the acceptance of the other five principles. Thus arose what were called "Six Principle J)aplists."
The controversy among the Providence Itaptisls had become so acute by 1652 that fellowship between those who considered the laying on of hands essential and those who either regarded it as a matter of indifference or rejected its use entirely was no longer possible. A division now took place, those who were for the recognition of only five principles following the leadership of Thomas Ohicy, while those who insisted on six principles gathered themselves around Hrown, Wiekendeti, and Dexter. As there was nothing whatever in the way of a church building, nor anything the possession of which would identify the party possessing it with the original church to the exclusion of a like claim on the part of the opposite parly, it seems futile to base an argument for the priority of another
•
fatal church afterward became extinct It has been as-sumed by some that Olney and his followers constituted the original church founded by Roger Williams, and that the party led by Brown and others constituted a new church, of which the present First Baptist Church of Providence is the continuation. The " original church/' led by Olney, died. Therefore the First Baptist Church of Newport, organized in 1644, is the oldest Baptist church in America: Q. K. D.i The fact is that the party led by Chad Brown and others probably constituted a majority and most of the intelligence of the church, and ho far as there was innovation in relation to the laying on of hands it was not in the practice of the ceremony, which seems to have prevailed from the beginning, but in making it a term of communion, which to men like Olney seemed to be going beyond the warrant of Scripture. Some of the constituent members of the church may have been Armin-ian in sentiment; by the time of the division the Armin-
. *t?iW??v, r^^^rrpivs *c r
Chap, ii.]
WILLIAM WICKENDEN.
8 9
union of this town and colony. Lastly, for our more orderly proceeding in this assembly, whereby love and union may appear in order, if in our consultations differences in judgment shall arise, then moderately in order, through argumentation, to agitate the same; considering the cause how far it may be hurtful, or conducing untu our union, peace, and liberty, and accordingly act, not after the will or person of any, but unto the justice and righteousness of the cause. Again, if such cause sh.il! be presented wherein such difficulties shall appear that c\i-dent argument cannot be given for present satisfaction, but that either town or colony or both shall suffer, then to take into consideration a speech of a beloved friend: ' Hct-ter to suffer an iucunvenience than a mischief—better to suspend with a loss which may be inconvenient than to be totally disunited and bereaved uf all rights and liberties, which will be a mischief indeed." (llackus, i., id 7 seif.) It would seem that WicK'cridcn was a member of the assembly; that serious dilfcruices of opinion existed among the signers of the covenant; that Wickcmku was a man of inure than ordinary influence in colonial affairs; and that he along with the other signers was willing in a truly Christian spirit to sink individual differences of opinion in the interests of the community. From a letter of Roger Williams to John Whipple, dated August 24. idoy (" R. I. Hist. Tr.," xiv,, 1881), it appears that for a time at least Wickenden's Arminianism assumed a somewhat So-cinian hue: " I am sorry that you venture to play with the fire, and W. Wickenden is toasting himself in it, and my want of tongs to rake him out without burning my fingers, etc. You know who it is that counts you and us as fools for believing the Scriptures—namely, that there shall be any hell at all. or punishment for sin after this life. Hut I am content to be a fool with Jesus Christ, who tells
us of an account for every idle word in the day of judgment." We need not suppose that the whole of this damaging remark refers to Wickenden ; but he was evidently entertaining views on important questions that Williams considered in the highest degree dangerous. A writer in " Rippon's Annual Register" (1802, p. 797) states that "he died February 23, 1670 " (N. S.), after having removed to a place called Solitary Mill. Wickenden extended his labors to New York, where, in 1656, he was imprisoned for baptizing and administering the Lord's Supper at Flushing. After the division of the IWidence ehnrch, in 1G52, William Vanghan, a member of the Newport church, »ho had adopted the Six Principle position, went to Providence to receive the imposition of hands, and returned accompanied by Wickenden and Gregory Dexter. The aim of the three was probably to organize a Six Principle church at Newport. They were not immediately sue-
inference from the hut-named fact, apart from decisive evidence of his earlier pretence. He was one of the fint experienced printers to come to America, and spent some time in Boston each year assisting in the publication of an almanac, notwithstanding the fact that he was a zealous Baptist and that Baptists were under the ban in Massachusetts. After the securing of the first charter he was a member of the committee from Providence to form a government For years he was town clerk, and from time to time occupied the positions of commissioner for the town and deputy in the assembly. He was president of the colony in 1653. (Backus, ii., 491.) In 1654 he was appointed by the town to draw up, in association with Roger Williams, an address to Sir Henry Vane on the occasion of his retirement " from the helm of public affairs." The document was probably drafted by Williams, but it was signed by Dexter alone on behalf of the town. (" Pub. Nar. CI.," vi, 266 teg.) During Williams's absence in England on colonial business, in 1652-53, he carried on a friendly correspondence with Dexter. A very affectionate and most interesting letter from Williams has been preserved. (" Pub. Nar. CI.," vi., 235 scg.) Referring to Dexter's well-known proficiency in the printer's craft, he writes: "It hath pleased God so to engage ine in divers skirmishes against the priests, both of Old and New Mug-land, so that I have occasioned using the help of printer-men. Unknown to me, to long for my old friend." " Many friends have frequently, with much love, inquired after you." Williams commends his "poor companion" and their " many children," from whom he was obliged for so long a time to be absent, to Dexter's " love and faithful care." " Abundance of love remembered from abundance of friends to your dear self and your dearest." In 1669 Williams felt called upon to rebuke Dexter for his refusal
to pay certain taxes on the plea of conscientious scruples. Referring to this matter in a letter to John Whipple he writes: "The last night Shadrach Manton told me that I had spoken bad words of Gregory Dexter— . . . viz., that I said he makes a fool ol his conscience. I told him I said so, and, I think, to our neighbor Dexter himself; for I believe he might as well be moderator or general deputy or general assistant as go so far as he does in many particulars; but what if I or my conscience be a fool, yet it is commendable and admirable in him, that, being a man of education and of a noble calling, and versed in militaries, that his conscience forced him to be such a child in his own house, when W. Har. strained for the rate (which I approve of) with such imperious insulting over his conscience, which all conscientious men will abhor to hear of. However, I commend that man, whether Jew or Turk or l'apist or whoever, that steers no otherwise than his conscience dares, till his conscience tells him that God gives him a greater latitude. For, neighbor, you shall find it rare to meet with men of conscience, men that for fear and love of God dare not lie, nor be drunk, nor be contentious, nor steal, nor be covetous, nor voluptuous, nor ambitious, nor lazy bodies, nor busybodics, nor dare displease God by omitting cither service or suffering, though of reproach, imprisonment, banishment, and death, because of the fear and love of God." ("Pub. Nar. Cl„" vi., 328 ay.) A few weeks later, in a letter to Governor Winthrop: "Sir, I have encouraged Mr. Dexter to send you a limestone, and to salute you with this inclosed. He is an intelligent man, a master printer of London, and con scion able (though a Baptist), therefore maligned and traduced by William Harris (a doleful generalist), Sir, if there be any occasion of yourself (or others) to use any of this stone, Mr. Dexter hath a lusty team and lusty sons,
rs
and very willing heart (being a sanguine, cheerful man), to do yourself or any (at your word especially) service upon my [sic, probably written very] honest and cheap considerations." {Ibid., 112.) According to the writer of the article in " Kippon's Annual Register" (as above): "He was never observed to laugh, and seldom to smile. So earnest was he in the ministry that he could hardly forbear preaching when he came into a house or met a number of persons in the street. His sentiments were those of the Particular Baptists. He died in the ninety-first year of his age." The date at his death is (jivoii by Savage (" Genealogical Dictionary ") as 1700. The statement that his sentiments were those of the ['articular Haptists is questionable. It is certain that Wickcnden, with whom he labored harmoniously, held to Arminian views: and insistence on the imposition of hands, in which Dexter joined, was characteristic of the General Haptists. Still it is not impossible that he differed, in a quiet way, from the majority of his Six Principle brethren as regards the universality of redemption and related doctrines, and on these points was in agreement with his lifelong friend, Roger Williams.
Chad Brown was probably of more importance to the Baptist cause in Providence than cither of the leaders previously noticed. The fact that he was the ancestor of the four Brown brothers who in the eighteenth century contributed so largely of their time and their means to the advancement of the Baptist cause in Providence, and who gave their substance and their name to what was formerly Rhode Island College, has tended to keep his memory fragrant. He was one of the early settlers of Providence, being the first of those admitted to participation in the property and rights of the community after the original thirteen, Like most of the Providence men, he had left
Massachusetts for conscience 9 sake. Probably as early as 1642 he was among the leaders in the Baptist church, and was associated with Wickcndcn and Dexter in contending for the imposition of hands. lie was among the four citizens chosen in 1640 to form a government. Me had much to do with determining the bounds of the lands of the colony, and his efforts in this direction were regarded as highly beneficent. Roger Williams wrote of him in 1669 as •• that noble spirit, now with God, Chad Brown." According to Dr. R. A. Guild, the highest living authority on Providence history, " his death was regarded by the colonists as a public calamity, for he had been the successful arbitrator of many differences, and had won the not unenviable reputation of being a peacemaker." Me died about 1665.
Little that is memorable has been recorded with respect to the further history of the Providence church until the time of Janies Manning (1770 onward). Under Pastor Tillinghcist, and largely at his own expense, the first meeting-house was erected in 1700. The most noted pastor of the i>eriod was probably Kbenezer Jenckes, whose brother was governor of the colony. He was born in Paw-tucket in 1669 and ordained in 1719, and is said to have been the first American minister who preached in Providence. (Benedict, 453.) Governor Jenckes was himself a member of this church. Me was for a number of years colonial ambassador to Kngland. A son of the governor, Daniel Jenckes, was for forty-eight years an active member of the church and for forty years a member of the assembly, was chief-justice of the county, and was a liberal contributor to church and college. Among the other pastors of the period were Thomas Olncy, Jr., and James Brown, grandson to Chad Brown.
CHAPTER III.
JOHN CLARKE AND THE BAPTISTS OF NEWPORT. 1
THOUGH second to the Providence church in point of date, the Newport church deserves the first place as regards the consistent and persistent devotion of its leaders to Baptist principles, the thoroughness and vigor of its organization, and its evangelistic zeal. The exact date of its organization cannot be determined. The latest admissible date is 1644, but there is some probability in favor of an earlier date. The founder and for many yonnt the pastor of this church was John Clarke, who deserves a high place on the roll of Baptist worthies. Horn in England {probably in Suffolk, possibly in Bedfordshire), October 8, 1609, highly educated in arts and in medicine (we know not where or how), a pronounced separatist before he left England (whether a pedobapttst or an anti]iedo-baptist we are not informed), he iirrivcd at Boston, November, 1637, hoping to find among those who had sought in the New World immunity from persecution a spirit «f toleration. To quote his own account of Ins early experiences: " I was no sooner on shore but there appeared to me to be differences among them touching the Covenants; and in point of evidencing a man's good estate, some pressed hard for the Covenant of works, others pressed as
1 Clarke, " III New*;" " Rcc. of Ihe Col. of R. t„" i.; ArnoM, t.j BmIukj Winthrop; [lul.Wrk l.ivhfonl; Ibrrm,.. " [list. Skelch." " Dry. of llnpl. T'r. in R. 1.," " lb|>t. (,>u.," |R;J, |.|.. 4*1 "V-1 J- C. C. Clarke, in " II*]-1. Qn. t " 1R76, [>[i. 1K0 j,y. ; Aillam ; Callenrler ; Comer.
Chap, hi.] S£7TL£M£Xr OF KilODK iSi~IXD.
W^|. '" V.
98
THE BAPTISTS.
[Pkk. i,
Clarke and Coddington was not only numerically far stronger than that under Williams, but it embraced far more of culture and of political experience and wisdom. Portsmouth was the first part of the island to be settled. In April, 1639, Coddington, Clarke, and others organized a new community at Newport. Portsmouth and Newport were reunited in 1640. In 1643, as already stated, Roger Williams was sent to England by the Rhode Island and Providence people conjointly to secure a charter. The charter was secured, but—partly, it may be, on account of the designation " Providence Plantations," which may have seemed to give a certain ascendency to Providence—the union of the three settlements under the charter did not take place till 1647.
It is interesting to note the stress that was laid—as seen in the first act of incorporation and in subsequent legislation—on the sole headship of Christ ami on the principle of civil and religious liberty. While accepting the word of God as the embodiment of perfect and absolute laws by which they agreed to be guided and judged, they were careful to limit punishment for breaches of the laws of God to such as "tend to civil disturbance." In 1641 it was " ordered, and unanimously agreed upon, that the government which this body politic doth attend unto in this Island, and the jurisdiction thereof in favor of our prince, is a DKMOCKACY, or popular government." It was further ordered " that none be .accounted a delinquent for DOCTRINK provided it be not directly repugnant to the government or laws established." In September, 1^41, it was ordered " that the law of the last court, made con-cerning liberty of conscience in point of doctrine, is perpetuated." The toleration principles of the Rhode Islanders, as well as those of the Providence people, were soon put to a severe test. Samuel Gorton, a man of education and
ability, who represented antinomianism in tome of its wont features, first at Portsmouth and then at Providence sought to overthrow the established forms of government and to arouse the people to revolt. His anarchism was grounded in his religious views; and with his thoroughly perverse but pretentious interpretation of Scripture, and his intense, magnetic personality, he was able to secure a considerable following. At Portsmouth he was whipped and expelled; while even Roger Williams o]>jkikcc1 his receiving the privileges* of citizenship at Providence and planned to move out of the colony himself should the favorers of Gorton succeed in securing his admission.
In the incorporation of Portsmouth, Newport, Providence, and Warwick, as " Providence Plantations, in Nar-ragansett Hay, in New England," under the charter secured by Williams, Clarke was probably more influential than Williams himself. The model of government prepared by the islanders, in which Clarice's influence was no doubt predominant, was accepted substantially by the Providence representatives. (" Rec. of the Col. of R. I. and Prov. Plant," i., 147 scq.) Roger Williams has received more credit than is his due for the Code of Laws adopted by the united colonies in 1647. They were certainly drawn up in substantially the form in which they were adopted by the islanders, and external and interna! evidences point to Clarke as the principal author. In the preamble it is agreed and declared " that the form of Government established in Providence Plantations is DEMOCRATICAL; that is to say, a Government held by tne free and voluntary consent of all or the greater part of the free inhabitants." The preamble closes: " And now to the end that we may give, each to other (notwithstanding our different consciences touching the truth as it is in Jesus, whereof upon the point we all make
Chap. m.J CLARKE AND LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE. lot
mention), as good and hopeful assurance as we are able, touching each man's peaceable and quiet enjoyment ol his lawful right and liberty, we do agree unto, and . . , enact, establish, and confirm, these orders following." The Code is, naturally, based upon English law, but it is in every way admirably adapted to the needs of the colonists. It would be impossible to find a document of the kind in which the rights of individuate and of the community are more carefully guarded. The document closes with these noble words, that have been quilted BO often a* to have become famous: " These arc the Laws that concern all men, and these arc the 1'enalties for the transgression thereof, which by common consent are Ratified and Established throughout this whole Colony ; and otherwise than thus what is herein forbidden all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in tile name of his God. And let the Saints of the Most High walk in this Colony without Molestation in the name of Jehovah, their God, forever and ever."
Although John Clarke did not write as voluminously on the doctrine of liberty of conscience as did Roger Williams, and although Williams was in advance of Clarke in publishing his views to the world, it is probable that Clarke had embraced these views some time before he knew of Williams. When he reached Boston in 1637 his indignation at the denial of liberty of conscience by the Massachusetts authorities was soon made manifest. That he was from this time onward as thoroughly mastered by this fundamental Baptist principle as was Williams himself is evident from his logical and comprehensive defense of this principle in his " 111 News from New England " (1652), as well as from his consistent adherence to this principle in his public life and in the legislation that he influenced from 1038 till his death in 1675. His argument for liberty
TUB BAPTISTS.
[Pee, i.
of our Lord's command: " Do to others as ye would that others should do unto you." He holds that" to persecute, prosecute, or enforce others" is contradictory to Christ's representation of believers as lambs in the midst of wolves. " But the Lord hath reserved this great work of ordering the understanding and conscience, which is the spirit of man, by way of constraint or restraint; arid also the outward man, with respect to the worship of God, ... in his own hand, and in the hand of his Spirit, and hath intended to manage it as a part of his Kingdom, by his own Spirit, and by another manner of ministry than that which is put forth in the kingdoms of men." This proposition he proves by abundant citations of Scripture. Again: "That which presupposeth one man to have dominion over another man's conscience. 1 ' he speaks of as " but a forcing of servants and worshipers upon the Lord, at the least, which he seeks not for, and is a ready way to make men dissemblers and hypocrites before God and man, which wise men abhor; and to put men upon the profaning the name of the Lord, that can no servant of Christ Jesus have any liberty, much less authority, from his Lord to do." He shows further that Christ Jesus " sharply reproved and checked his servants when he hath espied such a spirit as this breaking forth in them." Again: "That which of itself is inconsistent with the civil peace, liberty, prosperity, and safety of a place, commonwealth, or nation, no servant of Christ can have liberty, much less authority, from his Lord, to do. But this outward forcing of men in matters of conscience toward God to believe as others believe, and to practice and worship as others do, cannot stand with the peace, liberty, prosperity, and safety of a place, commonwealth, or nation. Therefore," etc. lie maintains that there can be no peace in a commonwealth " so long as there is an outward force and power to be had to main-
tain and uphold the carnal interests and advantages of some upon religious accounts, and so prosecute others who for conscience' sake toward God dare not, yea, cannot, conform to their way. What hopes are thereby begotten and nourished in some? what jealousies, suspicions, and fears in others? what revengeful desires in most? yea, what plottings and contrivings in all? and as a fruit and effect hereof, what riding? running? troublesome and tumultuous assemblings together, and Hidings? yea, and outrageous murdcrings and bloodshed dings arc hereby produced in a nation, to gain that power and sword to their party, either to crush, suppress, or cause the other to conform, or at the least and best to save themselves from being crushed, suppressed, or forced to conformity? " He insists that by granting liberty of conscience " shall all parties be deeply obliged, to the utmost of their lives and estates, to bear up that power, without which they cannot expect to enjoy peace, liberty, and safety themselves."
From the beginning Clarke was the trusted counselor of the Rhode Island colonists. While he seems to have shrunk from occupying the highest position at home, ins influence is manifest in every important measure, and whenever it became necessary to send a representative to England in the interests of colonial rights he was the chosen representative of the people, When William Cod-dington had without the approval of u majority of the citizens of the island secured in England a grant of the territory in his own right, Clarke was sent to England by Newport and Portsmouth to procure the annulling of the charter. In this undertaking he had the cooperation of Roger Williams, who acted on behalf of Providence and Warwick. Williams returned soon after the business had been accomplished, but for twelve years Clarke remained in England as the representative of the colonists and the
land he was closely associated with man men of the Cromwcllian age, notably wi the Latin secretary, a radical in politics ai Just how his time was employed duriiij dcnce in the mother-land we are not inf probable that he was at the same time dee dations of his theological, civic, and medica seeking to advance the cause of Christ in si open to him. The following contemporai communication from the town of Warwic council, is of interest: "We know that publicly exercise his ministry in the Word don, as his letters have made report, as tl place for his profit and preferment, whicl brought him in good means for his maii; he was much about modelizing of matter affairs of England, as his letters have de no doubt, he was encouraged by men of who, in all likelihood, did communicate I of his labors and studies." The stress laic ble emoluments was due to the somewhat on the part of the town to be released fre of the allowance made to Clarke for his si
•risen which could scarcely be settled by other than British authority. Moreover, with the restoration of the Stuarts the acts of the revolutionary period had been nullified. This charter, though given by a king of despotic tendencies, who was at that very time bitterly persecuting dissenters, is one of the most remarkable, in its provisions for civil and religious liberty, ever issued by an English sovereign. It makes suitable acknowledgment of the Indian titles to the land; it declares " that no person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, ahull be anywise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question for any difference in opinion in matters of religion which do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their own judgments and consciences in matters of religious concernments; . . . they behaving themselves peaceably and quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others." The provisions of the earlier charter for government by a majority of the freemen of the colony are substantially confirmed in the new. Rhode Island, through Clarke's diplomacy, secured the recognition of claims to territory disputed by Connecticut and Massachusetts. Clarke was bitterly opposed in his efforts to secure the charter by the representatives of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and these colonies were greatly chagrined by his success. It was natural that they should insinuate that this Baptist statesman, who had so ruthlessly exposed the intolerance of the Massachusetts authorities, had secured the charter by improper means. But the documentary history of the time fully vindicates Clarke, while it reflects gravely upon the methods of his traducers. (Arnold, i., 287 stq.)
There was universal rejoicing throughout Rhode Island and Providence Plantations that the aspirations of the colonists for liberty and for their rights in relation to the other colonies had been so amply secured by their honored and beloved agent. The bearer of the royally sealed document was handsomely rewarded for his fidelity. It was voted " that Mr. John Clarke, the Colony's agent in England, be saved harmless in his estate; and to that end that all his disbursements going to England, and all his expenses and engagements there already laid out, ... as also . . . expenses and engagements he shall be necessitated yet further to disburse, . . . shall all be repaid, paid, and discharged by this Colony. . . . That in consideration of . . . his great pains, labor, and travail with much faithfulness exercised for above twelve years in behalf of this Colony, in England, the thanks of the Colony be sent unto him by the Governor and Deputy Governor; and for a gratuity unto him, the Assembly engage that the Colony shall pay unto the said John Clarke, . . . over and besides what is above engaged, the sum ... of one hundred pound sterling." This was undoubtedly the crowning achievement of Clarke's civil career. The charter remained in force until 1843. From the time of its adoption Rhode Island was practically a free, democratic state, with the amplest provision for liberty of conscience.
The later public services of John Clarke must be passed over. Mis life was one of singular disinterestedness and self-devotion. Few men have been so prominently engaged in public affairs without arousing antagonisms among those with whom they have been associated. But so well balanced was his mind, so just were his judgments, so thorough was his understanding of human nature and of the problems of his time, so evident was it to all that he
was seeking no private ends at the expense of others, that he seems to have been universally honored, trusted, and beloved. If enemies he had they were the enemies of his religion and of his colony.
But the aspect of his life which justifies his introduction into the present work has as yet been barely touched upon. John Clarke was a Haptist of the completest and purest type, the must important American Haptist of the century in which he lived. When or under what circumstances he adopted Haptist views seems not to have been recorded. There is some probability in favor of the supposition that he came to America a Haptist. The fact that we have no intimation <>f any change in his views, or of his baptism in New England, is so far favorable to this supposition. Me may have had his attention called to the matter by Roger Williams, who, about a year after Clarke's first visit to Providence, introduced believers' baptism and organized a Haptist church, lie may have been baptized by Mark I.ukar, one of the earliest of the English Particular Baptists, who is said to have boon one of the founders of the Newport church, ami who for many years nobly served the church as a ruling elder. At any rate this connecting-link between the first Particular Haptist church of England and the second of America, hitherto overlooked, is a matter of no small interest. If Robert Lenthall, who was driven from Weymouth, Mass., for erroneous views in 1638, and who accepted citizenship at Newport in 1640, was a Haptist, Clarke may have been influenced by him; but the account we have of Lenthall's views leaves us in doubt as to his precise position.
Clarke began his ministry on the island soon after his arrival. Winthrop designates him, in 1638, as " a physician and preacher to those of the island." The colonists were not long in building a meeting-house at the common
expense, and a church was soon organized, on what basis we are not informed. A number of those who had been members of the Boston church, and had incurred censure on account of their sympathy with Mrs. Hutchinson and her views, were members of this church.
By 1640-41 religious dissension had become acute. A number of the islanders carried their antinomian views to their extreme consequences, and, if correctly represented, sought to promulgate a licentious pantheism. Kaston, Coddington, and Coggcshall represented the antinomian position and were op|K>scd by Clarke, Lcnthall, Harding, and others. " Professed Anabaptists," according to Win-throp, appeared on the island as early as 1641. He is probably in error in representing the Anabaptists of the island as denying magistracy, the bearing of arms, and the existence of true churches, and maintaining the necessity of special a|>ostolic intervention in order to the constitution of such. It seems to have been some of the antinotnians that held to these views. As like views were currently attributed to the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, and as men of Winthrop's stamp were looking for the development of such views among contemporary Baptists, it was natural that when he learned that there were Baptists on the island, and that there were advocates of these views of magistracy, warfare, and church constitution, he should have taken it for granted that the two sets of views belonged to the same party. It is probable that the anti-pedobaptists, under Clarke's leadership, began to hold separate meetings in 1641. In a MS. copy of Lechford's "Plain Dealing" (written probably in 1641) it is stated that " at the island called Aquedny are about one hundred families. There is a church where one Master Clarke is Pastor. . . . The place where the church is is called Newport." In the printed work (1642) the number of
no
THE HAPTiSTS.
__
pie propaganda in Newport. He returned accompanied by Wickenden and Dexter. The time did not prove ripe for the establishment of a new congregation, but from this time onward an active and aggressive minority favored insistence on the six principles, and in 1656 a new church was formed on this basis.
After his return in 1664 Clarke resumed the leadership of the congregation and was ably assisted by 1 lolmcs, Torrey, Lukar, and Wccdcn, who for so many years had been among the chief burden-bearers in the church. Next to Clarke, Torrey was the most prominent man among the Baptists of the island in civil affairs, having been at one time attorney-general and for years general recorder. The church was sadly afflicted in 1676 by the death of four of its standard-bearers. Torrey died early in the year, and was followed in April by Clarke, in October by Weedcn, and in December by Lukar. The church V ul already suffered two schisms, and the Quaker agitation had hindered its progress. When these four noted men had been removed by death, those who remained may well have felt
was Philip Edes, who, according to Samuel Hubbard, was I "one in office in Oliver's [Cromwell's] house, was for liberty of conscience, a merchant, a precious man, of a holy life and conversation, beloved of all sorts of men, his death much bewailed by all." As has already been made evident, the First Baptist Church of Newport was strictly Cal-I vinistic in doctrine. A correspondence with the Particular Baptists of England was kept up, ami the relations of the diurdi wit). iJm c - ' ■— ' *■ *
tub baptists, rp«. u
The pastorate of John Comer was in many respects a successful one, but it ended unpleasantly. Comer came to the church (1725) as a young man of twenty-one, yet with a maturity far beyond his years. A native of Uoston, he had had his preparatory training at Cambridge and had studied at Yale College. He had a profound experience of divine grace when lie was seventeen years of age, and n year afterward " was received into full communion with the [Congregational] churcli in Cambridge." lie liiut probably already resolved to devote himself to the giMjiel ministry. A short time afterward a "near companion" of his "embraced the principle of believers' baptism . ■ . and was baptized by Mr. K. Callender, in Ronton." On remonstrating with his friend for abandoning what he regarded as a divine institution, Comer was induced to read Joseph Stennelt's treatise on baptism. It was his expectation that he would find many flaws in it and that by pointing these out he would be able to win liis friend from the error of his way. He " resolved to turn to every Scripture quoted, and not to take any one without." In so doing he found that he " had never duly considered the viii. of the Acts, the iii. of Matthew, and the vi. of Romans, and such like places. Hereupon I got (though privately) books on the other side of the controversy and found them, if weighed in the balance, wanting." The result was a great inner conflict, lie was convinced that his baptism was defective, anil yet he shrank from severing his otherwise happy relations with the Congregation-alists. It was not until he had pursued his studies at Yale that he resolved to follow the path of duty in this matter. In January, 1725, he was baptized by Klisha Callender, and shortly afterward entered the Ilnptist ministry, lie soon had his choice between the pastorale of the Swansea
and the helpful counsel of Callcnder he decided in favor of Newport. In March, 1726, he was ordained to the ministry by Elder Peckham and Deacon Maxwell. The church had dwindled down to a membership of eighteen— ten men and eight women. Comer kept a minute diary, and we are indebted to him for much interesting information abdut the Haptists of his time. Mis researches into the history of the earlier time have likewise been of great use to later investigators. He informs us that there were in Newport at this time seven congregations: "Two Hap. tist churches, one under hands, Mr. James Clarke and Mr. Daniel Wightman, Pastors. My flock. . . . One Seventh-Day church, Mr. Joseph Crandall, Pastor. Unc congregation under the care of Mr. Daniel White" (already mentioned), and congregations of Congregationalists, Episcopalians, and Quakers, the last " very large." The anti-nomians of the early time had for the most part become Quakers.
The early stages of Comer's ministry were highly prosperous. Me surpassed most of his contemporaries in evangelistic zeal and gifts. During the first year twenty-four were added to the church. The church contributed for the support of the pastor during the first year more than jf8$, during the second year more than £93, while in the third year the pastor's income had fallen to £38. The support given was generous for the time, and the falling off was due to the fact that the pastor had adopted the doctrine of the laying on of hands. Congregational singing, repudiated by many Baptist churches of the time, especially those of the Arminian persuasion, was introduced into the Newport church through Comer's influence. Though young in years and in the pastoral office, Comer's reputation soon became so widespread that he was often applied to for counsel even from remote parts
THE BAPTISTS.
[Pkr. i.
CHAPTER IV.
BAPTISTS IN MASSACHUSETTS TO 1652.1
IN reviewing the dealings of the Massachusetts authorities with Roger Williams we have learned something of their attitude toward aggressive and pertinacious dissent, whether in civil or in religious matters. The Massachusetts Bay leaders were nonconforming Puritans, and they had secured their charter with the full understanding that they did not repudiate the Church of England and were far removed from separatism of any kind. They sought to be regarded "as those who esteem it our honor to call the Church of England, from whence we rise, our dear mother; and cannot part from our native country, where she specially residcth, without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes; ever acknowledging tr . such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation we have received in her bosom, and sucked it from her breasts." Under Laud's domineering in England it would have been impossible for a body of avowed separatists to secure a charter or to get permission to leave the country. Even the Salem company, which represented a more thoroughgoing type of dissent, had thought it advisable to repudiate separatism, and had refused passage on their vessel to Ralph Smith, who was coming out as pastor of the semi-separatist followers of John Robinson, who
CHAf. IV.] NEW ENGLAND PURITANISM.
3me of the churches within the limits of the
excluded Baptists from all civil privileges.
oath, referred to in the chapter on Roger
intended as a means of rigorously excluding
d fall short of loyalty to existing arrange-
Rogcr Williams had scarcely been disposed Massachusetts colonies were convulsed with >us controversy that was soon to involve the England. Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, with her been attracted to Boston from England by d the teachings of John Cotton, the leading ir, and had arrived in September, 1634. Her ', John Wheelwright, had followed in May, iutchinson was one of the most striking relig-> of the time. Endowed with a rare person-a spirit of helpfulness which gave her remark-over the women among whom she moved, t the same time to win a number of the most n of New England to her views. The tcach-[utchinson and her followers arc commonly tinomianism. They laid great stress upon of grace as opposed to the covenant of
regarded the current Puritanism, with its
Chat. iv.J T/IS ANTINOAUAN CONTROVERSY.
courage. The attitude of John Clarice toward the anti-nomians and their persecutors was referred to in the last chapter. Among the leaders of the movement was William Coddington, who had occupied a high civil position in Massachusetts, who became a chief opponent of Roger Williams in civil matters, who was for a time governor of the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations colony, and who became a leader among the Quakers.
Reference has already been made to the settlement of the antinomians and their friends in Rhode Island. It does not concern us here to narrate the disputes that arose between the islanders and the Providence people.
They were quite willing to admit that individual opponents of infant baptism might be to all outward seeming quiet, peaceable Christians; but they were fully convinced that the logic of the antipedobaptist position led inevitably to the overthrow of all social order, with the denial of magistracy, oaths, the right of the civil government to censure religious offenses, and, under favorable circumstances, to such fanatical outbreaks as that of Miinster. One has only to read such works as Featley's " The Dippers Dipt " (1644), Edwards's " Gangra;na" (1646), Ilaillie's "A Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time " (1645), I'aget's " Hercsjography" (1645), and the earlier continental Latin works on which these based their statements with reference to Anabaptists, to realize the horror which the name "Anabaptist" awakened in the souls of such men as Cotton, Hooker, Winthrop, and Kndicott. So much must be said in order to account for the rancorous hatred of Baptists by the New England theocratic leaders, their lack of judicial fairness in dealing with radical dissentients of all types, and their determination, even by the infliction of the crudest penalties, if need be, to exterminate
the visible church." (" Mass. Hist. Coll.," 2d series, v., 275.) According to Hubbard, " the common sort of people did eagerly embrace his opinions." He is said to have zealously striven " to get such a church on foot as all baptized ones might Aimniunicate in." It is not quite clear, however, that his views were Baptist.
The earliest assured case of theocratic censure on the ground of antipedobaptist error occurred December 14, 1642, at the Salem Quarterly Court. The record runs: " The Lady Deborah Moody, Mrs. King, and the wife of John Tilton were presented for holding that the baptizing of infants is no ordinance of God." Winthrop reports the matter more fully as regards the principal offender: " The Lady Moody, a wise and anciently religious woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and admonished by the church of S;ilem (whereof she was a member); but persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, etc., she removed to the Dutch, against the advice of all her friends. Many others infected with anabaptism removed thither also. She was after excommunicated." Winthrop docs not inform us what Lady Moody's friends advised her to do under the circumstances, but as they would scarcely have advised her to face the determined opposition of the authorities, which would have resulted in formal banishment, with death as the penalty of returning, they must have advised her to abandon her views or at least any aggressive assertion of them. We shall meet I.ady Moody and her followers hereafter in their Long Island home.
The next case on record seems to be that of William Witter, who had probably been influenced by Lady Moody, his neighbor. The date of his arraignment before the Salem Court was February 28, 1644 (N. S.). The
with having called M our ordinance of God whore." He is sentenced " on some lectui fifth day being a public fast, to acknowlcdg< and enjoined to be here next Court at Sale Wittcr's antipedobaptist zeal, however means to have been abated by this sonic censure. A later record runs: " At the Coui the 18th of the 12th month, 1645 [Fcbruar William Witter, of Lynn, was presented by for saying that they who stayed whiles a c do worship the devil. Henry Collins and ' ing with him thereabouts, he further said stayed at the baptizing of a child did tal the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in vain, bath, and confessed and justified the forme was sentenced " to make public confession in the open congregation at Lynn, or else t next General Court." Failing to compl) these conditions, he was afterward sente "at the next Court of Assistants, at H< answer, and to be proceeded with accordi of his offense." The forbearance of the c» of Witter was due, it may be supposed,
turned Anabaptist, and having a child born, he would not suffer his wile to bring it to the ordinance of baptism. Being presented for this, and enjoined to suffer the child to be baptized, he still refusing, and disturbing the church, he was again brought to the Court, not only for his former contempt, but also for saying that our baptism was anti-christian; and in the open Court he affirmed the same. Whereupon, after much patience and clear conviction of his error, etc.—because he was very poor, so as no other but corporal pun Mi merit could be fastened upon him—he was ordered to be whipped, not for his opinion, but for his reproaching the Lord's ordinance, and fur his bold and evil behavior both at home and in the Court. Me endured his punishment with much obstinacy, and when he was loosed he said, boaslingly, that God had marvelously assisted him." This is not the first case in which persecutors of Christ's chosen ones have been so swayed by their prepossessions as to make light of their sufferings and their faith, and to attribute their heroic bearing to mere obstinacy. It is an old trick of Roman Catholic persecutors. The statement that Painter was punished not for his opinion but for his reproaching the Lord's ordinance, etc., is too transparently casuistical to require discussion. Surely the fact that antipedobnptist views, unexpressed nnd kept in abeyance even when one's own infant was involved, were tolerated, is a slender basis for a claim of forbearance.
Cases of pronounced antipedobaptism were now becoming so common, and the Baptist cause was making so rapid progress in Providence and Newport, that specific legislation against Baptists was felt to be desirable. On November (3, 1644, the following law was promulgated: " Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully proved that since th; first arising of the Anabaptists, about a hundred
ing ot iniants unlaw!ui have usually neici heresies together therewith, though they heretics used to do) concealed the same till a fit advantage and opportunity to vent tl' qucstion»or scruple, and whereas divers of since our coming into New England, app ourselves, some whereof have (as others be nied the ordinance of magistracy and the making war, and others the lawfulness of t their inspection into any breach of the fir opinions, if they should be connived at b) be increased among us, and so must nccess;i upon us, infection and trouble to the churcl to the whole commonwealth, it is ordered i\ if any person or persons within this jurisdic openly condemn or oppose the baptism ol about secretly to seduce others from the use thereof, or shall purposely depart the < the administration of the ordinance, or sha dinance of magistracy or their lawful right make war or to punish the outward breac table, and shall appear to the Court willf nately to continue therein after due time conviction, every such person or persons sh;i
AkljA'- r Is *ii \
128
THE BAPTISTS.
[PML L
UXfOr.VDKV Ctt.lKGES,
Anabaptists and other erroneous persons." This petition, it is needless to say, was " granted." In October, 1648, the court was " informed of great misdemeanor committed by Edward Starbuck, of Dover, with profession of Ana-baptistry, for which he is to be proceeded against at the next Court of Assistants if evidence can be prepared by that time."
The following record is interesting as containing an account of an important Baptist movement in the Plymouth colony, ami also as illustrating the xcal with which the Massachusetts Hay authorities carried their activity against "Anabaptists" beyond their own jurisdiction. The date of this letter to the Plymouth authorities is October, 1649:
" Honored and beloved Brethren: We have heard heretofore of divers Anabaptists arisen up in your jurisdiction, and connived at; but being but few, we well hoped that it might have pleased God, by the endeavors of yourselves and the faithful elders with you, to have reduced such erring men again into the rig'it way. But now, to our great grief, we are credibly informed that your patient bearing with such men hath produced another effect, namely, the multiplying and increasing of such errors, and we fear maybe of other errors also, if timely care be not taken to suppress the same. Particularly we understand that within this few weeks there have been at Sea Cunke thirteen or fourteen persons rebapti/cd (ft swift progress in one town), yet we hear not if any effectual restriction is intended thereabouts. Let it not, we pray you, seem presumption in us to mind you hereof, nor that we earnestly entreat you to take care as well of the suppressing of errors as of the maintenance of truth. Cod equally requiring the performance of both at the hands of Christian magistrates, but rather that you will consider our interest
bo near are likely to spread into our jurisdiction. . . . We are united by confederacy, by faith, by neighborhood, by fellowship in our stiff urines as exiles, and by other Christian bonds, and we hope neither Satan nor any of his instruments shall by these or any other errors disunite us, and that we shall never have cause m repent us of our so near conjunction with you, but that we shall both so equally and zealously uplink) nil Ilia truth* of God revealed that we may render a comfortable account to hin that hath set us in our place* and bctrusted us with tin keeping of both tables,"
Sup]>osing the Massachusetts Court to have been correct in their apprehension of the will of Gud and the duties of magistrates, and in regarding the Baptists as instruments of Satan In disunite the colonies bound together by such tender ties, nothing could be more reasonable than the request or demand for the rigorous suppression of these innovators. The chief disturber of the Seckonk (Kehnboth) community was Obadiah Holmes, whom we shall meet later among the sufferers for conscience" sake. After a profound religious experience in England (he had been a wayward son, and whereas three of his brothers had t>ecn educated at Oxford he had refused to avail himself of the opportunity In secure a liberal education and had derided religion), lie came to New England in 1038. lie united with the Salem church, where lie remained about seven years. Ik-coming dissatisfied there, lie removed to Keho-bolh in 16-15, where he united with the church under the ministry of Samuel Newman. In 1649, having become convinced, along with some others, that infant baptism was not in accord with the teachings of Scripture, they were immersed by John Clarke of Newport. lie was soon afterward excommunicated by his pastor, and in June, 1650, along with two others, was presented to the General Court
at Plymouth, four petitions, one from the Boston Court, having been entered against them. In October, 1652, the following " Presentment by the Grand Inquest" was in-serted in the I'lymouth records: " Wc whose names are here written, being the grand inquest, do present to this Court John Hazel I, Mr. Edward Smith and his wife, Oba-diah Holmes, Joseph Tory and his wife, and the wife of James Mann, William Dcucll and his wife, of the town of Kehoboth, for the continuing of a meeting upon the Lord's Day from house to house, contrary to the order of this Court, enacted June 12, 1650." It would seem from this record and the fact that no sentence appears against them, that the Plymouth authorities still retained a considerable measure of the Christian moderation of the father of the Pilgrims and fell very far short of what the Massachusetts Hay authorities expected and required of them.
The supposition of liaptist writers has been that the llaptists who for months held regular meetings at Relio-both under the leadership of Ohadiah Holmes did not constitute a liaptist church. There seems to be no sufficient reason why they should not be regarded as a church. Like the body of believers who gathered around Roger Williams at Providence, and who continued for many years to meet from house to house, they had a very simple organization. If we call the meeting a church we may dale the organization of the first liaptist church in Massachusetts tit 1649. Soon after the presentment of the grand inquest the llaptists of Kehoboth seem to have removed to New-port, where they added greatly to the strength of John Clarke's church. Thus the day for organized liaptist work in Massachusetts was postponed.
In his " Ilrtcf Narration," published in I.ondon, 1646, Winslow, writing with a view to vindicating the New England authorities from aspersions current in England, in-
vol ving charges of persecution of dissent! etc., gives the following interesting bit of information: " Furthermore, in the Government of Plymouth, to our great grief, not only the pastor of a congregation waiveth the administration of baptism to infants, but divers of his congregation are fallen with him; and yet all the means the civil power hath taken against him and them is to stir tip our elders to give meeting, and see if by godly conference they may be able to convince and rcckym him, as in mercy once before they had done, by God's blessing upon their labors. Only at the foresaid Synod two were ordered to write to him in the name of the Assembly, and to request his presence at their next meeting aforesaid, to hold forth his light he goeth by in waiving the practice of the churches; with promise, if it be light, to walk by it; but if it appear otherwise, then they trust he will return again to the unity of practice with them." The pastor referred to is commonly understood to be Charles Chauncy, and the congregation that of Scituatc. Some have supposed that Winslow was in error in making this statement, as at a later date nothing is said about Chauncy's antipedobaptism, although for a long time after this date he continued to insist on immersion as the act of baptism. Hut it seems incredible that Winslow, who had been govcrnoj of the colony (1633 onward) and had all along occupied a prominent position in the civil and religious administration, should have given publicity to so grave a charge as that involved in the statement quoted without the most convincing proof of the accuracy of his facts. I lis account, moreover, is too circumstantial to admit of the possibility of mistake. We are justified, therefore, in concluding that about 1646 Chauncy, afterward president of Harvard College, waived the administration of baptism to infants, and in this matter had the full sympathy of a portion of the Scituatc church.
From the fact that he ceased to give trouble in this matter, it would seem that he yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon him by the authorities. His insistence on immersion as the only proper baptism was nu doubt regarded by the authorities as more venial, and in this he was tolerated. Hut when, as we shall see in the next chapter, he had an opportunity to succeed Henry Dunster, who had been removed from the presidency of Harvard College for his aggressive maintenance of antipcdii baptist Views, he was able to abandon or hold in abeyance even this poor remnant of his Haplist teaching.
The treatment of John Clarke. Obndiah Holmes, and John Cr.-uul.-ut, members of the Newport Haplist church, by the Massachusetts authorities is one of the most notorious instances of intoti-raiicc toward HaplistS. [it his " III News from New England," already referred to, Clarke gives a full and graphic account of the transaction, including the legal warrants, sentences, etc., his own letters to the authorities, and llohnes's very realistic account of his sufferings and religious experiences. The accuracy of Clarke's narrative has never been called in question, and is in agreement with the records of the court and other notices in the writings of the opponents of the Haptists. Clarke's account is headed: " A Faithful and True Relation of the Prosecution of Obadiah Holmes, John Crandall, and John Clarke, merely for Conscience towards God, by the Principal Members of the Church, or Common-wealth of the Massachusetts . . . ; whereby is shown their discourteous Kntcrtainmcnt of Strangers, and how that Spirit by which they are led would order the whole World, if either brought under them, or should come in unto them: Drawn forth by the aforesaid John Clarke, not so much to answer the Importunity of Friends, as to stop the mouths and slanderous reports of such as are Enemies to the Cross
Chap, iv.) NEWPORT BAPTISTS AT LYXW
$5
of Christ. Let him that readeth it consider, which Church is most like the Church of Christ (that Prince of Peace, that meek and gentle Lamb, that came into this World to save Men's lives, not to destroy them), the Persecuted, or
the church as not according to " the order of our Lord."
. • • • •
and told me I had deserved death, and said, he would not have such trash brought into their jurisdiction; moreover he saiil, 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 discourse or dispute with them, etc."
Availing himself of this somewhat informal and rash proposal, Clarke wrote a letter to the governor asking for the opportunity of disputing in public " with freedom, and without molestation of (lie civil power," " that point . . . 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." The governor insisted that Clarke had misunderstood him in thinking that he promised a public disputation, and the ministers nu doubt heartily disapproved of giving such an Opportunity to so erroneous a person to disseminate his views, Clarke made full preparation for the disputation, with the understanding that it would be public. The theses which he undertook to defend included (i) the sole hordshtpof Christ in matters cf faith; (2) the testimony " that baptism, or dipping in water, is one of the commandments of the Lord jesus Christ, and that a visible believer, or disciple of Christ Jesus, ... is the only person that is to be baptized, or dipped with that visible baptism, or dipping of Jesus Christ in water, and also that visible person that is to walk in that visible order of his house, and so to wait for Ins coming a second time in the form of a Lord and King, with his glorious Kingdom according to promise"; (.1) the liberty and duty of every believer " to improve that talent his l.nrd hath given unto him, and in the congregation may either ask lor information for himself, or, if lie can, may speak by way of prophecy for the edification, exhortation, and comfort of
the whole, and out of the congregation at all times, upon all occasions and in all places, as far as the jurisdiction of his Lord extends "; and (4) a testimony in favor of liberty of conscience, which, with his arguments in favor of it, has been set forth in an earlier chapter.
A friend having paid the fine, the authorities insisted on his leaving without having an opportunity to set forth his views in a disputation with a representative of the standing order. He protested ineffectually against this course, and he afterward made this refusal of a public disputation a ground for publishing in Kngland his argument in full, along with a full account of the whole transaction.
Crandall's fine was paid, but Holmes refused on principle to allow his to be paid, and suffered in martyr fashion the
CHAPTER V.
PRESIDENT HENRY DUNSTER AND
HKNKY DUNSTER ranks along wit and John Clarke as one of the three fon century antipedobaptists of America. ] England, somewhere about 1610, he w« an experimental knowledge of the tn account of his early religious experier Lord gave me an attentive car and In preaching. . . . The Lord showed me ciliaticn by Christ, . . . and this word me than anything else in the world." ] conscience detected grave faults in 1 experience. After he had become a Christian, and one of the ablest theolojj reviewing his experience as a young n this judgment: " The greatest thing w soul from God was an inordinate desir ing." His course at the University of ( him into contact with some of the be England, and when he was graduated
came to Trinity to hear Dr. Preston, by whom I was quickened and revived." Preston was one of the leading Puritan churchmen of the time. Dunster regarded the teachings of Thomas Goodwin, " in many respects the greatest divine among them all," as one of the formative influences in his life. The years intervening between the date of his first degree and that of his second were probably spent chiefly in theological studies. His well-known proficiency in oriental languages was one of the acquisitions of this time. Among his contemporaries were a number of men who were to attain to world-wide distinction. It will suffice to mention the names of Cudwurth, Milton, Henry More, Jeremy Taylor, and John Harvard. He probably received ordination as a minister of the Church of Kngland. His Confession of Faith gives some intimations of the exercises of mind that led him to abandon the ministry of the Established Church and to seek a greater measure of soul freedom in New Kngland: " The Lord hath made me bid adieu to all worldly treasures; and as corruption* in the Church came, first 1 began to suspect them., then to hate them." " So, after ten years' trouble, I came hither [to New Kngland] ; and the Lord gives me peace to see the order of his people." His thoroughgoing separatism finds expression in a letter written to a friend in Kngland: " It's a glorious church, say you? Whence, I pray you, was it gathered, out of the Church of Rome, or else yet it stands in it ? If it stand yet in it, then it is one of the daughters of the great whore. . . . No, the Church of Kngland is gathered out of Rome. Come out of her, my people. . . . Hut why should we gather a church out of the English Church ? I pray you, Sir, where hath Christ constituted a church of that form? Where's the national ministry, temple, etc.? If you will find this, you have the verity, we the vanity. If congregations be the visible churches of Christ, we have
the day in that respect." Equally decided was his antagonism to Scottish l'resbyterianism. " A reformation of the Scottish edition," he thought, would leave the Knglish people " in great distress, inward and outward." This was written when the Scutch were struggling with might ami main for the civil and religions mastery of Britain, and were proposing to force l'resbyterianism on the entire population. " National and provincial churches are nullities in rcriiui imtnra [in the nature of things] since the dissolution of that of the Jews." That he was a somewhat advanced republican is evident from the following: "If the people ami nation he free from monarchy, the question is, what form they should set up? Ami what, I pray you, but that which is most suitable to the matter? I say, the form which is most suitable to the matter; which the nation itself, by their faithful representatives, being pious and prudent men, can best judge of."
Dunster reached New Kngland toward the latter end of summer, 1040. lie soon purchased a property in Itoston, " then rather a village than n town," yet full of enterprise and growing rapidly. The entire population of New England at this time probably did not reach twenty thousand. More than two thirds of these were in Massachusetts, and something over two thousand each in I'lymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. In 1043 all the British colonies, except Rhode Island and Providence, formed a sort of federation " for mutual help and strength," under the style of "The United Colonies of New Kngland." Thus Dunster arrived at a time when colonial affairs were alrea iy well advanced, and when, owing to the troubles that were about to overwhelm Kngland, New Kngland would be sure to receive a large influx of population, and, what was possibly of even greater importance in the eyes of the colonists, immunity from interference on the part of the
home government. One of the most*noteworthy features of early colonial life was the almost entire absence of lawyers. The irregularity of court procedures, and the tendency to follow the Mosaic axle rather than the English statutes, may be attributed in part to this fact; though it must be said, on the other hand, that the deficiency of lawyers was due to lack of encouragement, and that this was due in turn to the theocratic sentiments of the colo-nists.
A very large proportion of the early New Kngland colonists were university graduates. By 1640 it is estimated that there were forty to fifty Cambridge men, and " the sons of Oxford were not few." There must have been something highly congenial to the intellectual and devout Dunster in his New Kngland environment. Scarcely had he settled in his new home in Boston when he received an enthusiastic -call to the presidency of the college at Cambridge (August, 1640). His qualifications for the position were recognized as extraordinary, and his coming just when needed was regarded by his contcm|>orarics as providential. " Mr. Henry Dunster is now President of this College," wrote Captain Johnson in his *' Wonder-Working Providence," " fitted from the Lord for the work, and, by those that have skill that way, rc|>orted to be an able Proficient in both Hebrew, Greek, and Latin languages, an Orthodox Preacher of the truths of Christ, very powerful through his blessing to move the affections. Hut seeing the Lord hath been pleased to raise up so worthy an instrument for their good, he shall not want for encouragement to go on with the work, so far as a rustical rhyme shall reach." We will not quote his rhyme, which repeats the recognition of providential dealing in the matter, and intimates that already young men were coming from Kngland to enjoy the advantages of the new college, so that
T
erence for immersion as the act of baptism; yet, as " there is something for sprinkling in the Scriptures, he should not be offended when it was used."
He married, in 1641, the widow of a minister who had died on his way from England. He was a true father to her five children, who proved to be possessed of more than average gifts and graces. Two of the daughters married sons of Governor Winthrop, and it is to this circumstance that we owe the preservation of important documentary material on Dunstcr's life that would otherwise, in ah probability, have been lost Left a widower in 1643, he was married again in 1644. Of this marriage five children were bom. Representatives of the family still remain.
Early in his New England career, Dunster began to manifest a profound interest in the Indians. John Eliot had his heartiest cooperation. Lechford, Boston's one lawyer (in his " Plain Dealing," etc.), gives us an early account of Dunster's views of Indian evangelization: " Master Henry Dunster, schoolmaster at Cambridge, deserves commendations above many; he hath the platform and the way of conversion of the natives indifferent right, and much studies the same, wherein yet he wants not opposition, as some others also have met with. He will without doubt prove an instrument of much good in the country, being a good scholar, and having skill in the tongues. He will make it good that the way to instruct the Indians must be in their own language, not English, and that their language may be perfected." It was probably at his suggestion that the commissioners of the colonies made provision for the education at Cambridge of young men " to be helpful in teaching such Indian children as should be taken into the College for that end." It was on his recommendation that the second charter of the
college (1650) stated the object of the college to be " the education of the English and Indian youth of this country in knowledge and godliness," The building called the " Indian College," though not erected until years aftet the close of his presidency, may have been in part a rcsull of Dunstcr's profound interest in the spiritual welfare oi the aborigines.
The following sentences from .1 letter to Knvius, a distinguished European orientalist of the time, will illustrate Dunstcr's enthusiasm fur oriental studies and his success in imparling his enthusiasm to his students: "If God's providence put an opportunity into your hand that you help us with books of those languages from some able hands and willing hearts, . . . then should we be very glad and evermore thankful to you and them who shall procure us IHistorf's Concordances and liibic (for the Khifj of Sjiain's we have, and the King of France's Bible is more than we dare hope for) and whatsoever Hebrew, Chaldce, Syriac, or Arabic authors God's providence shall enlarge their hands and hearts to procure us. A wonderful impulse unto these studies lies oil the spirits of our students some of whom can with case dexterously translate Hebrew and Chaldee into Greek."
It is not in accordance with the purpose of this chaptci to give a detailed account of the labors of President Dun-ster in and for Harvard College, or the personal sacrifice; that he made in order that the work might go prosperously on. His multifarious duties, as teacher of man) subjects, as the executive head of the institution, as financial agent, etc., were familiar to most college president! a generation ago, and are the portion of many a noble worker to-day. Hut he loved his work anil bore his hardships with rare cheerfulness, and thereby com men dee himself and his college to alt who had (he interests o:
THE BAPTISTS.
[Per. 1.
the institution and of the cause of Christian education at
1
Chap, v.] REJECTS /.VFA.VT BAPTISM.
1651. In answer to the question of an Knglish correspondent : " What do you do with them that are baptized, but give no satisfactory testimony of piety when ihey come to aye?" he answered: " None of their children are baptized until one of the parents at least do approve themselves faithful and be joined to the church. I have herewith sent you Mr. Davenport's catechism, where the question is handled, and answered according to practice." This statement has been supposed (Chaplin, 109) to prove that Dunstur held to infant baptism as late as December, 1051. Hut as he was professedly giving information as to the New Kngland practice rather than communicating his own individual views, there is no apparent reason why he should not, though, at the time ail anti-pedobaptist, have expressed himself as he did. Hut it is, on the whole, more probable that Mather was somewhat inaccurate in dating Dunsler's protest against infant baptism " presently " after the beginning of Mitchell's pastorate, and that the infant withheld from baptism was one bom in 1053. In that case it is probable that the infant born in 1650 was duly baptized, and it would follow that D11 nster's convictions had not at that time become overmastering.
It is highly probable that the persecution of Clarke, Holmes, and Crandall, in the summer of [651, had the effect of awakening Dunsler's conscience on the matter of infant baptism, lie may have become intellectually convinced some lime before that the practice is without Scriptural warrant. The suffering of these men for what he recognized as the truth may have so impressed the matter Upon his heart and conscience that he could no longer as an honest man withhold the expression of his views, or
iter against infant baptism, and of the efforts made to win him from the error of hit ways, is so graphic and full, and so well illustrates the personal power of Dunster and the high consideration in which he was held, as well as the consternation into which his pastor and other leading ministers and laymen were thrown by Dunster's adoption of "Anabaptist" views, that it seems advisable to quote a portion of it: " Our Mitchell, presently upon his becoming pastor of Cambridge, met with a more than ordinary trial, in that the good man who was then President of the College was unaccountably fallen into the briars of Anti-pedobaptism; and being briar'd in the scruples of that persuasion, he not only forbore to present an infant of his own unto the Baptism of our Lord, but also thought himself under some obligation to bear his testimony in some sermons against the administration of baptism to any infant whatsoever. The brethren of the Church were somewhat vehement and violent in their signifying of their dissatisfaction at the obstruction, which the renitencics of that gentleman threatened with the peaceable practice of infant baptism, wherein they had hitherto walked; and judged it necessary for the vindication of the Church's name abroad in the country, and for the safety of the Congregation at home, to desire him that he would cease preaching as formerly, until he had better satisfied himself in the point now doubted by him. At these things extreme was the uneasiness of our Mitchell, who told the brethren that more light and less heat would do better; but yet saw the zeal of some against this good man's error, to push the matter on so far, that being but a young man, he was likely now to be embarrassed in a controversy with so considerable a person, and with one who had been his tutor, and a worthy and godly man. He could give this account of it: 'Through the Church's
being apt to hurry on too fast and too impatiently, I found myself much oppressed; especially considering my own weakness to grapple with these difficulties; this business did lie down and rise up, sleep and wake with me. It was a dismal thing to me, that I should live to see truth or peace dying or decaying in poor Cambridge." But while he was, with a prudence incomparably beyond what might have been expected from a young man, managing this thorny business, he saw cause to record a passage which perhaps will be judged worthy of some remembrance. 'That day,' writes he, (Decemb. 24, 1653,) 'after I came from him, I had a strange experience; I found hurrying and pressing suggestions against l'edo baptism, and injected scruples and thoughts whether the other way might not be right, and infant baptism an invention of men ; and whether I might with a good conscience baptise children, and the like. And these thoughts were darted in with some impression, and left a strange confusion and sickliness upon my spirit. Yet, mcthought, it was not hard to discern, that they were from the KVII. ONE. First, Because they were rather injected hurrying suggestions, than any deliberate thoughts, or bringing any light with them. Secondly, Because they were unseasonable; interrupting me in my study for the Sabbath, and putting my spirit into n confusion, so as 1 had much ado to do aught in my sermon. It was not now a time to study that matter; but when, in the former part of the week, 1 had given myself to that study, the more I studied il, the more clear and rational light I saw for I'edobaptism, But now these suggestions hurried mc into scruples. But they made me cry out to God for his help; and he did afterward calm and clear up my spirit. I thought the end of them was, First, to show me the corruption of my mind; how apt that was to lake in error, even as my heart is to take in
rs.
[Pel i.
Ciur. v.J PKOCKEDt.VGS AGAf.XST DlWSTtik:
fant makes his covenant in a public person," Dunster claimed that " there is now no public person but Christ for us to stand in." The argument from r Corinthians vii. 14 was adduced by Dunster's opponents and explained in a llaptist way by Dunster. The report of the discussion is evidently a very abbreviated one, little more than the heads of the arguments being given; but nothing «ud by the representatives of the standing order was calculated to produce the slightest impression on one who had come to see the significance and value of believers' baptism and to realize the evils of infant baptism,
In a letter written at about llie time of the conference. President Dunster thus sets forth Ins view of the evil of infant baptism: " That way of worship which forcibly deprives the spiritual babes ami converts of the church of the due 0insolation from Christ and dutiful obligation to Christ—that is justly suspicious. Hut the baptism of 1111-rcifcneratc infants forcibly deprives the spiritual babes and converts of the church of their due consolation from Christ, viz., the remission of sin, etc., anil dutiful obligation to Christ, viz., to believe on him, die with him to sin, and rise to newness of life."
Three months after the conference, on the basis of the ministers* report, no doubt, the General Court issued the following order: " Forasmuch as it greatly concerns the welfare of this country that the youth thereof be educated not only in i;o<>d literature, but sound doctrine, this Court cloth therefore commend it to the serious consideration and special care of the Overseers of the College, and the selectmen of the several towns, not to admit or suffer any such to be continued in the office or place of teaching, educating, or instruction of youth or child, in the college or school, that have manifested themselves unsound in the faith, or scandalous in their lives, and not giving due sat-
A few week* < resignation in : place wherein (blessed be the >. And hence-ided) I shall be :s or months to crim fall not to the present or kwI, in this bc-t, and dally, by ic Lord lo help resignation was as left with the ion, in case, he 1th (and inform rry on and end precipitancy on nutty reluctant nbt hoped that tn pressing his
,-e retained Lis ly set forth his f he could have j. Hut he was i of the evils of nscience, to re-rcasion offered. iirt referred to, nistcrcd in the protest against rist, and to anil by the pastor
A HUMBLE PETITWS.
■ SS
state of confusion and greatly embarrassed the authorities, especially when funds were represented by a negative rather than by a positive quantity, would have been an almost unexampled act of generosity. These extraordinary services had been fully recognized by the overseers, and had things gone on prosperously this recognition would doubtless have assumed some tangible form; but circumstances had completely changed. To grant the privilege of remaining in the house for an indefinite period would make it to his interest to delay a final settlement of the college accounts, and besides would be embarrassing to his successor. That he should be allowed to preach or teach in the colony would have been contrary to the recognized principles of the theocracy which occasioned his removal from the position that he had so ably filled. "What other laudable or liberal calling, besides preaching and education of youth, is intended, Mr. Dunster is to explain himself."*
The hardship involved in Dunster's position it is difficult for us to realize. Without the sanction of the authorities there was nothing to which he could turn his hand for the maintenance of his family, except, perhaps, farming or merchandise, for neither of which he had taste or training. It is probable that his wife did not fully sympathize with him in the position he had taken. This may be inferred from the fact that his descendants in the generation following seem all to have been associated with pedobnptist churches. So reluctant was he to leave Cambridge at once that, six days after the unfavorable reply of the court to his petition, he addressed to the same body a series of considerations, wherein he pointed out the extreme inconvenience and hardship of changing his residence at that time of year and on so short notice, and the importance of his remaining to se tie up the accounts of the college and to give to
Cuap. v.] PROSECUTION, OR PERSECUTIONt
his successor the information necessary for the successfu performance of some of his duties. This time the cour yielded, and he was permitted to remain lilt the folio win) March (1655).
His trial for the disturbing of public worship did no take place till April. There is no doubt but that he ha< rendered himself liable to prosecution for persisting in dis turbing the service; but that this matter should have beei pressed at such a time, after he had suffered so greatly i: being deprived of his position in the college, savors of petti persecution. Considering what the theocracy was, the re lation of the college to the theocracy, and the profouni dread of Anabaptism, the authorities could hardly hmi been expected to retain the services of a man who ha< assumed n hostile attitude towards what was looked u|k>i as a fundamental doctrine. In fact, it must he admitte< that the court showed considerable forbearance in no dismissing him summarily when his views had been full] ascertained; hut that he should have been subjected t< the indignity of a criminal process, and especially at sucl a lime, is less excusable.
Discreditable, also, were the failure of the court to pro vide for the prompt payment of the forty pounds whic! the overseers found to be strictly due him on account, am its entire ignoring of their recommendation that one bun dred pounds be allowed him for extraordinary services.
lief ore leaving the vicinity of lioston we find Dunste intimately associated with Thomas Gould, of Charles town whom we shall meet again as one of the founders of tin hirst Baptist Church, lioston, and one of the principal suf ferers for the faith in connection with this cause.
Dunstcr removed to Scittiate, in the Plymouth colony whence Chauncy had been called to be his successor a Cambridge. Whether Chuuncv is to be credited with sucl
THE BAPTISTS. [Pi*. I.
osity as would have led him to run nisinR himself with the Massachusetts II his influence in behalf of Dunsler's intc, wo do nut know. The 1'lymoiith seen, was far in advance of the Massa-,' in the matter of toleration. Scituate ny other township of I'lymouth in this rop, who hail been pastor of the South-nil founded by Henry Jacob when the »U l6 33)t lhat resulted in the formal ion, iry's leadership, of the first Particular upland, had come to New Knu'and the i a portion of hi* Independent cou^rc-ttled at Scituate, These were already st doctrine and were not likely to be reservation, of antipedohaptist views. churches in New I*',upland would have mil in y in the matter of immersion and ttioii of the Supper. It is altogether found in the Scilu;;'o church a number iroujrhly sympathized with his antipc-)ur information with respect to his life ite during the four remaining years of ugly mender. Dcanc (in his " History " notices of him the same autumn cm-*try, in which he continued nearly five bility seems to be against the supposi. tilarly installed as pastor of the church, ictivc sympathy and support of suctl tain (afterward General) James Cud* i! lie dared to entertain some Quakers ir persecution, lost Ins position (1657) court. Cudworth's sentiments in re-are worth diiotinu : " The aulichristiaii
persecuting spirit is very active, nnd that in the powers of this world ]!c that will nut lash, persecute, and punish men that differ in matters of religion, must not sit on the bench, nur sustain any office in the Commonwealth. I.ast election, Mr. Hatherly aiul myself were left off the bench, and myself discharged of my captainship, because I had entertained sonic of the Quakers at my house, thereby that I might he the better acquainted with their principles. I thought it better to do so than witli the blind world to censure, condemn, rail at, and revile ihem, when they neither saw their person* nor knew any of their principles. Hut the (Junkers and I cannot close in (liters things, and so I signified to the Court; but told them withal, that as I was no Quaker, so I would be 110 persecutor."
In a letter written about a year before Punster's death. Cud worth beam this testimony to his work and worth; "Through men*)* we have yel among ns the worthy Mr. Diiusler, whom the Lord hath made boldly to bear testimony against the spirit of persecution." According to Morton (" Memorials," p. 38.1), Dunsler " was useful toop-]m>sc their [the Quakers'] abominable opinions, and in defending the truth against them." In strongly opposing the opinions of the Quakers he was at one with Roger Williams, but we may be sure that neither of these great and good men countenanced the persecution of the>e religious zealots.
An incident in Punster's later career should not be omitted. In ifi<»6. the year after his settlement at Seiui-atc, he received the following letter from Kdward Roberts, a Welsh Baptist in government employ at Dublin: *' Hon-ored Friend: I am wholly a stranger to yon further than ns to report which hath spread itself to the rejoicing of many that fear the Lord, and hearing that your portion hath been to suffer in some measure for the Cross of
Christ, myself and some other that truly love you on the ground aforesaid made it our request to the truly virtuous Lord Deputy [Henry Cromwell, son of Oliver] to provide Tor you in this land, who readily embraced the same, and ordered fifty pounds for the bringing over yourself and family, as you may see by a copy of his Lordship's and the Council's enclosed, with directions for me to send to you, which moneys I have sent . . . You need not fear accommodations here, though I hope that will not be your chief motive, but rather honor of the Lord and his ureal name. You may through mercy have free liberty of your conscience; and opportunity of associating with saints and free publishing the Gospel of Truth, which [is] greatly wanted amongst us, there being but few able and painful men who make the service of God their sake."
An earnest entreaty to confer not with flesh and blood, but " to be guided by the call of God," follows. The invitation was not accepted. For better or fur worse he seems to have joined himself to New Knglund. Doubtless he had business interests of his own and of his step-children that would have made it difficult fur hi)., to leave the country of his adoption. He may also have foreseen that the government with whose cooperation he was invited to Ireland was Licking in stability. It may be that his declining health made hiin reluctant to enter upon an undertaking in which much would be expected of him. Again, it may be that his wife withheld the encouragement that would have been necessary to make the change a happy one.
On the same grounds we may perhaps account for the fact that he was content to be to the end of his life a pronounced antipedohaptist in a pednhaptist church. Outside of Providence and Rhode Island there was no Baptist church in America. It is probable that up to the time of his death it wotdd have been impossible to carry on Bap-
tist work even in the Plymouth colony. No doubt he made up his mind that, having borne his testimony and suffered his martyrdom on behalf of believers' baptism and regenerate church-membership, and finding the door absolutely closed in the colony that he had chosen as his home against the carrying on of distinctively Baptist work, his duty in respect to these doctrines would be fulfilled by a continuance of his protest and by engaging in such Christian work as was open to him. 1 le was sowing the seed. The harvest would appear by and by.
His death occurred at Scituatc, February 27, 1659. In his will, drawn up the year before, when disease had already warned him that the end was near, he made provision for his burial at Cambridge. His heart had been there during his years of absence; there he wished his mortal remains to abide. President Chauncy and Mr. Mitchell, •• his reverend and trusty friends and brethren," he appointed to appraise his library, and to each he left a number of volumes. Doubtless at his funeral his brethren who had felt obliged, in the interests of the theocracy, to cooperate in securing his removal from the work in which his heart was so deeply enlisted, recalled with sadness the pathetic words contained in his statement of considerations why he should be allowed to remain in the president's residence during the winter after his resignation: M The whole transaction of this business is such which in process of time, when all things come to mature consideration, may very probably create grief on all sides; yours subsequent, as mine antecedent. I am not the man you take me to be."
Mitchell's elegiac stanzas have been already referred to. I larvard University, though she has departed greatly from the position of the Puritans and from that of Dunster, regards his memory as one of her chiefest treasures, and her historians have vied with each other in doing him honor.
CHAPTER VI.
BAPTIST CHURCHES IN MASSACHUSETTS TO 174a 1
If, with most writer*, we leave out of consideration the Itaptist meetings held by Oliadinh 1 lolmes and bin fellow* believers at Rehoboth iit 1649, then the first Itaptist church within the territory now covered by Massachusetts was also the first Itaptist church of Wales. The leader of trie band of Welsh Baptists who, in 1663, took refuse in New England from persecutions under Charles II. (1662 onward) was John Mylcs. That they sliould have made their way to tin: Plymouth colony was natural in view of the well-known tolerant disposition of its authorities. Rehoboth, where they settled, had already, as we have seen, witnessed the holding of Baptist meetings. Like many of the ministers who sought in New England a refuge from the persecution!! of the British authorities, Mylcs had behind him a long career of distinguished usefulness. When Obadiah Holmes was gathering the Itaptist converts of Kehohotli for worship, Myles and an associate, Thomas I'roud by name, were planting the Itaptist banner at Ilston, Glamorganshire, Wales. Of the early life of Myles we have only meager information. Horn at Newton, in Herefordshire, about 1621, we find him a student in the University of Oxford in ifijfl. lie sprang from a region whose soil had been enriched by the blood of martyrs in
1 <f. llswkllH, Kllis MiitWr, \Vintliri.|., Murtun, llultliinson, llulilanl,
CllAl\ vi.] MKST BAPTIST CUUKCU OF WALES. |6j
medieval and later times. It had been the stronghold of Lollardism in the fourteenth century, and it gloried in being the birthplace or the scene of the labors of such evangelical heroes and martyrs as Itaulwardine, Sir John Oldcastle (Lord Cobham), and Walter Hrutc, in the medieval time, and of John Pcnry in the age of Elizabeth. The destitution of gospel privileges in Wales about 1641 was truly appalling. Kvangelical preachers had been hunted out by the I«audian inquisition, and the great majority of the ministers of the established yjuirch were ignorant and corrupt. According to Vavasour Powell, the great Baptist evangelist of Walts, M A petition was sent to the King and Parliament about 1641, setting forth humbly and truly, by many responsible persons, that after minutely searching scarcely were there found as many conscientious, settled preachers in Wales as there were counties in it." Myles began his ministry about 1645, under what circumstances or with what views of truth we are not informed.
According to the records of the Baptist church at Ilston, which Myles and his brethren brought with them to Xew Kngland, the organization took place April I, 1649. The heading of the first page is said to run: "Names of the brethren and sisters who were added to this church from the first day of the second month [April, N. S.] in 1049, to the 16th day of the same month in 1650." The name of John Myles heads the list, and is followed by that of Thomas Proud It is probable that Myles and Proud had been baptized shortly before the inauguration of their work at Ilston into the fellowship of a London Baptist church (now meeting in the Glass Mouse, Broad Street), . whither they had apparently gone for this purpose. The London church, it is related, regarded the coming of these brethren and their proposal to enter upon evangelistic work in Wales as a direct answer to their recent prayers
W""P
THE BAPTISTS.
[Per. i.
Chap, vi.)
MYLES A TESTEfi.
105
tism, and gather together the first church of baptized be-
[Pkk. i.
=
min Alby, It don not appear that any coercive measures were undertaken against tlie new organisation until July, 1667, when Myles and Drown were arraigned before the court " for their breach of order in setting up of a public meeting without the knowledge and approbation of the Court, to the disturbance of the peace of the place," and " are fined each of them five pounds, and Mr. Tanner the sum of one pound, and we judge that their continuance at Kchoboth, being very prejudicial lo the pence of that church and that town, may not lie allowed; and do there* fore order all persons concerned therein wholly to desist from the said meeting in that place or township, within this month. Yet in case they shall remove their meeting unto some other place, where they may not prejudice any other church, and shall give us any reasonable satisfaction respecting their principles, we do not know but they may be permitted by tins government so to do."
It is evident that the Daptist work was being pushed with some vigor and had become n matter of alarm lo the pastor of the church of the standing order. It is further evident that the authorities had ceased lo regard antipedo-■ baptism with the horror of the earlier time. As compared with the attitude of the Massachusetts Day authorities before and after, the last sentence of this pronouncement is toleration itself. Massachusetts would have imprisoned and lianished Myles and his associates. I'lymouth simply requires them lo remove to a convenient distance from the church of the standing order, so as not to disturb the peace of church and town. In October of the same year the court set apart for thcin a large body of land near the Rhode Island frontier, which they named Swansea, in commemoration of Swansea, near Ilston, their Welsh home. The land-grant was made in the names of Captain Willet and Mr. Paine, who were pedobaptists, and three of the
icir teachings, or to speak reproachfully of any iirchcs of Christ in the country, or of any such relics as are of the same common faith with us
We desire that it be also understood and dc-t this is not understood of any holding any opin-jnt from others in any disputable point, yet in iy among the godly learned, the belief thereof essentially necessary to salvation; such as pedo-mtipedobaptism, church discipline, or the like; the minister or ministers of the said town may
liberty to baptize infants or grown persons as shall persuade their consciences, and so also the s take their liberty to bring their children to r to forbear."
e see a result of Mylcs's training in connection state-church system of the Commonwealth and rtorate. 1 le had failed to grasp the great prin-ibsolutc liberty of conscience which the mass lobaptists from the Reformation time onward -itcntly advocated and practiced. If this docu-n anything, it means that Myles and his Itaptist vould have cooperated with the pedobaptist in-of the township of Swansea in excluding, by
1> /«..*!. I*
is fortunately no case on record in which the vicious principle of this document was practically applied. Doubtless contact with the disciples of Roger Williams ami John Clarke in the neighboring churches of Providence and Newport taught these anomalous ltaptists the way of the Lord more perfectly, It may he that anxiety to escape persecution led them to express themselves more strongly on these matter* than their own best judgment would have approved or than they would have been willing to carry out in practice. Hut this possible explanation is as little to their credit as their failure to apprehend a funda-
because he is like to perish for want, and hit gathered church and people will not help him." The effort to secure a pastor in England proved a failure, and no doubt the differences between the old pastor and his flock were adjusted. He died as pastor of the church February 3, 1683, and his memory remains fragrant in the community where his labors were so fruitful. He was succeeded after a considerable interval by Samuel Luther, who had been for some time a member of the church and had represented Swansea in the colonial legislature, lie was ordained to the pastorate July 22, iM$, elders from the lkrnton church assisting. I le remained jKistor till his death, in 1717. The next pastor was Kphrnim Whcaton, who for thirteen years had assisted Luther in his ministerial labors. The church greatly prospered under Whcaton's ministry. During the five years beginning with 1718, fifty were received into the church, and before his death, in 1 734. the membership had risen to two hundred. Mis successor, Samuel Maxwell, was noted for his piety and zeal, but having adopted Sabbatarian views, and being thought unsteady in other points of Baptist doctrine, he was dismissed from the church in 1739. The next pastor was popular, but proved unworthy, and the next was so unacceptable that the church greatly declined, many members withdrawing to other churches which had been organized in the neighborhood. Hut a bright future was before the church in the period to follow, in connection with the Great Awakening.
The new charter, under William and Mary, granted in 1691, provided for " liberty of conscience in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists." " Liberty of conscience " was interpreted by the Massachusetts authorities in such a way as to allow of the taxation of dissenters for the support of ministers of the standing order.
In 1692 an act was passed for the support of ministers.
Aft revised in 1693, it provided " that each respective gathered church, in any town or place within this Province, that at any time shall be in want of a minister, such church shall have the power, according to the directions given in the Word of God, to choose their own minister "; but be-, fore the settlement could be consummated the concurrence of a majority of voters in town affairs must be secured. After such concurrence, " all the inhabitants and ratable estates lying within such town, or part of a town, or place limited by law for upholding the public worship of God,, shall be obliged to pay in proportion towards the minister's settlement and support." Boston was excepted from the operation of this law, but otherwise its provisions were made compulsory by a requirement that the county courts should summon and heavily fine the selectmen or other officers of any town failing to comply. It was not long before the Bristol Court issued a warrant requiring the ' town of Swansea to choose a minister according to law. As the Baptist church was the only church in the town, and as a large majority of the inhabitants were Baptist in sentiment, there was no difficulty in securing for the pastor the concurrence of a majority of the voters of the town. It is humiliating to find that after a short delay the requisition was complied with, and the report was sent to the court that Samuel Luther had been chosen pastor according to law. Whether the church allowed a general assessment for the support of its pastor to be carried out wc are not informed. As in the laying out of the township, which had been publicly granted to a company the majority of whom were Baptists, certain lots had been set apart for the support of public worship, it may be that a general assessment was-not required.
The law referred to was in force until 1728, when an act was passed " to exempt persons commonly called Ana-
baptists, and those called Quakers, . . . from being taxed for and towards the support of" ministers. This act at first exempted from poll-taxes only, and it applied only to persons living within five miles of their meeting-place. In 1729 it was modified to include estate-taxes. The act was to be valid for five years only. At the expiration of this term its provisions were renewed, with the requirement that assessors should make lists of Anabaptists in each community and that these lists should be subject to inspection and to correction on the presentation of certificates signed by "two principal members of that persuasion." As no penalty was affixed to neglect of compliance with the law on the part of the assessors, Baptists were put to much inconvenience, annoyance, and expense in securing the exemption provided for. The history of the First Baptist Church of Boston next
1_ -a.* A? fl. •_ A.-!— 4.L-A *t_
Ciiai*. vi.] J-JA'ST BAPTIST CI1UKC1I OF BOSTON.
•75
wickedly slight the admonition of the church, declaring that they had, by it, discharged him of all relation to them,"
Substantially the same is the charge against Osburne.
The occasion of Gould's first protest against infant baptism \vas*the birth of a child in 1655. His own account of the matter is of interest: " It having been a long time a scruple to me about infant baptism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me, by the rule of the gospel, that children were not capable nor Tit subjects for such an ordinance, because Christ gave this comniissinn to his apostles, first to preach In make them disciples, anil then to baptise them, which infants were not capable of; no thai I thirst' not briny forth my child to be partaker of it." The details of the ecclesiastical processes by which it was sought to win this Anabaptist heretic from the error of his way, as reported by Gould himself, are picturesque and in some cases piquant; but nothing new was added to the arguments for and against the baptism of infants. Repeated conferences led to no change of sentiment on either side. What followed these conferences may be best given in Gould's own language: " Now after this, considering with myself what the Lord would have me to do; not likely to join with any of the churches of New Kngland any more, and so to be without the ordinances of Christ; in the mean time God sent out of Old Ku^land some who were Baptists; we, consulting together wiiat to do, sought the Lord to direct us, ami taking counsel of other friends who dwelt among us, who were able and godly, they gave us counsel to ctmgregate ourselves together; and so we did, being nine of us, to walk in the order of the gospel according to the rule of Christ, yet knowing that it was a breach of the law of this country; that we had not the approbation of magistrates and ministers, for that we suffered the penalty of that law, when we were called before them."
Shortly after the organization of the new church, Gould was solemnly summoned to appear before the church to which he had formerly belonged on the following Lord's Day. He repudiated any right of the church to demand his presence, and declined to obey the summons. At the entreaty of some of his friends, who feared that some godly members of the church might, in case of his failure to state the grounds of his action in public assembly, ignorantly join in his excommunication and thus commit sin, he agreed to be present on a subsequent Lord's Day. The result was the excommunication of such liaptists as had been members of the church.
In September, 1665, they were arraigned before the Court of Assistants. They exhibited to the court a care* fully written confession of faith. Objection was raised to the following article, on the ground that it excludes from visible saintship till unbaptized persons: " Christ's commission to his disciples is to teach and baptize, and those who gladly receive the word and are baptized are saints by calling, and fit matter for a visible church." " If any take this to be heresy," the confession concludes, " then do we, with the apostle, confess, that after the way which they call heresy, we worship God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, believing all things that arc written in the law and the prophets and apostles." As the accused showed no disposition to yield to the authorities, the case was referred to the General Court to be held the next month (October 11). The sentence of the court reads as follows: " This Court, taking the premises into consideration, do judge meet to declare that the said Gould and company are no orderly church assembly, and that they stand justly convicted of high presumption against the Lord and his holy appointments, as also the peace of this government, against which this Court doth account themselves bound to God,
his truth, and his churches here planted, to bear their testimony, and do therefore sentence the Raid Gould, Osburne, Drinker, Turner, and George, such of them as are freemen, to be disfranchised, and all of them, upon conviction, before, any one magistrate or Court, of their further proceedings herein, to be committed to prison until the General Court shall take further order with them."
It need scarccty be said that the llaptists continued their meetings. On April 17, 1C66, they were summoned before the County Court at Cambridge, and Gould, Osburne, and George were fined four pounds each and required to give bond for their appearance at the next Court of Assistants in the sum of twenty pounds each. Refusing to comply with these requirements, they were cast into prison. The Court of Assistants required them to pay their fines and gave them to understand that the previous order was to " stand in full force." The fines seem to have been paid and the prisoners liberated. Hut annoyances of this kind continued. In March, 1668, Gould appealed from the County Court to the Court of Assistants, with the result that the jury " found for the plaintiff, reversion of the former judgment." The court refused to accept this verdict and sent the jury out for further consideration. A qualified statement was returned, on the basis of which the decision of the lower court was sustained.
In connection with these procedures the governor and council arranged for a meeting of the principal ministers along with the governor and magistrates, " before whom . . . the above-said persons and their company shall have liberty, freely and fully, in open assembly, to present their grounds ... in an orderly debate of this following question: Whether it be justifiable by the word of God, for these persons and their company to depart from communion with these churches, and to set up an assembly here
in the way of Anabaptism, and whether such a practice is to be Allowed by the government of this jurisdiction? To Thomas Gould : You .ire hereby required in his Majesty's name, according to the order of the Council above written, to give notice thereof to John Farnum, senior, Thomas Osburne, and the company, and you and they are alike required to give your attendance." In this disputation Gould and his associates had the active sympathy and support of the Newport chinch, three of whose leading members, William lliscox, Joseph Torrey, and Samuel Hubbard, were delegated by the church to be present, and arrived three days before the event. The result was as we have learned to expect in all such cases: the party in power considered themselves victorious, and the weaker party, for refusing to see the force of the arguments of their opponents, were branded as obstinate Heretics. The record reminds one strongly of the protocols of sixteenth-century Anabaptist processes in Catholic Austria or Protestant Germany: "Wheivas.TlioniasGould.WilliamTurner, and John l-'arnnin, senior, obstinate and turbulent Anabaptists, have some time since combined themselves with others in a pretended church estate, without the knowledge and approbation of the authority here established, to the gre->t grief and offense of the godly orthodox ; . . . the said persons did in open Court assert their former practice to have been according to the mind of God, and that nothing that they had heard had convinced them to the contrary; which practice, being also otherwise circumstanced with making infant baptism a nullity, and thereby making us all to be ii nbaptized persons, and so consequently no regular
of those who are under church censure, thereby making the discipline of Christ to be of none effect, and manifestly tending to the disturbance and destruction of these churches,— opening the door for all sorts of abominations to come in among us, to the disturbance not only of ecclesiastical enjoyments, but also contempt of our civil order and the authority here established, . . . which duty to God and the country doth oblige us to prevent, by using the most compassionate effectual means to attain the same; all of which considering, together with the danger of disseminating their errors, and encouraging presumptuous irregularities by their example, should they continue in this jurisdiction; this Court do judge it necessary that they be removed to some other part of this country, or elsewhere, and accordingly doth order that the said Thomas Gould, William Turner, and James Farnum, senior, do, before the 20th of July next, remove themselves out of this jurisdiction."
The sentence further provides for their imprisonment without bail or mainprise in case they should be found in the jurisdiction after the time fixed; and all officers concerned are especially ordered to see to the execution of the sentence. The church is forbidden to assemble again on any pretense whatever, and imprisonment and banish-
_.i_- *t-.. ~. i*.-- _r 1.
the Protectorate f and the Restoration had succeeded one another with startling abruptness and revolutionizing effect The ecclesiastical tyranny of Archbishop Laud and Charles I. was succeeded by a triumph of Presbyterian Puritanism and a vigorous effort on the part of the latter to bring the whole of Britain into subjection to Presbyterian doctrine and discipline (1641-48). Independency, pedo-baptist and Baptist, which in 1640 was limited to a few persecuted and despised congregations and a number of isolated individuals in the Puritan churches, had by 1647 attained to a dominating position in the triumphant parliamentary army, most of the leading officers having become Independent and many of them Baptist; and this Independent army had been able to destroy monarchy and prelacy and to put a limit to Presbyterian aspirations after theocratic control. The doctrine of liberty of conscience, which had hitherto been advocated only by a few obscure Baptists, had been set forth with magnificent completeness and telling effect by Roger Williams, and had been accepted with greater or less completeness by a large proportion, and the most influential portion, of the English people. The Restoration had brought terrible persecution to dissent from the established church, involving the ejection in 1662 of two thousand Presbyterian and Independent ministers. Even Knglish Puritans were coming to sec that something could be said in favor of toleration. We may note the earnest remonstrances from leading Knglish Congrcgation-alists in connection with the persecution of Clarke, Holmes, and Cramlall, in 1651. The persecution of Gould and his brethren in 1668 by the New England Congregationalists was a source of amazement to English Congregationalists, who had long before learned the way of the Lord more perfectly, and who were at this very time groaning under the intolerance of the restored Stuart dynasty. The New
Kngland theocracy had remained stationary in its intolerance, while the targe party in England with whom it claimed affiliation had made great strides forward in their conception of civil and religious liberty. Wilson, the first pastor ol the Huston church, made a dying declaration about this time (May, 1067), which many accepted as the words of a prophet. Among the sins which in his view greatly provoked God were: " r. Separation. 2. Amtbap-tism. 3. Coraliism." The latter he defined as rising up against ministers or elders. All three of these specifications were aimed at the Baptists. lie reproached the magistrates fur being " Gallio-likc, either not caring for these things, or else not using their power and authority for the maintenance of the truth, gospel, and ordinances <>f our Lord ami Saviour Jesus Christ." "Should the Lord leave them hereunto, how miserable a people wc should be!"
It should also be- borne in mind that at [he time ol the organization of the First Baptist Church of Boston the New Kngland churches were convulsed with controversy over the Half-way Covenant. According to the earlier arrangement, embodied in part in the Cambridge l'latform of 1648, the exercise of the rights of citizenship was limited to those in full communion in one of the recognized churches, and full communion was accorded only to those who gave credible evidence of having exercised saving faith and having been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Kach individual applying for church-membership must submit to a thorough examination as to his Christian experience. Only the children of parents at least one of whom was in full communion were entitled to baptism. Baptized children were regarded as church-members by virtue of the fact that they were children of believers, but even such could become eligible to partake of the Supper
only by making a personal profession of saving faith. The result of these arrangements was that within a few years the great mass of the population were deprived of full communion and so of citizenship and of the right tu have their children baptized. It began to be seriously asked by many, What is the use of infant baptism, seeing thai it Confers no special privilege, civil or religious, apart from the personal profession of the person baptized? Why not postpone baptism until after the personal profession? The discontent of the majority of the population at being taxed for the support of public worship and yet denied the privileges of membership for themselves and their families, and especially at being civilly disfranchised, had become- so general ami demonstrative by 1057 that it could IW longer be safely ignored. Moreover, the tendency of the logic of the situation toward the production of Itaptists had doubtless become evident to many minds. The Half-way Covenant was a measure, agreed to by a large majority of the Synod called tugether by the civil authorities to consider the situation, for the remedying of the difficulties that had become embarrassing. Already at the lime of the adoption of the Cambridge l'latform there was a large and influential party in favor of extending the privileges of baptism and making the terms of communion more liberal. The question before the Synods of 1657 and 1062 was whether to enlarge the subjects of full communion, so that those who had been baptized in infancy, were orthodox in their views and without scandal in their lives, should be received into full communion without a perwmal profession of saving faith; or to accord the privilege of baptism to the children of such. The decision was in favor of the latter concession, but in practice the doors of many of the churches were soon thrown wide open, and the requirement of evidences of personal regeneration was gen-
erally abandoned, its place being taken by a formal owning of the covenant As the logic of the situation under the Cambridge Platform had favored the development of Baptist sentiment, so the virtual abandonment of the effort to maintain regenerate membership on the part of the New England churches furnished the strongest possible ground for Itaptist protest, regenerate membership having been from the beginning one of the chief points of their contention. The Huston church of which Wilson had been pastor was soon to suffer schism under John Davenport, his successor, who was one of (he most pronounced opponent* of the Half-way Covenant; and a condition of unrest in ccclesi;u»tical niatlcrs that was highly favorable to the formation of new churches pervaded the colonics.
But this necessary digression has already proceeded too far. We left Gould under the sentence of the court, with banishment as the only alternative to continued imprisonment, and the Itaptist church forbidden to assemble further under like penalties. On July 30th, William Turner and John E.'imuin were likewise committed to jail. A numerously and influcntially signed petition for the release of the prisoners, based on humanitarian as well as on religious grounds, was presented to the assembly at its autumn session. Governor Jlcllingham was one of the most intolerant of ths magistrates, and was largely influential in securing these rigorous measures against the Baptists. Francis Wiltoughby, deputy governor, 1065-71, ' s said to have opposed these persecuting measures, Reports of this persecution were sent to England. The following extracts from a letter written to Captain Oliver by Robert Mascall will illustrate the feelings awakened among English nonconformists by these procedures: " We arc hearty and full for our Presbyterian brethren's enjoying equal liberty with ourselves; oh that they had the same spirit
towards us! but oh, how it grieves and affects us that New England should persecute! will you not give what you take? is liberty of conscience your due? and is it not as
city: " Dear brother, we here do luve and honor them, hold familiarity with them, und take uwect counsel together; they lie in the bottom of Christ, and therefore ought to be laid in our bosoms. In a word, we freely admit them into churches; few of our churches but many of our members are Anabaptists; 1 mean buplixod again. . . . Anabaptists arc neither spirited nor principled to injure nor hurt your government nor your liberties; but rather these be a means to preserve your churches from apostasy, and provoke them to their primitive purity."
Thirteen leading dissenting ministers of Knghmd, including Drs. Owen and Goodwin ami Metww. Nye mid Caryl, wrote to I he governor of Massachusetts in a similar strain, the consideration most emphasized being the great injury that would be dune to the dissenting interest in lingland by such intolerant practices in New Knglaud.
It was due, no doubt, to the combined influence of the strong local sentiment that had found expression in various ways, and to the vigorous protestation of the most influential Congregaiionalists of Kngland, that the prisoners for conscience' sake were released in a little less than a year. It is probable that a majority of the magistrates would have yielded to the demand for release long before, but the governor was obdurate. For some years the Baptists held their services upon Noddle's Island, where Gould took up his residence. In November, 1670, we find Turner again in prison, and warrants were " in two marshals' hands for brother Gould also, but he is not yet taken, because he lives on Noddle's Island, and they only wait to take him at town." So wrote Kdward Drinker, a member of the church, to John Clarke and the Newport church. From this letter it appears that earnest efforts were made to secure the release of the prisoner, and that nearly all of the deputies were against the imprisonment of the Bap-
tints: "The town and country is very much troubled at our trouble*; and especially the old church in Huston, mill their elders, both Mr. Oxonbridgc Mil Mr. Allen, have labored abundantly, 1 think as if it had been fur their best friends in the world. Many more gentlemen ami solid Christians are fur our brother's deliverance; but it cannot be had; u very great trouble to the town; and they hail gotten six magistrates' hands fur his deliverance, but could not get the Governor's hand to il. . . . We keep our meet, ing at Noddle's Island, every First-day, and the Lord is adding some son In to in* mill, and is enlightening some others ; the priest* are ntueh enraged, The I.ord has iflvull us another elder, one John Russell, senior, a gracious, wise, and holy man that lives at Woburn, where we have five brethren near that can meet with him ; and they meet together First-days when they cannot come to us, and 1 hear there are some more there looking that way with them. , . , Hrother Turner's family is very weakly and himself too. I fear he will not trouble them long."
Massachusetts was far behind the limes in the matter of toleration, and a Coin motion like that aroused by the persecution of these godly, simple people was needed to show the authorities in church and state what the world thought of that sort of thing, and to bring out into activity the sentiments against tyranny and injustice that might otherwise have remained latent. The reply from Newport written by Samuel Hubbard is full of sympathy and brotherly love. It is dated " ylh month, 1071," more than nine months after the letter of Drinker. It may be that other correspondence intervened. A further letter written to Newport in reply to Hubbard's, and dated " the first. 10th month, '71," contains the following items: " Hrother Turner has been near to death, but through mercy is revived, and so has our pastor, Gould. The Lord make us truly thank-
ful. and give us hearts to improve them, and those liberties we yet enjoy that we know not how soon may be taken from us. The persecuting spirit begins to stir again. Elder Russell and his son, and brother Foster, are presented to the Court that is to be this month." From a letter written by a member of the church, " 14, of the 4th month, 1672," we learn that Russell is "out of prison bonds, but is in a doubtful way as to recovery of his outward health." The party addressed had heard that he had died in prison.
In 1672 a revised edition of the law-book of Massachusetts was ordered by the assembly. The views of the Baptists are therein classed with " damnable heresies " and "notorious impieties." It is "ordered and declared by the Court, that if any Christian within tills jurisdiction shall go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion, by breaching and maintaining any damnable heresies; as denying the immortality of the soul, or resurrection of the body, or any sin to be repented of in the regenerate, or any evil done by the outward man to be accounted sin, or denying that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins, or shall affirm that we are not justified by his death and righteousness, but by the perfection of our own works, or shall deny the morality of the fourth commandment, or shall openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the administration of that ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, or shall endeavor to seduce others to any of the errors and heresies above mentioned; every such person continuing obstinate therein, after due means of conviction, shall be sentenced to banishment"
Persecution was renewed in 1673. A member of the
church, writing June 19, 1673, relates: " Brother Trumbel ;j and brother Osburne were fined last Court at Charlestown,
.I twenty shillings apiece; they have appealed to the Court
j: of Assistants." In his election sermon, preached May 7,
\ l°73i Urian Oakes voiced the sentiment of the dominant
*, party when he said: " I look upon an unbounded toleration
j as the first-born of all abominations. . . . The eye of the
■ magistrate is to be to the securing of the way of God, that
is duly established. . , . Wc must not be so compassionate to schismatic, turbulent, erroneous persons, as to be cruel, injurious, or unkind to the precious interests of Christ among us. Nature tcacheth a man self-preservation. Grace should teach a Christian magistrate . . . Christ-preservation."
The death of Governor Bellingham (December, 1672) and the accession of Governor Leverutt, who had long been known as a friend of the persecuted Baptists, brought them considerable relief before the close of 1673. In January, I674, a member could write; "The church of the baptized do peaceably enjoy their liberty." The deputy governor, Mr. Symonds, was like-minded with the governor in his opposition to persecution. The death of the noble founder and first pastor of the church occurred October 27, 1675. lie was a plain man, of only an ordinary education; but he seems to have been full of the Holy Ghost and of power. There is nothing on record to his disadvantage. Mis life was one of great suffering, but eminently fruitful.
In the great Indian war of 1676, Captain William Turner, a member of the church, with a company containing a I number of Baptists, achieved one of the most important
victories of the campaign and lost his own life.
Shortly after the death of Gould, John Mylcs gave some months of valuable service to the Boston church, without
ceasing to be pastor at Swansea. By February, 1677, the little Hock had so increased in numbers that it was voted to divide the church, for the greater convenience, no doubt, of some of the members; but eleven months later this action was reconsidered, and it was decided first of all to devote their energies to the building of a meeting-house and the settlement of an efficient minister. Of their own number Russell was thought to be best qualified fur the pastorate. The question of retaining the services of Mylcs and of sending Russell in his place to Swansea was considered ; but four parties would have been involved in such a transaction—namely, Myles, Russell, the Swansea church, and the ltoston church—and to secure the concurrence of all would in any case have been a difficult undertaking. Myles returned to Swansea, and in July, 1679, Russell was onlaincd pastor of the church.
Hradstrcct, the successor of Governor Lcverett, favored the rigorous execution of the law against antipedobaptists, and we learn from a letter to the Newport church dated January 35, 1679, that members of the church had been called to court, censured, heavily fined, and compelled to pay court costs, while others had been only admonished and condemned to pay costs. It is stated that the constables were backward to distress them for the charges.
By February 9th, l'hilip Squire and Kills Cullender had quietly erected a plain meeting-house in Boston, for which the church paid tliem sixty pounds. When it became known that the new building was to be used as a Haptist meeting-house, the theocratic authorities were filled with indignation and alarm. The Haptist leaders were arraigned before the court, and.a* such audacity as was involved in the erection of a Haptist house of worship had scarcely occurred to the authorities as possible, it was found that no law existed against such an act. Hut the Massachusetts
Court could enact laws as well as execute them. It was ordered " that no persons whatever, without the consent of the freemen of the town where they live, . . . or, in defect of such consent, a license by the special order of the General Court, shall erect or make use of any hogse as above said; and in case any person or ])crsons shall be convicted of transgressing this law, every such house or houses wherein such persons shall so meet, more than three, with the land whereon such house or houses stand, and all private ways leading thereto, shall be forfeited to the use of the county."
In July following, Charles II., persecutor though he was, wrote to the Massachusetts authorities, requiring them to allow liberty of conscience to all Protestants, and especially insisting that no good subjects of his, for not agreeing in the Congregational way, should " be subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same; which is a severity to be the more wondered at, whereas liberty of conscience was made a principal motive for your first transportation into those parts." Hut even if the magistrates had been disposed to yield to the wishes of the king in the matter of toleration, they might have been thwarted by the overwhelming influence of the ministers. In this same year the Reforming Synod was called for ascertaining : *• 1st. What are the evils that have provoked the Lord to bring his judgments on New Kngland? 2d. What is to be clone that so these evils may be reformed?" In the diagnosis, under the third specification, the following occurs: "Human inventions and will-worship have been set up even in Jerusalem. Men have set up their thresholds by God's threshold, and their posts by his post. Quakers are false worshipers: and such Anabaptists as have risen up amongst us, in opposition to the churches of the Lord Jesus, receiving into their society those that
[Per. i.
to persecute another, where there it no pretense to Infallibility in the decision of all controversies, seems much more unreasonable than the cruelties of the Church of Rome towards them that depart from their superstitions."
In 1681 Samuel Willard published a reply to Russell's " Narrative," with a preface by Increase Mather, who repudiates the representation that the New England anti-pedobaptists arc persecuted " merely for a supposed error about the subject of baptism." He agrees that" l'rotest-ants ought not to persecute any," but thinks it " cannot be rationally denied " " that Protestants may punish l'rot-estants." He entreats his English Baptist "brethren" "seriously to consider: I. That the place may sometimes make a great alteration as to the indulgence to be expected. It is evident that that toleration is in one place, not only lawful, but a necessary duty, which m another place would be destructive; and the expectation of it irrational. That which is needful to ballast a great ship will sink a small boat ... 2, Let them consider that those of their persuasion in this place have acted with so much irregularity and profaneness, that should men of any persuasion whatsoever have done the like, the same severity would have been used towards them." This last statement, in view nf all the facts presented on both sides, cannot be regarded as other than slanderous. The sum of their offending had been their refusal to have (heir children baptized, their refusal to witness the administration of the rite, and in a few cases somewhat demonstrative protestations of dissatisfaction with what they regarded as an utter" perversion of an ordinance of Christ.