Wheelwright was made of sterner stuff, and was inflexible. In fact,

however, the difference of dogma, if any existed, was trivial. The

clergy used the cry of heresy to excite odium, just as they called

their opponents Antinomians, or dangerous fanatics. To support these

accusations the synod gravely accepted every unsavory inference which

ingenuity could wring from the tenets of their adversaries; and these,

together with the fables invented by idle gossip, made up the long list

of errors they condemned. Though the scheme was unprincipled, it met

with complete success, and the Antinomians have come down to posterity

branded as deadly enemies of Christ and the commonwealth; yet nothing

is more certain than that they were not only good citizens, but

substantially orthodox. On such a point there is no one among the

conservatives whose testimony has the weight of Winthrop’s, who says:

“Mr. Cotton ... stated the differences in a very narrow scantling; and

Mr. Shepherd, preaching at the day of election, brought them yet nearer,

so as, except men of good understanding, and such as knew the bottom

of the tenents of those of the other party, few could see where the

difference was.” [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 221.] While Cotton himself

complains bitterly of the falsehoods spread about him and his friends:

“But when some of ... the elders of neighbour churches advertised me

of the evill report ... I ... dealt with Mrs. Hutchinson and others of

them, declaring to them the erroneousnesse of those tenents, and the

injury done to myself in fathering them upon mee. Both shee and they

utterly denyed that they held such tenents, or that they had fathered

them upon mee. I returned their answer to the elders.... They answered

me they had but one witnesse, ... and that one both to be known.” ...

[Footnote: Cotton, _Way of New England Churches_, pp. 39, 40.] Moreover,

it is a remarkable fact that, notwithstanding the advantage it would

have given the reactionists to have been able to fix subversive opinions

upon their prominent opponents, it was found impossible to prove heresy

in a single case which was brought to trial. The legislature chosen

in May was apparently unfit for the work now to be done, for the

extraordinary step of a dissolution was decided on, and a new election

held, under circumstances in which it was easy to secure the return of

suitable candidates. The session opened on November 2, and Wheelwright

was summoned to appear. He was ordered to submit, or prepare for

sentence. He replied that he was guilty of neither sedition nor

contempt; that he had preached only the truth of Christ, the application

of which was for others, not for him. “To which it was answered by the

court that they had not censured his doctrine, but left it as it was;

but his application, by which hee laid the magistrates and ministers and

most of the people of God in these churches under a covenant of works.”

[Footnote: _Short Story_, p. 24.] The prisoner was then sentenced to be

disfranchised and banished. He demanded an appeal to the king; it was

refused; and he was given fourteen days to leave Massachusetts. So

he went forth alone in the bitter winter weather and journeyed to the

Piscataqua,--yet “it was marvellous he got thither at that time, when

they expelled him, by reason of the deep snow in which he might

have perished.” [Footnote: Wheelwright, Prince Soc. ed. _Mercurius

Americanus_, p. 24.] Nor was banishment by any means the trivial penalty

it has been described. On the contrary, it was a punishment of the

utmost rigor. The exiles were forced suddenly to dispose of their

property, which, in those times, was mostly in houses and land, and go

forth among the savages with helpless women and children. Such an ordeal

might well appall even a brave man; but Wheelwright was sacrificing

his intellectual life. He was leaving books, friends, and the mental

activity, which made the world to him, to settle in the forests among

backwoodsmen; and yet even in this desolate solitude the theocracy

continued to pursue him with persevering hate.

But there were others beside Wheelwright who had sinned, and some

pretext had to be devised by which to reach them. The names of most

of his friends were upon the petition that had been drawn up after

his trial. It is true it was a proceeding with which the existing

legislature was not concerned, since it had been presented to one of its

predecessors; it is also true that probably never, before or since, have

men who have protested they have not drawn the sword rashly, but have

come as humble suppliants to offer their cheeks to the smiters, been

held to be public enemies. Such scruples, however, never hampered the

theocracy. Their justice was trammelled neither by judges, by juries,

nor by laws; the petition was declared to be a seditious libel, and the

petitioners were given their choice of disavowing their act and making

humble submission, or exile.

Aspinwall was at once disfranchised and banished. [Footnote: _Mass.

Rec._ i. 207.] Coddington, Coggeshall, and nine more were given leave

to depart within three months, or abide the action of the court; others

were disfranchised; and fifty-eight of the less prominent of the party

were disarmed in Boston alone. [Footnote: _Idem_, i. 223.]

Thus were the early liberals crushed in Massachusetts; the bold were

exiled, the timid were terrified; as a political organization they moved

no more till the theocracy was tottering to its fall; and for forty

years the power of the clergy was absolute in the land.

The fate of Anne Hutchinson makes a fit ending to this sad tale of

oppression and of wrong. In November, 1637, when her friends were

crushed, and the triumphant priests felt that their victim’s doom was

sure, she was brought to trial before that ghastliest den of human

iniquity, an ecclesiastical criminal court. The ministers were her

accusers, who came burning with hate to testify to the words she had

spoken to them at their own request, in the belief that the confidence

she reposed was to be held sacred. She had no jury to whose manhood she

could appeal, and John Winthrop, to his lasting shame, was to prosecute

her from the judgment seat. She was soon to become a mother, and her

health was feeble, but she was made to stand till she was exhausted; and

yet, abandoned and forlorn, before those merciless judges, through two

long, weary days of hunger and of cold, the intrepid woman defended her

cause with a skill and courage which even now, after two hundred

and fifty years, kindles the heart with admiration. The case for the

government was opened by John Winthrop, the presiding justice, the

attorney-general, the foreman of the jury, and the chief magistrate of

Massachusetts Bay. He upbraided the prisoner with her many evil courses,

with having spoken things prejudicial to the honor of the ministers,

with holding an assembly in her house, and with divulging the opinions

held by those who had been censured by that court; closing in these

words, which sound strangely in the mouth of a New England judge:--

* * * * *

We have thought good to send for you ... that if you be in an erroneous

way we may reduce you that so you may become a profitable member here

among us, otherwise if you be obstinate ... that then the court may

take such course that you may trouble us no further, therefore I would

entreat you ... whether you do not justify Mr. Wheelwright’s sermon and

the petition.

_Mrs. H._ I am called here to answer before you, but I hear no things

laid to my charge.

_Gov._ I have told you some already, and more I can tell you.

_Mrs. H._ Name one, sir.

_Gov._ Have I not named some already?

_Mrs. H._ What have I said or done?...

_Gov._ You have joined with them in the faction.

_Mrs. H._ In what faction have I joined with them?

_Gov._ In presenting the petition....

_Mrs. H._ But I had not my hand to the petition.

_Gov._ You have counselled them.

_Mrs. H._ Wherein?

_Gov._ Why, in entertaining them.

_Mrs. H._ What breach of law is that, sir?

_Gov._ Why, dishonoring of parents....

_Mrs. H._ I may put honor upon them as the children of God and as they

do honor the Lord.

_Gov._ We do not mean to discourse with those of your sex but only this;

you do adhere unto them, and do endeavor to set forward this faction,

and so you do dishonor us.

_Mrs. H._ I do acknowledge no such thing, neither do I think that I ever

put any dishonor upon you.

* * * * *

And, on the whole, the chief justice broke down so hopelessly in his

examination, that the deputy governor, or his senior associate upon the

bench, thought it necessary to interfere.

* * * * *

_Dep. Gov._ I would go a little higher with Mrs. Hutchinson. Now ...

if she in particular hath disparaged all our ministers in the land that

they have preached a covenant of works, and only Mr. Cotton a covenant

of grace, why this is not to be suffered...

_Mrs. H._ I pray, sir, prove it, that I said they preached nothing but a

covenant of works....

_Dep. Gov._ If they do not preach a covenant of grace, clearly, then,

they preach a covenant of works.

_Mrs. H._ No, sir, one may preach a covenant of grace more clearly than

another, so I said.

* * * * *

Dudley was faring worse than Winthrop, and the divines, who had been

bursting with impatience, could hold no longer. The Rev. Hugh Peters

broke in: “That which concerns us to speak unto, as yet we are sparing

in, unless the court command us to speak, then we shall answer to Mrs.

Hutchinson, notwithstanding our brethren are very unwilling to answer.”

And without further urging, that meek servant of Christ went on to

tell how he and others had heard that the prisoner said they taught a

covenant of works, how they had sent for her, and though she was “very

tender” at first, yet upon being begged to speak plainly, she had

explained that there “was a broad difference between our Brother Mr.

Cotton and ourselves. I desired to know the difference. She answered

‘that he preaches the covenant of grace and you the covenant of works,

and that you are not able ministers of the New Testament, and know no

more than the apostles did before the resurrection.’”...

* * * * *

_Mrs. H._ If our pastor would show his writings you should see what I

said, and that many things are not so as is reported.

_Mr. Wilson._ Sister Hutchinson, for the writings you speak of I have

them not....

* * * * *

Five more divines followed, who, though they were “loth to speak in that

assembly concerning that gentlewoman,” yet to ease their consciences in

“the relation wherein” they stood “to the Commonwealth and... unto God,”

felt constrained to state that the prisoner had said they were not able

ministers of the New Testament, and that the whole of the evidence of

Hugh Peters was true, and in so doing they came to an issue of veracity

with Cotton.

An adjournment soon followed till next day, and the presiding justice

seems to have considered his case against his prisoner as closed.

In the morning Mrs. Hutchinson opened her defence by calling three

witnesses, Leverett, Coggeshall, and John Cotton.

* * * * *

_Gov._ Mr. Coggeshall was not present.

_Mr. C._ Yes, but I was, only I desired to be silent till I should be

called.

_Gov._ Will you ... say that she did not say so?

_Mr. C._ Yes, I dare say that she did not say all that which they lay

against her.

_Mr. Peters._ How dare you look into the court to say such a word?

_Mr. C._ Mr. Peters takes upon him to forbid me. I shall be silent....

_Gov._ Well, Mr. Leverett, what were the words? I pray speak.

_Mr. L._ To my best remembrance ... Mr. Peters did with much vehemency

and entreaty urge her to tell what difference there was between Mr.

Cotton and them, and upon his urging of her she said: “The fear of man

is a snare, but they that trust upon the Lord shall be safe.” And ...

that they did not preach a covenant of grace so clearly as Mr. Cotton

did, and she gave this reason of it, because that as the apostles were

for a time without the Spirit so until they had received the witness of

the Spirit they could not preach a covenant of grace so clearly.

* * * * *

The Rev. John Cotton was then called. He was much embarrassed in giving

his evidence, but, if he is to be believed, his brethren, in their

anxiety to make out a case, had colored material facts. He closed his

account of the interview in these words: “I must say that I did not find

her saying they were under a covenant of works, nor that she said they

did preach a covenant of works.”

* * * * *

_Gov._ You say you do not remember, but can you say she did not speak

so?

_Mr. C._ I do remember that she looked at them as the apostles before

the ascension....

_Dep. Gov._ They affirm that Mrs. Hutchinson did say they were not able

ministers of the New Testament.

_Mr. C._ I do not remember it.

* * * * *

Mrs. Hutchinson had shattered the case of the government in a style

worthy of a leader of the bar, but she now ventured on a step for which

she has been generally condemned. She herself approached the subject

of her revelations. To criticise the introduction of evidence is always

simpler than to conduct a cause, but an analysis of her position tends

to show not only that her course was the result of mature reflection,

but that her judgment was in this instance correct. She probably assumed

that when the more easily proved charges had broken down she would be

attacked here; and in this assumption she was undoubtedly right. The

alternative presented to her, therefore, was to go on herself, or

wait for Winthrop to move. If she waited she knew she should give the

government the advantage of choosing the ground, and she would thus be

subjected to the danger of having fatal charges proved against her by

hearsay or distorted evidence. If she took the bolder course, she could

explain her revelations as monitions coming to her through texts in

Scripture, and here she was certain of Cotton’s support. Before that

tribunal she could hardly have hoped for an acquittal; but if anything

could have saved her it would have been the sanction given to her

doctrines by the approval of John Cotton. At all events, she saw the

danger, for she closed her little speech in these touching words: “Now

if you do condemn me for speaking what in my conscience I know to be

truth, I must commit myself unto the Lord.”

_Mr. Nowell._ How do you know that that was the Spirit?

_Mrs. H._ How did Abraham know that it was God?...

_Dep. Gov._ By an immediate voice.

_Mrs. H._ So to me by an immediate revelation.

* * * * *

Then she proceeded to state how, through various texts which she cited,

the Lord showed her what He would do; and she particularly dwelt on one

from Daniel. So far all was well; she had planted herself on ground upon

which orthodox opinion was at least divided; but she now committed

the one grave error of her long and able defence. As she went on her

excitement gained upon her, and she ended by something like a defiance

and denunciation: “You have power over my body, but the Lord Jesus hath

power over my body and soul; and assure yourselves thus much, you do as

much as in you lies to put the Lord Jesus Christ from you, and if you

go on in this course you begin, you will bring a curse upon you and your

posterity, and the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

* * * * *

_Gov._ Daniel was delivered by miracle. Do you think to be delivered so

too?

_Mrs. H._ I do here speak it before the court. I look that the Lord

should deliver me by his providence....

_Dep. Gov._ I desire Mr. Cotton to tell us whether you do approve of

Mrs. Hutchinson’s revelations as she hath laid them down.

_Mr. C._ I know not whether I do understand her, but this I say, if she

doth expect a deliverance in a way of providence, then I cannot deny it.

_Gov._ ... I see a marvellous providence of God to bring things to this

pass.... God by a providence hath answered our desires, and made her

to lay open herself and the ground of all these disturbances to be by

revelations. . . .

_Court._ We all consent with you.

_Gov._ Ey, it is the most desperate enthusiasm in the world....

_Mr. Endicott._ I speak in reference to Mr. Cotton.... Whether do you

witness for her or against her.

_Mr. C._ This is that I said, sir, and my answer is plain, that if she

doth look for deliverance from the hand of God by his providence, and

the revelation be ... according to a word [of Scripture] that I cannot

deny.

_Mr. Endicott._ You give me satisfaction.

_Dep. Gov._ No, no, he gives me none at all....

_Mr. C._ I pray, sir, give me leave to express myself. In that sense

that she speaks I dare not bear witness against it.

_Mr. Nowell._ I think it is a devilish delusion.

_Gov._ Of all the revelations that ever I read of I never read the like

ground laid as is for this. The enthusiasts and Anabaptists had never

the like....

_Mr. Peters._ I can say the same ... and I think that is very disputable

which our brother Cotton hath spoken....

_Gov._ I am persuaded that the revelation she brings forth is delusion.

All the court but some two or three ministers cry out, We all believe

it, we all believe it....

* * * * *

And then Coddington stood up before that angry meeting like the brave

man he was, and said, “I beseech you do not speak so to force things

along, for I do not for my own part see any equity in the court in all

your proceedings. Here is no law of God that she hath broken, nor

any law of the country that she hath broke, and therefore deserves no

censure; and if she say that the elders preach as the apostles did, why

they preached a covenant of grace and what wrong is that to them, ...

therefore I pray consider, what you do, for here is no law of God or man

broken.”

* * * * *

_Mr. Peters._ I profess I thought Mr. Cotton would never have took her

part.

_Gov._ The court hath already declared themselves satisfied ...

concerning the troublesomeness of her spirit and the danger of her

course amongst us which is not to be suffered. Therefore if it be the

mind of the court that Mrs. Hutchinson ... shall be banished out of our

liberties and imprisoned till she be sent away let them hold up their

hands.

All but three consented.

Those contrary minded hold up yours. Mr. Coddington and Colburn only.

_Gov._ Mrs. Hutchinson, the sentence of the court you hear is that you

are banished from out of our jurisdiction as being a woman not fit for

our society, and are to be imprisoned till the court shall send you

away.

_Mrs. H._ I desire to know wherefore I am banished.

_Gov._ Say no more, the court knows wherefore and is satisfied.

[Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ vol. ii. App. 2.]

* * * * *

With refined malice she was committed to the custody of Joseph Welde of

Roxbury, the brother of the Rev. Thomas Welde who thought her a Jezebel.

Here “divers of the elders resorted to her,” and under this daily

torment rapid progress was made. Probably during that terrible interval

her reason was tottering, for her talk came to resemble ravings.

[Footnote: _Brief Apologie_, p. 59.] When this point was reached the

divines saw their object attained, and that “with sad hearts” they could

give her up to Satan. [Footnote: _Brief Apologie_, p. 59.] Accordingly

they “wrote to the church at Boston, offering to make proof of the

same,” whereupon she was summoned and the lecture appointed to begin at

ten o’clock. [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 254.]

“When she was come one of the ruling elders called her forth before

the assembly,” and read to her the twenty-nine errors of which she was

accused, all of which she admitted she had maintained. “Then she asked

by what rule such an elder would come to her pretending to desire light

and indeede to entrappe her.” He answered that he came not to “entrap

her but in compassion to her soule....”

“Then presently she grew into passion ... professing withall that she

held none of these things ... before her imprisonment.” [Footnote:

_Brief Apol._ pp. 59-61.]

The court sat till eight at night, when “Mr. Cotton pronounced the

sentence of admonition ... with much zeal and detestation of her errors

and pride of spirit.” [Footnote: Winthrop, i. 256.] An adjournment was

then agreed on for a week and she was ordered to return to Roxbury; but

this was more than she could bear, and her distress was such that the

congregation seem to have felt some touch of compassion, for she was

committed to the charge of Cotton till the next lecture day, when the

trial was to be resumed. [Footnote: _Brief Apol._ p. 62.] At his house

her mind recovered its tone and when she again appeared she not only

retracted the wild opinions she had broached while at Joseph Welde’s,

but admitted “that what she had spoken against the magistrates at

the court (by way of revelation) was rash and ungrounded.” [Footnote:

Winthrop, i. 258.]

But nothing could avail her. She was in the hands of men determined

to make her expiation of her crimes a by-word of terror; her fate was

sealed. The doctrines she now professed were less objectionable, so

she was examined as to former errors, among others “that she had denied

inherent righteousness;” she “affirmed that it was never her judgment;

and though it was proved by many testimonies ... yet she impudently

persisted in her affirmation to the astonishment of all the assembly.

So that ... the church with one consent cast her out.... After she was

excommunicated her spirit, which seemed before to be somewhat dejected,

revived again and she gloried in her sufferings.” [Footnote: Winthrop,

i. 258.] And all this time she had been alone; her friends were far

away.

That no circumstances of horror might be lost, she and one of her most

devoted followers, Mary Dyer, were nearing their confinements during

this time of misery. Both cases ended in misfortunes over whose

sickening details Thomas Welde and his reverend brethren gloated with a

savage joy, declaring that “God himselfe was pleased to step in with

his casting vote ... as clearly as if he had pointed with his finger.”

[Footnote: _Short Story_, Preface, Section 5.] Let posterity draw a veil

over the shocking scene.

Two or three days after her condemnation “the governor sent [her] a

warrant ... to depart ... she went by water to her farm at the Mount ...

and so to the island in the Narragansett Bay which her husband and the

rest of that sect had purchased of the Indians.” [Footnote: Winthrop, i.

259.]

This pure and noble but most unhappy woman had sinned against the

clergy, past forgiveness here or hereafter. They gibbeted her as

Jezebel, and her name became a reproach in Massachusetts through two

hundred years. But her crimes and the awful ending of her life are

best read in the Christian words of the Rev. Thomas Welde, whose gentle

spirit so adorned his holy office.

“For the servants of God who came over into New England ... seeing their

ministery was a most precious sweete savour to all the saints before

she came hither, it is easie to discerne from what sinke that ill vapour

hath risen which hath made so many of her seduced party to loath now

the smell of those flowers which they were wont to find sweetnesse in.

[Footnote: _Short Story_, p. 40.] ... The Indians set upon them, and

slew her and all the family. [Footnote: Mrs. Hutchinson and her family

were killed in a general massacre of the Dutch and English by the

Indians on Long Island. Winthrop, ii. 136.] ... Some write that the

Indians did burne her to death with fire, her house and all the rest

named that belonged to her; but I am not able to affirme by what kind

of death they slew her, but slaine it seemes she is, according to all

reports. I never heard that the Indians in those parts did ever before

this, commit the like outrage ...; and therefore God’s hand is the more

apparently seene herein, to pick out this wofull woman, to make her and

those belonging to her, an unheard of heavie example of their cruelty

above al others.” [Footnote: _Short Story_, Preface.]

CHAPTER III.

THE CAMBRIDGE PLATFORM.

With the ruin of the Antinomians, opposition to the clergy ceased within

the church itself, but many causes combined to prevent the bulk of the

people from participating in the communion. Of those who were excluded,

perhaps even the majority might have found it impossible to have secured

their pastor’s approbation, but numbers who would have been gladly

received were restrained by conscientious scruples; and more shrank from

undergoing the ordeal to which they would have been obliged to submit.

It was no light matter for a pious but a sincerely honest man to profess

his conversion, and how God had been pleased to work “in the inward

parts of his soul,” when he was not absolutely certain that he had

indeed been visited by the Spirit. And it is no exaggeration to say that

to sensitive natures the initiation was appalling. The applicant had

first to convince the minister of his worthiness, then his name was

openly propounded, and those who knew of any objection to his character,

either moral or religious, were asked to give notice to the presbytery

of elders. If the candidate succeeded in passing this private

examination as to his fitness the following scene took place in

church:--

“The party appearing in the midst of the assembly ... the ruling elder

speaketh in this manner: Brethren of this congregation, this man or

woman ... hath beene heretofore propounded to you, desiring to enter

into church fellowship with us, and we have not since that heard

anything from any of you to the contrary of the parties admittance but

that we may goe on to receive him: therefore now, if any of you know

anything against him, why he may not be admitted, you may yet speak....

Whereupon, sometimes men do speak to the contrary ... and so stay the

party for that time also till this new offence be heard before the

elders, so that sometimes there is a space of divers moneths between

a parties first propounding and receiving, and some are so bashfull as

that they choose rather to goe without the communion than undergoe

such publique confessions and tryals, but that is held their fault.”

[Footnote: Lechford, _Plain Dealing_, pp. 6, 7.]

Those who were thus disfranchised, Lechford, who knew what he was

talking about, goes on to say, soon began to complain that they were

“ruled like slaves;” and there can be no doubt that they had to submit

to very substantial grievances. The administration of justice especially

seems to have been defective. “Now the most of the persons at New

England are not admitted of their church, and therefore are not freemen,

and when they come to be tryed there, be it for life or limb, name or

estate, or whatsoever, they must bee tryed and judged too by those of

the church, who are in a sort their adversaries: how equall that

hath been, or may be, some by experience doe know, others may judge.”

[Footnote: _Plain Dealing_, p. 23.]

The government was in fact in the hands of a small oligarchy of saints,

[Footnote: “Three parts of the people of the country remaine out of the

church.” _Plain Dealing_, p. 73. A. D. 1642.] who were, in their turn,

ruled by their priests, and as the repression of thought inevitable

under such a system had roused the Antinomians, who were voters,

to demand a larger intellectual freedom, so the denial of ordinary

political rights to the majority led to discontent.

Since under the theocracy there was no department of human affairs in

which the clergy did not meddle, they undertook as a matter of course to

interfere with the militia, and the following curious letter written to

the magistrates by the ministers of Rowley shows how far they carried

their supervision even so late as 1689.

* * * * *

ROWLEY, _July_ 24th, 1689.

_May it please your honors,_

The occasion of these lines is to inform you that whereas our military

company have nominated Abel Platts, for ensign, we conceive that it is

our duty to declare that we cannot approve of their choice in that he is

corrupt in his judgment with reference to the Lord’s Supper, declaring

against Christ’s words of justification, and hereupon hath withdrawn

himself from communion with the church in that holy ordinance some

years, besides some other things wherein he hath shown no little vanity

in his conversation and hath demeaned himself unbecomingly toward the

word and toward the dispensers of it....

SAMUEL PHILLIPS. EDWARD PAISON. [Footnote: _History of Newbury_, p. 80.]

* * * * *

A somewhat similar difficulty, which happened in Hingham in 1645,

produced very serious consequences. A new captain had been chosen for

their company; but a dispute having arisen, the magistrates, on the

question being submitted to them, set the election aside and directed

the old officers to keep their places until the General Court should

meet. Notwithstanding this order the commotion continued to increase,

and the pastor, Mr. Peter Hubbert, “was very forward to have

excommunicated the lieutenant,” who was the candidate the magistrates

favored. [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 222, 223.] Winthrop happened to be

deputy governor that year, and the aggrieved officer applied to him

for protection; whereupon, as the defendants seemed inclined to be

recalcitrant, several were committed in open court, among whom were

three of Mr. Hubbert’s brothers.

Forthwith the clergyman in great wrath headed a petition to which he

obtained a large number of signatures, in which he prayed the General

Court to take cognizance of the cause, since it concerned the public

liberty and the liberty of the church.

At its next session, the legislature proceeded to examine the whole

case, and Winthrop was brought to trial for exceeding his jurisdiction

as a magistrate. A contest ensued between the deputies and assistants,

which was finally decided by the influence of the elders. The result was

that Winthrop was acquitted and Mr. Hubbert and the chief petitioners

were fined. [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 227.]

In March the constable went to Hingham to collect the money, [Footnote:

1645-46, 18 March.] but he found the minister indisposed to submit in

silence. About thirty people had collected, and before them all Mr.

Hubbert demanded the warrant; when it was produced he declared it

worthless because not in the king’s name, and then went on to add that

the government “was not more then a corporation in England, and ... had

not power to put men to death ... that for himself he had neither horn

nor hoofe of his own, nor anything wherewith to buy his children cloaths

... if he must pay the fine he would pay it in books, but that he knew

not for what they were fined, unlesse it were for petitioning: and if

they were so waspish they might not be petitioned, then he could not

tell what to say.” [Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, Marvin’s ed. p. 5.]

Unluckily for Mr. Hubbert he had taken the popular side in this dispute

and had thus been sundered from his brethren, who sustained Winthrop,

and in the end carried him through in triumph; and not only this, but he

was suspected of Presbyterian tendencies, and a committee of the

elders who had visited Hingham to reconcile some differences in the

congregation had found him in grave fault. The government was not sorry,

therefore, to make him a public example, as appeared not only by these

proceedings, but by the way he was treated in the General Court the next

autumn. He was accordingly indicted for sedition, tried and convicted

in June, fined twenty pounds, and bound over to good behavior in forty

pounds more. [Footnote: _New Eng. Jonas_, p. 6., 2 June, 1646.] Such a

disturbance as this seems to have been all that was needed to bring the

latent discontent to a focus.

William Vassal had been an original patentee and was a member of the

first Board of Assistants, who were appointed by the king. Being,

however, a man of liberal views he had not found Massachusetts

congenial; he had returned to England after a stay of only a month, and

when he came again to America in 1635, he had settled at Scituate, the

town adjoining Hingham, but in the Plymouth jurisdiction. Having both

wealth and social position he possessed great influence, and he

now determined to lead an agitation for equal rights and liberty of

conscience in both colonies at once, by petitioning the legislatures,

and in case of failure there, presenting similar petitions to

Parliament.

Bradford was this year [Footnote: 1645.] governor of Plymouth, and

Edward Winslow was an assistant. Winslow himself had been governor

repeatedly, was a thorough-going churchman, and deep in all the

councils of the conservative party. There was, however, no religious

qualification for the suffrage in the old colony, and the complexion of

its politics was therefore far more liberal than in Massachusetts; so

Vassal was able to command a strong support when he brought forward his

proposition. Winslow, writing to his friend Winthrop at Boston, gives

an amusing account of his own and Bradford’s consternation, and the

expedients to which they were forced to resort in the legislature to

stave off a vote upon the petition, when Vassal made his motion in

October, 1645.

“After this, the first excepter [Vassal] having been observed to tender

the view of a scroule from man to man, it came at length to be tendered

to myself, and withall, said he, it may be you will not like this.

Having read it, I told him I utterly abhorred it as such as would make

us odious to all Christian commonweales: But at length he told the

governor [Bradford] he had a written proposition to be propounded to

the court, which he desired the court to take into consideration, and

according to order, if thought meet, to be allowed: To this the deputies

were most made beforehand, and the other three assistants, who applauded

it as their Diana; and the sum of it was, to allow and maintaine full

and free tollerance of religion to all men that would preserve the

civill peace and submit unto government; and there was no limitation

or exception against Turke, Jew, Papist, Arian, Socinian, Nicholaytan,

Familist, or any other, &c. But our governor and divers of us having

expressed the sad consequences would follow, especially myselfe and Mr.

Prence, yet notwithstanding it was required, according to order, to be

voted: But the governor would not suffer it to come to vote, as being

that indeed would eate out the power of Godlines, &c.... You would have

admired to have seen how sweet this carrion relished to the pallate of

most of the deputies! What will be the issue of these things, our all

ordering God onely knows.... But if he have such a judgment for this

place, I trust we shall finde (I speake for many of us that groane under

these things) a resting place among you for the soales of our feet.”

[Footnote: _Hutch. Coll._, Prince Soc. ed. i. 174.]

As just then nothing more could be done in Plymouth, proceedings were

transferred to Massachusetts. Samuel Maverick is a bright patch of color

on the sad Puritan background. He had a dwelling at Winnisime, that “in

the yeare 1625 I fortified with a pillizado and fflankers and gunnes

both belowe and above in them which awed the Indians who at that time

had a mind to cutt off the English.” [Footnote: Mass. _Hist. Soc.

Proceedings_, Oct. 1884, p. 236.] When Winthrop landed, he found him

keeping open house, so kindly and freehanded that even the grim Johnson

relaxes when he speaks of him: “a man of very loving and curteous

behaviour, very ready to entertaine strangers, yet an enemy to the

reformation in hand, being strong for the lordly prelatical power.”

[Footnote: _Wonder-Working Providence_, Poole’s ed. p. 37.]

This genial English churchman entertained every one at his home on

Noddle’s Island, which is now East Boston: Vane and Lord Ley, and La

Tour when he came to Boston ruined, and even Owen when he ran off with

another man’s wife, and so brought a fine of £100 on his host. Josselyn

says with much feeling: “I went a shore upon Noddles Island to Mr.

Samuel Maverick, ... the only hospitable man in the whole countrey.”

He was charitable also, and Winthrop relates how, when the Indians were

dying of the smallpox, he, “his wife and servants, went daily to them,

ministered to their necessities, and buried their dead, and took home

many of their children.” He was generous, too, with his wealth; and when

the town had to rebuild the fort on Castle Island much of the money came

from him.

But, as Endicott told the Browns, when he shipped them to England,

because their practice in adhering to their Episcopal orders tended to

“mutiny,” “New England was no place for such as they.” One by one they

had gone,--the Browns first, and afterward William Blackstone, who had

found it best to leave Boston because he could not join the church; and

now the pressure on Maverick began to make him restive. Though he had

been admitted a freeman in the early days, he was excluded from all

offices of importance; he was taxed to support a church of which he

disapproved, yet was forced to attend, though it would not baptize his

children; and he was so suspected that, in March, 1635, he had been

ordered to remove to Boston, and was forbidden to lodge strangers

for more than one night without leave from a magistrate. Under such

circumstances he could not but sympathize with Vassal in his effort

to win for all men equal rights before the law. Next after him in

consequence was Dr. Robert Childe, who had taken a degree at Padua, and

who, though not a freeman, had considerable interests in the country,--a

man of property and standing. There were five more signers of the

petition: Thomas Burton, John Smith, David Yale, Thomas Fowle, and John

Dand, but they do not require particular notice. They prayed that “civil

liberty and freedome be forthwith granted to all truly English, equall

to the rest of their countrymen, as in all plantations is accustomed to

be done, and as all free-borne enjoy in our native country.... Further

that none of the English nation ... be banished unlesse they break the

known lawes of England.... We therefore humbly intreat you, in whose

hands it is to help ... for the glory of God ... to give liberty to the

members of the churches of England not scandalous in their lives ...

to be taken into your congregations, and to enjoy with you all those

liberties and ordinances Christ hath purchased for them, and into

whose name they are baptized... or otherwise to grant liberty to settle

themselves here in a church way according to the best reformations of

England and Scotland. If not, we and they shall be necessitated to apply

our humble desires to the Honorable Houses of Parliament.” [Footnote:

_New Eng. Jonas_, Marvin’s ed. pp. 13-15.]

This petition was presented to the court on May 19, 1646; but the

session was near its close, and it was thought best to take no immediate

steps. The elders, however, became satisfied that the moment had come

for a thorough organization of the church, and they therefore caused the

legislature to issue a general invitation to all the congregations

to send representatives to a synod to be held at Cambridge. But

notwithstanding the inaction of the authorities, the clergy were

perfectly aware of the danger, and they passed the summer in creating

the necessary indignation among the voters: they bitterly denounced

from their pulpits “the sons of Belial, Judasses, sons of Corah,” “with

sundry appellations of that nature ... which seemed not to arise from

a gospel spirit.” Sometimes they devoted “a whole sermon, and that

not very short,” to describing the impending ruin and exhorting the

magistrates “to lay hold upon” the offenders. [Footnote: _New Eng.

Jonas_, Marvin’s ed. p. 19.] Winthrop had been chosen governor in May,

and, when the legislature met in October, he was made chairman of a

committee to draft an answer to Childe. This document may be found in

Hutchinson’s Collection. As a state paper devoted to the discussion of

questions of constitutional law it has little merit, but it may have

been effective as a party manifesto. A short adjournment followed till

November, when, on reassembling, the elders were asked for their advice

upon this absorbing topic.

“Mr. Hubbard of Hingham came with the rest, but the court being informed

that he had an hand in a petition, which Mr. Vassall carried into

England against the country in general, the governour propounded, that

if any elder present had any such hand, &c., he would withdraw himself.”

Mr. Hubbert sitting still a good space, one of the deputies stated that

he was suspected, whereupon he rose and said he knew nothing of such a

petition.

Then Winthrop replied that he “must needs deliver his mind about him,”

and though he had no proof about the petition, “yet in regard he had so

much opposed authority and offered such contempt to it, ... he thought

he would (in discretion) withdraw himself, &c., whereupon he went out.”

[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 278.]

The ministers who remained then proceeded to define the relations of

Massachusetts toward England, and the position they assumed was very

simple.

“I. We depend upon the state of England for protection and immunities of

Englishmen.... II. We conceive ... we have granted by patent such full

and ample power ... of making all laws and rules of our obedience, and

of a full and final determination of all cases in the administration of

justice, that no appeals or other ways of interrupting our proceedings

do lie against us.” [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 282.]

In other words, they were to enjoy the privileges and safeguards of

British subjects without yielding obedience to British law.

Under popular governments the remedy for discontent is free discussion;

under despotisms it is repression. In Massachusetts energetic steps were

promptly taken to punish the ring-leaders in what the court now

declared to be a conspiracy. The petitioners were summoned, and on

being questioned refused to answer until some charge was made. A hot

altercation followed, which ended in the defendants tendering an

appeal, which was refused; and they were committed for trial. [Footnote:

Winthrop, ii. 285.] A species of indictment was then prepared in which

they were charged with publishing seditious libels against the Church

of Christ and the civil government. The gravamen of the offence was the

attempt to persuade the people “that the liberties and privileges in our

charter belong to all freeborn Englishmen inhabitants here, whereas they

are granted only to such as the governour and company shall think fit to

receive into that fellowship.” [Footnote: _Idem_.] The appeal was held

criminal because a denial of the jurisdiction of the government. The

trial resembled Wheelwright’s. Like him the defendants refused to

make submission, but persisted “obstinately and proudly in their evil

practice;” that is to say, they maintained the right of petition and the

legality of their course. They were therefore fined: Childe £50; Smith

£40; Maverick, because he had not yet appealed, £10; and the others £30

each; three magistrates dissented.

Childe at once began hasty preparations to sail. To prevent him Winthrop

called the assistants together, without, however, giving the dissenting

magistrates notice, and arranged to have him arrested and searched.

One striking characteristic of the theocracy was its love for inflicting

mental suffering upon its victims. The same malicious vindictiveness

which sent Morton to sea in sight of his blazing home, and which

imprisoned Anne Hutchinson in the house of her bitterest enemy, now

suggested a scheme for making Childe endure the pangs of disappointment,

by allowing him to embark, and then seizing him as the ship was setting

sail. And though the plan miscarried, and the arrest had to be made the

night before, yet even as it was the prisoner took his confinement very

“grievously, but he could not help it.” [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 294.]

Nothing criminating was found in his possession, but in Dand’s study,

which was ransacked, copies of two petitions were discovered, with a

number of queries relating to certain legal aspects of the charter, and

intended to be submitted to the Commissioners for the Plantations at

London.

These petitions were substantially those already presented, except

that, by way of preamble, the story of the trial was told; and how the

ministers “did revile them, &c., as far as the wit or malice of man

could, and that they meddled in civil affaires beyond their calling, and

were masters rather than ministers, and ofttimes judges, and that

they had stirred up the magistrates against them, and that a day of

humiliation was appointed, wherein they were to pray against them.”

[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 293.]

Such words had never been heard in Massachusetts. The saints were

aghast. Winthrop speaks of the offence as “being in nature capital,” and

Johnson thought the Lord’s gracious goodness alone quelled this malice

against his people.

Of course no mercy was shown. It is true that the writings were lawful

petitions by English subjects to Parliament; that, moreover, they had

never been published, but were found in a private room by means of a

despotic search. Several of the signers were imprisoned for six months

and then were punished in May:--

Doctor Childe, (imprisonment till paid,) £200

John Smith, “ “ “ 100

John Dand, “ “ “ 200

Tho. Burton, “ “ “ 100

Samuel Maverick, for his offence in being party

to ye conspiracy, (imprisonment

till paid,) 100

Samuel Maverick, for his offence in breaking his

oath and in appealing against ye

intent of his oath of a freeman, 50

[Footnote: _Mass. Rec._ iii, 113. May 26, 1647. £200 was the equivalent

of about $5,000.]

The conspirators of the poorer class were treated with scant ceremony.

A carpenter named Joy was in Dand’s study when the officers entered. He

asked if the warrant was in the king’s name. “He was laid hold on, and

kept in irons about four or five days, and then he humbled himself...for

meddling in matters belonging not to him, and blessed God for these

irons upon his legs, hoping they should do him good while he lived.”

[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 294.]

But though the government could oppress the men, they could not make

their principles unpopular, and the next December after Vassal and his

friends had left the colony, the orthodox Samuel Symonds of Ipswich

wrote mournfully to Winthrop: “I am informed that coppies of the

petition are spreading here, and divers (specially young men and women)

are taken with it, and are apt to wonder why such men should be troubled

that speake as they doe: not being able suddenly to discerne the poyson

in the sweet wine, nor the fire wrapped up in the straw.” [Footnote:

Felt’s _Eccl. Hist._ i. 593.] The petitioners, however, never found

redress. Edward Winslow had been sent to London as agent, and in 1648 he

was able to write that their “hopes and endeavours ... had been blasted

by the special providence of the Lord who still wrought for us.”

And Winthrop piously adds: “As for those who went over to procure us

trouble, God met with them all. Mr. Vassall, finding no entertainment

for his petitions, went to Barbadoes,” [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 321.]

... “God had brought” Thomas Fowle “very low, both in his estate and in

his reputation, since he joined in the first petition.” And “God had so

blasted” Childe’s “estate as he was quite broken.” [Footnote: Winthrop,

ii. 322.]

Maverick remained some years in Boston, being probably unable to abandon

his property; during this interval he made several efforts to have his

fine remitted, and he did finally secure an abatement of one half.

He then went to England and long afterward came back as a royal

commissioner to try his fortune once again in a contest with the

theocracy.

Dr. Palfrey has described this movement as a plot to introduce a

direct government by England by inducing Parliament to establish

Presbyterianism. By other than theological reasoning this inference

cannot be deduced from the evidence. All that is certainly known about

the leaders is that they were not of any one denomination. Maverick was

an Episcopalian; Vassal was probably an Independent like Cromwell or

Milton; and though the elders accused Childe of being a Jesuit, there

is some ground to suppose that he inclined toward Geneva. So far as

the testimony goes, everything tends to prove that the petitioners were

perfectly sincere in their effort to gain some small measure of civil

and religious liberty for themselves and for the disfranchised majority.

Viewed from the standpoint of history and not of prejudice, the events

of these early years present themselves in a striking and unmistakable

sequence.

They are the phenomena that regularly attend a certain stage of human

development,--the absorption of power by an aristocracy. The clergy’s

rule was rigid, and met with resistance, which was crushed with an iron

hand. Was it defection from their own ranks, the deserters met the fate

of Wheelwright, of Williams, of Cotton, or of Hubbert; were politicians

contumacious, they were defeated or exiled, like Vane, or Aspinwall, or

Coddington; were citizens discontented, they were coerced like Maverick

and Childe. The process had been uninterrupted alike in church and

state. The congregations, which in theory should have included all the

inhabitants of the towns, had shrunk until they contained only a third

or a quarter of the people; while the churches themselves, which were

supposed to be independent of external interference and to regulate

their affairs by the will of the majority, had become little more

than the chattels of the priests, and subject to the control of the

magistrates who were their representatives. This system has generally

prevailed; in like manner the Inquisition made use of the secular arm.

The condition of ecclesiastical affairs is thus described by the highest

living authority on Congregationalism:--

“Our fathers laid it down--and with perfect truth--that the will of

Christ, and not the will of the major or minor part of a church, ought

to govern that church. But somebody must interpret that will. And they

quietly assumed that Christ would reveal his will to the elders, but

would not reveal it to the church-members; so that when there arose a

difference of opinion as to what the Master’s will might be touching any

particular matter, the judgment of the elders, rather than the judgment

even of a majority of the membership, must be taken as conclusive. To

all intents and purposes, then, this was precisely the aristocracy which

they affirmed that it was not. For the elders were to order business in

the assurance that every truly humble and sincere member would consent

thereto. If any did not consent, and after patient debate remained

of another judgment, he was ‘partial’ and ‘factious,’ and continuing

‘obstinate,’ he was ‘admonished’ and his vote ‘nullified;’ so that the

elders could have their way in the end by merely adding the insult of

the apparent but illusive offer of cooperation to the injury of their

absolute control. As Samuel Stone of Hartford no more tersely than

truly put it, this kind of Congregationalism was simply a ‘speaking

Aristocracy in the face of a silent Democracy.’” [Footnote: _Early

New England Congregationalism, as seen in its Literature_, p. 429. Dr.

Dexter.]

It is true that Vassal’s petition was the event which made the ministers

decide to call a synod [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 264.] by means of an

invitation of the General Court; but it is also certain that under no

circumstances would the meeting of some such council have been long

delayed. For sixteen years the well-known process had been going on,

of the creation of institutions by custom, having the force of law; the

stage of development had now been reached when it was necessary that

those usages should take the shape of formal enactments. The Cambridge

platform therefore marks the completion of an organization, and as such

is the central point in the history of the Puritan Commonwealth.

The work was done in August, 1648: the Westminster Confession was

promulgated as the creed; the powers of the clergy were minutely

defined, and the duty of the laity stated to be “obeying their elders

and submitting themselves unto them in the Lord.” [Footnote: _Cambridge

Platform,_ ch. x. section 7.] The magistrate was enjoined to punish

“idolatry, blasphemy, heresy,” and to coerce any church becoming

“schismatical.”

In October, 1649, the court commended the platform to the consideration

of the congregations; in October, 1651, it was adopted; and when church

and state were thus united by statute the theocracy was complete.

The close of the era of construction is also marked by the death of

those two remarkable men whose influence has left the deepest imprint

upon the institutions they helped to mould: John Winthrop, who died in

1649, and John Cotton in 1652.

Winthrop’s letters to his wife show him to have been tender and gentle,

and that his disposition was one to inspire love is proved by the

affection those bore him who had suffered most at his hands. Williams

and Vane and Coddington kept their friendship for him to the end. But

these very qualities, so amiable in themselves, made him subject to the

influence of men of inflexible will. His dream was to create on earth

a commonwealth of saints whose joy would be to walk in the ways of God.

But in practice he had to deal with the strongest of human passions. In

1634, though supported by Cotton, he was defeated by Dudley, and there

can be no doubt that this was caused by the defection of the body of the

clergy. The evidence seems conclusive, for the next year Vane brought

about an interview between the two at which Haynes was present, and

there Haynes upbraided him with remissness in administering justice.

[Footnote: Winthrop, i. 178.] Winthrop agreed to leave the question to

the ministers, who the next morning gave an emphatic opinion in favor of

strict discipline. Thenceforward he was pliant in their hands, and

with that day opened the dark epoch of his life. By leading the crusade

against the Antinomians he regained the confidence of the elders and

they never again failed him; but in return they exacted obedience

to their will; and the rancor with which he pursued Anne Hutchinson,

Gorton, and Childe cannot be extenuated, and must ever be a stain upon

his fame.

As Hutchinson points out, in early life his tendencies were liberal, but

in America he steadily grew narrow. The reason is obvious. The leader of

an intolerant party has himself to be intolerant. His claim to eminence

as a statesman must rest upon the purity of his moral character, his

calm temper, and his good judgment; for his mind was not original or

brilliant, nor was his thought in advance of his age. Herein he differed

from his celebrated contemporary, for among the long list of famous

men, who are the pride of Massachusetts, there are few who in mere

intellectual capacity outrank Cotton. He was not only a profound

scholar, an eloquent preacher, and a famous controversialist, but a

great organizer, and a natural politician. He it was who constructed the

Congregational hierarchy; his publications were the accepted authority

both abroad and at home; and the system which he developed in his books

was that which was made law by the Cambridge Platform.

Of medium height, florid complexion, and as he grew old some tendency

to be stout, but with snowy hair and much personal dignity, he seems to

have had an irresistible charm of manner toward those whom he wished to

attract.

Comprehending thoroughly the feelings and prejudices of the clergy, he

influenced them even more by his exquisite tact than by his commanding

ability; and of easy fortune and hospitable alike from inclination

and from interest, he entertained every elder who went to Boston. He

understood the art of flattery to perfection; or, as Norton expressed

it, “he was a man of ingenuous and pious candor, rejoicing (as

opportunity served) to take notice of and testifie unto the gifts of

God in his brethren, thereby drawing the hearts of them to him....”

[Footnote: Norton’s _Funeral Sermon_, p. 37.] No other clergyman has

ever been able to reach the position he held with apparent ease, which

amounted to a sort of primacy of New England. His dangers lay in

the very fecundity of his mind. Though hampered by his education and

profession, he was naturally liberal; and his first miscalculation was

when, almost immediately on landing, he supported Winthrop, who was in

disgrace for the mildness of his administration, against the austerer

Dudley.

The consciousness of his intellectual superiority seems to have given

him an almost overweening confidence in his ability to induce his

brethren to accept the broader theology he loved to preach; nor did he

apparently realize that comprehension was incompatible with a theocratic

government, and that his success would have undermined the organization

he was laboring to perfect. He thus committed the error of his life

in undertaking to preach a religious reformation, without having the

resolution to face a martyrdom. But when he saw his mistake, the way in

which he retrieved himself showed a consummate knowledge of human nature

and of the men with whom he had to deal. Nor did he ever forget the

lesson. From that time forward he took care that no one should be able

to pick a flaw in his orthodoxy; and whatever he may have thought

of much of the policy of his party, he was always ready to defend it

without flinching.

Neither he nor Winthrop died too soon, for with the completion of the

task of organization the work that suited them was finished, and they

were unfit for that which remained to be done. An oligarchy, whose power

rests on faith and not on force, can only exist by extirpating all who

openly question their pretensions to preeminent sanctity; and neither of

these men belonged to the class of natural persecutors,--the one was

too gentle, the other too liberal. An example will show better than much

argument how little in accord either really was with that spirit which,

in the regular course of social development, had thenceforward to

dominate over Massachusetts.

Captain Partridge had fought for the Parliament, and reached Boston at

the beginning of the winter of 1645. He was arrested and examined as a

heretic. The magistrates referred the case to Cotton, who reported that

“he found him corrupt in judgment,” but “had good hope to reclaim him.”

[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 251.] An instant recantation was demanded; it

was of course refused, and, in spite of all remonstrance, the family was

banished in the snow. Winthrop’s sad words were: “But sure, the rule of

hospitality to strangers, and of seeking to pluck out of the fire such

as there may be hope of, ... do seem to require more moderation and

indulgence of human infirmity where there appears not obstinacy against

the clear truth.” [Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 251.]

But in the savage and bloody struggle that was now at hand there was no

place for leaders capable of pity or remorse, and the theocracy found

supremely gifted chieftains in John Norton and John Endicott.

Norton approaches the ideal of the sterner orders of the priesthood.

A gentleman by birth and breeding, a ripe scholar, with a keen though

polished wit, his sombre temper was deeply tinged with fanaticism.

Unlike so many of his brethren, temporal concerns were to him of but

little moment, for every passion of his gloomy soul was intensely

concentrated on the warfare he believed himself waging with the fiend.

Doubt or compassion was impossible, for he was commissioned by the Lord.

He was Christ’s elected minister, and misbelievers were children of the

devil whom it was his sacred duty to destroy. He knew by the Word of

God that all save the orthodox were lost, and that heretics not only

perished, but were the hirelings of Satan, who tempted the innocent

to their doom; he therefore hated and feared them more than robbers or

murderers. Words seemed to fail him when he tried to express his horror:

“The face of death, the King of Terrours, the living man by instinct

turneth his face from. An unusual shape, a satanical phantasm, a ghost,

or apparition, affrights the disciples. But the face of heresie is of

a more horrid aspect than all ... put together, as arguing some signal

inlargement of the power of darkness as being diabolical, prodigeous,

portentous.” [Footnote: _Heart of New Eng. Rent_, p. 46.] By nature,

moreover, he had in their fullest measure the three attributes of a

preacher of a persecution,--eloquence, resolution, and a heart callous

to human suffering. To this formidable churchman was joined a no less

formidable magistrate.

No figure in our early history looms out of the past like Endicott’s.

The harsh face still looks down from under the black skull-cap, the gray

moustache and pointed beard shading the determined mouth, but throwing

into relief the lines of the massive jaw. He is almost heroic in his

ferocious bigotry and daring,--a perfect champion of the church.

The grim Puritan soldier is almost visible as, standing at the head of

his men, he tears the red cross from the flag, and defies the power of

England; or, in that tremendous moment, when the people were hanging

breathless on the fate of Christison, when insurrection seemed bursting

out beneath his feet, and his judges shrunk aghast before the peril, we

yet hear the savage old man furiously strike the table, and, thanking

God that he at least dares to do his duty, we see him rise alone before

that threatening multitude to condemn the heretic to death.

CHAPTER IV.

THE ANABAPTISTS.

The Rev. Thomas Shepard, pastor of Charlestown, was such an example, “in

word, in conversation, in civility, in spirit, in faith, in purity, that

he did let no man despise his youth;” [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4,

ch. ix. Section 6.] and yet, preaching an election sermon before the

governor and magistrates, he told them that “anabaptisme ... hath ever

been lookt at by the godly leaders of this people as a scab.” [Footnote:

_Eye Salve_, p. 24.] While the Rev. Samuel Willard, president of

Harvard, declared that “such a rough thing as a New England Anabaptist

is not to be handled over tenderly.” [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 10.]

So early as 1644, therefore, the General Court “Ordered and agreed,

yt if any person or persons within ye iurisdiction shall either openly

condemne or oppose ye baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to

seduce others from ye app’bation or use thereof, or shall purposely

depart ye congregation at ye administration of ye ordinance, ... and

shall appear to ye Co’t willfully and obstinately to continue therein

after due time and meanes of conviction, every such person or persons

shallbe sentenced to banishment.” [Footnote: _Mass. Rec._ ii. 85. 13

November, 1644.]

The legislation, however, was unpopular, for Winthrop relates that in

October, 1645, divers merchants and others petitioned to have the act

repealed, because of the offense taken thereat by the godly in England,

and the court seemed inclined to accede, “but many of the elders ...

entreated that the law might continue still in force, and the execution

of it not suspended, though they disliked not that all lenity and

patience should be used for convincing and reclaiming such erroneous

persons. Whereupon the court refused to make any further order.”

[Footnote: Winthrop, ii. 251.] And Edward Winslow assured Parliament

in 1646, when sent to England to represent the colony, that, some

mitigation being desired, “it was answered in my hearing. ‘T is true

we have a severe law, but wee never did or will execute the rigor of it

upon any.... But the reason wherefore wee are loath either to repeale

or alter the law is, because wee would have it ... to beare witnesse

against their judgment, ... which we conceive ... to bee erroneous.”

[Footnote: _Hypocrisie Unmasked_, 101.]

Unquestionably, at that time no one had been banished; but in 1644 “one

Painter, for refusing to let his child be baptized, ... was brought

before the court, where he declared their baptism to be anti-Christian.

He was sentenced to be whipped, which he bore without flinching, and

boasted that God had assisted him.” [Footnote: Hutch. _Hist._ i. 208,

note.] Nor was his a solitary instance of severity. Yet, notwithstanding

the scorn and hatred which the orthodox divines felt for these

sectaries, many very eminent Puritans fell into the errors of that

persuasion. Roger Williams was a Baptist, and Henry Dunster, for the

same heresy, was removed from the presidency of Harvard, and found it

prudent to end his days within the Plymouth jurisdiction. Even that

great champion of infant baptism, Jonathan Mitchell, when thrown into

intimate relations with Dunster, had doubts.

“That day ... after I came from him I had a strange experience; I found

hurrying and pressing suggestions against Pædobaptism, 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 good

conscience baptize children and the like. And these thoughts were darted

in with some impression, and left a strange confusion and sickliness

upon my spirit. Yet, methought, it was not hard to discern that they

were from the _Evil One_; ... And it made me fearful to go needlessly to

Mr. D.; for methought I found a venom and poison in his insinuations and

discourses against Pædobaptism.” [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. iv.

Section 10.]

Henry Dunster was an uncommon man. Famed for piety in an age of

fanaticism, learned, modest, and brave, by the unremitting toil of

thirteen years he raised Harvard from a school to the position which

it has since held; and though very poor, and starving on a wretched and

ill-paid pittance, he gave his beloved college one hundred acres of

land at the moment of its sorest need. [Footnote: Quincy’s _History

of Harvard_, i. 15.] Yet he was a criminal, for he would not baptize

infants, and he met with the “lenity and patience” which the elders were

not unwilling should be used toward the erring.

He was indicted and convicted of disturbing church ordinances, and

deprived of his office in October, 1654. He asked for leave to stay in

the house he had built for a few months, and his petition in November

ought to be read to understand how heretics were made to suffer:--

“1st. The time of the year is unseasonable, being now very near the

shortest day, and the depth of winter.

“2d. The place unto which I go is unknown to me and my family, and the

ways and means of subsistance....

“3d. The place from which I go hath fire, fuel, and all provisions for

man and beast, laid in for the winter.... The house I have builded upon

very damageful conditions to myself, out of love for the college, taking

country pay in lieu of bills of exchange on England, or the house would

not have been built....

“4th. The persons, all beside myself, are women and children, on whom

little help, now their minds lie under the actual stroke of affliction

and grief. My wife is sick, and my youngest child extremely so, and hath

been for months, so that we dare not carry him out of doors, yet much

worse now than before.... Myself will willingly bow my neck to any

yoke of personal denial, for I know for what and for whom, by grace I

suffer.” [Footnote: _History of Harvard_, i. 18.]

He had before asked Winthrop to cause the government to pay him what it

owed, and he ended his prayer in these words: “Considering the poverty

of the country, I am willing to descend to the lowest step; and if

nothing can comfortably be allowed, I sit still appeased; desiring

nothing more than to supply me and mine with food and raiment.”

[Footnote: _Idem_, i. 20.] He received that mercy which the church has

ever shown to those who wander from her fold; he was given till March,

and then, with dues unpaid, was driven forth a broken man, to die in

poverty and neglect.

But Jonathan Mitchell, pondering deeply upon the wages he saw paid at

his very hearthstone, to the sin of his miserable old friend, snatched

his own soul from Satan’s jaws. And thenceforward his path lay in

pleasant places, and he prospered exceedingly in the world, so that “of

extream lean he grew extream fat; and at last, in an extream hot season,

a fever arrested him, just after he had been preaching.... Wonderful

were the lamentations which this deplorable death fill’d the churches

of New England withal.... Yea ... all New England shook when that pillar

fell to the ground.” [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. iv. Section 16.]

Notwithstanding, therefore, clerical promises of gentleness,

Massachusetts was not a comfortable place of residence for Baptists,

who, for the most part, went to Rhode Island; and John Clark [Footnote:

For sketch of Clark’s life see _Allen’s Biographical Dictionary_.]

became the pastor of the church which they formed at Newport about

1644. He had been born about 1610, and had been educated in London as

a physician. In 1637 he landed at Boston, where he seems to have become

embroiled in the Antinomian controversy; at all events, he fared so ill

that, with several others, he left Massachusetts ‘resolving, through

the help of Christ, to get clear of all [chartered companies] and be

of ourselves.’ In the course of their wanderings they fell in with

Williams, and settled near him.

Clark was perhaps the most prominent man in the Plantations, filled many

public offices, and was the commissioner who afterward secured for the

colony the famous charter that served as the State Constitution till

1842.

Obediah Holmes, who succeeded him as Baptist minister of Newport, is

less well known. He was educated at Oxford, and when he emigrated he

settled at Salem; from thence he went to Seaconk, where he joined the

church under Mr. Newman. Here he soon fell into trouble for resisting

what he maintained was an “unrighteous act” of his pastor’s; in

consequence he and several more renounced the communion, and began

to worship by themselves; they were baptized and thereafter they were

excommunicated; the inevitable indictment followed, and they, too, took

refuge in Rhode Island. [Footnote: Holmes’s Narrative, Backus, i. 213.]

William Witter [Footnote: For the following events, see “_Ill Newes from

New England” Mass. Hist. Coll._ fourth series, vol. ii.] of Lynn was an

aged Baptist, who had already been prosecuted, but, in 1651, being blind

and infirm, he asked the Newport church to send some of the brethren

to him, to administer the communion, for he found himself alone in

Massachusetts. [Footnote: Backus, i. 215.] Accordingly Clark undertook

the mission, with Obediah Holmes and John Crandall.

They reached Lynn on Saturday, July 19, 1651, and on Sunday stayed

within doors in order not to disturb the congregation. A few friends

were present, and Clark was in the midst of a sermon, when the house

was entered by two constables with a warrant signed by Robert Bridges,

commanding them to arrest certain “erroneous persons being strangers.”

The travellers were at once seized and carried to the tavern, and after

dinner they were told that they must go to church.

Gorton, like many another, had to go through this ordeal, and he speaks

of his Sundays with much feeling: “Only some part of those dayes they

brought us forth into their congregations, to hear their sermons ...

which was meat to be digested, but only by the heart or stomacke of an

ostrich.” [Footnote: _Simplicitie’s Defence_, p. 57.]

The unfortunate Baptists remonstrated, saying that were they forced into

the meeting-house, they should be obliged to dissent from the service,

but this, the constable said, was nothing to him, and so he carried them

away. On entering, during the prayer, the prisoners took off their

hats, but presently put them on again and began reading in their seats.

Whereupon Bridges ordered the officers to uncover their heads, which

was done, and the service was then quietly finished. When all was over,

Clark asked leave to speak, which, after some hesitation, was granted,

on condition he would not discuss what he had heard. He began to explain

how he had put on his hat because he could not judge that they were

gathered according to the visible order of the Lord; but here he was

silenced, and the three were committed to custody for the night. On

Tuesday they were taken to Boston, and on the 31st were brought before

Governor Endicott. Their trial was of the kind reserved by priests for

heretics. No jury was impanelled, no indictment was read, no evidence

was heard, but the prisoners were reviled by the bench as Anabaptists,

and when they repudiated the name were asked if they did not deny infant

baptism. The theological argument which followed was cut short by a

recommitment to await sentence.

That afternoon John Cotton exhorted the judges from the pulpit. He

expounded the law, and commanded them to do their duty; he told them

that the rejection of infant baptism would overthrow the church;

that this was a capital crime, and therefore the captives were “foul

murtherers.” [Footnote: _Ill Newes_, p. 56.] Thus inspired, the court

came in toward evening.

The record recites a number of misdemeanors, such as wearing the hat in

church, administering the communion to the excommunicated, and the

like, but no attempt was made to prove a single charge. [Footnote: _Ill

Newes_, pp. 31-44.] The reason is obvious: the only penalty provided

by statute for the offence of being a Baptist was banishment, hence

the only legal course would have been to dismiss the accused.

Endicott condemned them to fines of twenty, thirty, and five pounds,

respectively, or to be whipped. Clark understood his position perfectly,

and from the first had demanded to be shown the law under which he was

being tried. He now, after sentence, renewed the request. Endicott well

knew that in acting as the mouthpiece of the clergy he was violating

alike justice, his oath of office, and his honor as a judge; and, being

goaded to fury, he broke out: You have deserved death; I will not have

such trash brought into our jurisdiction. [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 33.]

Holmes tells the rest: “As I went from the bar, I exprest myself in

these words,--I blesse God I am counted worthy to suffer for the name of

Jesus; whereupon John Wilson (their pastor, as they call him) strook me

before the judgement seat, and cursed me, saying, The curse of God ...

goe with thee; so we were carried to the prison.” [Footnote: _Idem_, p.

47.]

All the convicts maintained that their liberty as English subjects had

been violated, and they refused to pay their fines. Clark’s friends,

however, alarmed for his safety, settled his for him, and he was

discharged.

Crandall was admitted to bail, but being misinformed as to the time of

surrender, he did not appear, his bond was forfeited, and on his return

to Boston he found himself free.

Thus Holmes was left to face his punishment alone. Actuated apparently

by a deep sense of duty toward himself and his God, he refused the help

of friends, and steadfastly awaited his fate. As he lay in prison he

suffered keenly as he thought of his birth and breeding, his name, his

worldly credit, and the humiliation which must come to his wife and

children from his public shame; then, too, he began to fear lest he

might not be able to bear the lash, might flinch or shed tears, and

bring contempt on himself and his religion. Yet when the morning came

he was calm and resolute; refusing food and drink, that he might not be

said to be sustained by liquor, he betook himself to prayer, and when

his keeper called him, with his Bible in his hand, he walked cheerfully

to the post. He would have spoken a few words, but the magistrate

ordered the executioner to do his office quickly, for this fellow would

delude the people; then he was seized and stripped, and as he cried,

“Lord, lay not this sin unto their charge,” he received the first blow.

[Footnote: _Ill Newes_, pp. 48, 56.]

They gave him thirty lashes with a three-thonged whip, of such horrible

severity that it was many days before he could endure to have his

lacerated body touch the bed, and he rested propped upon his hands and

knees. [Footnote: Backus, i. 237, note. MS. of Gov. Jos. Jencks.] Yet,

in spite of his torture, he stood firm and calm, showing neither pain

nor fear, breaking out at intervals into praise to God; and his dignity

and courage so impressed the people that, in spite of the danger,

numbers flocked about him when he was set free, in sympathy and

admiration. John Spur, being inwardly affected by what he saw and heard,

took him by the hand, and, with a joyful countenance, said: “Praised be

the Lord,” and so went back with him. That same day Spur was arrested,

charged with the crime of succoring a heretic. Then said the undaunted

Spur: “Obediah Holmes I do look upon as a godly man: and do affirm

that he carried himself as did become a Christian, under so sad an

affliction.” “We will deal with you as we have dealt with him,” said

Endicott. “I am in the hands of God,” answered Spur; and then his keeper

took him to his prison. [Footnote: _Ill Newes_, p. 57.]

Perhaps no persecutor ever lived who was actuated by a single motive:

Saint Dominic probably had some trace of worldliness; Henry VIII. some

touch of bigotry; and this was preeminently true of the Massachusetts

elders. Doubtless there were among them men like Norton, whose

fanaticism was so fierce that they would have destroyed the heretic like

the wild beast, as a child of the devil, and an abomination to God.

But with the majority worldly motives predominated: they were always

protesting that they did not constrain men’s consciences, but only

enforced orderly living. Increase Mather declared: in “the same

church there have been Presbyterians, Independents, Episcopalians, and

Antipædobaptists, all welcome to the same table of the Lord when

they have manifested to the judgment of Christian charity a work of

regeneration in their souls.” [Footnote: _Vindication of New Eng._

p. 19.] And Winslow solemnly assured Parliament, “Nay, some in our

churches” are “of that judgment, and as long as they [Baptists] carry

themselves peaceably as hitherto they doe, wee will leave them to God.”

[Footnote: _Hypocrisie Unmasked_, p. 101. A. D. 1646.]

Such statements, although intended to convey a false impression,

contained this much truth: provided a man conformed to all the

regulations of the church, paid his taxes, and held his tongue, he would

not, in ordinary circumstances, have been molested under the Puritan

Commonwealth. But the moment he refused implicit obedience, or, above

all, if he withdrew from his congregation, he was shown no mercy,

because such acts tended to shake the temporal power. John Wilson,

pastor of Boston, was a good example of the average of his order. On his

death-bed he was asked to declare what he thought to be the worst sins

of the country. “‘I have long feared several sins, whereof one,’ he

said, ‘was Corahism: that is, when people rise up as Corah against their

ministers, as if they took too much upon them, when indeed they do but

rule for Christ, and according to Christ.’” [Footnote: _Magnalia_,

bk. 3, ch. iii. Section 17.] Permeated with this love of power, and

possessed of a superb organization, the clergy never failed to act on

public opinion with decisive effect whenever they saw their worldly

interests endangered. Childe has described the attack which overwhelmed

him, and Gorton gives a striking account of their process of inciting a

crusade:--

“These things concluded to be heresies and blasphemies.... The ministers

did zealously preach unto the people the great danger of such things,

and the guilt such lay under that held them, stirring the people up to

labour to find such persons out and to execute death upon them, making

persons so execrable in the eyes of the people, whom they intimated

should hold such things, yea some of them naming some of us in their

pulpits, that the people that had not seen us thought us to be worse by

far in any respect then those barbarous Indians are in the country....

Whereupon we heard a rumor that the Massachusets was sending out an army

of men to cut us off.” [Footnote: _Simplicitie’s Defence_, p. 32.]

The persecution of the Baptists lays bare this selfish clerical policy.

The theory of the suppression of heresy as a sacred duty breaks down

when it is conceded that the heretic may be admitted to the orthodox

communion without sin; therefore the motives for cruelty were sordid.

The ministers felt instinctively that an open toleration would impair

their power; not only because the congregations would divide, but

because these sectaries listened to “John Russell the shoemaker.”

[Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 26.] Obviously, were cobblers to usurp the

sacerdotal functions, the superstitious reverence of the people for the

priestly office would not long endure: and it was his crime in upholding

this sacrilegious practice which made the Rev. Thomas Cobbett cry out in

his pulpit “against Gorton, that arch-heretick, who would have al men to

be preachers.” [Footnote: _Simplicities Defence_, p. 32. See _Ne Sutor_,

p. 26.]

Therefore, though Winslow solemnly protested before the Commissioners at

London that Baptists who lived peaceably would be left unmolested, yet

such of them as listened to “foul-murtherers” [Footnote: “_Ill Newes_,”

_Mass. Hist. Coll._ fourth series, vol. ii. p. 56.] were denounced

by the divines as dangerous fanatics who threatened to overthrow the

government, and were hunted through the country like wolves.

Thomas Gould was an esteemed citizen of Charles-town, but, unfortunately

for himself, he had long felt doubt concerning infant baptism; so when,

in 1655, a child was born to him, he “durst not” have it christened.

“The elder pressed the church to lay me under admonition, which the

church was backward to do. Afterward I went out at the sprinkling of

children, which was a great trouble to some honest hearts, and they told

me of it. But I told them I could not stay, for I lookt upon it as no

ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment

I might stay.... So I stayed and sat down in my seat when they were at

prayer and administring the service to infants. Then they dealt with me

for my unreverent carriage.” [Footnote: Gould’s Narrative, Backus,

i. 364-366.] That is to say, his pastor, Mr. Symmes, caused him to be

admonished and excluded from the communion. In October, 1656, he was

presented to the county court for “denying baptism to his child,”

convicted, admonished, and given till the next term to consider of his

error; and gradually his position at Charlestown became so unpleasant

that he went to church at Cambridge, which was a cause of fresh offence

to Mr. Symmes. [Footnote: _History of Charlestown_, Frothingham, p.

164.]

From this time forward for several years, though no actual punishment

seems to have been inflicted, Gould was subjected to perpetual

annoyance, and was repeatedly summoned and admonished, both by the

courts and the church, until at length he brought matters to a crisis by

withdrawing, and with eight others forming a church, on May 28, 1665.

He thus tells his story: “We sought the Lord to direct us, and taking

counsel of other friends who dwelt among us, who were able and godly,

they gave us counsel to congregate ourselves together; and so we did,

... to walk in the order of the gospel according to the rule of Christ,

yet knowing it was a breach of the law of this country.... After we had

been called into one or two courts, the church understanding that we

were gathered into church order, they sent three messengers from the

church to me, telling me the church required me to come before them the

next Lord’s day.” [Footnote: Gould’s Narrative, Backus, i. 369.] That

Sunday he could not go, but he promised to attend on the one following;

[Footnote: Gould’s Narrative, Backus, i. 371.] and his wife relates what

was then done: “The word was carried to the elder, that if they were

alive and well they would come the next day, yet they were so hot upon

it that they could not stay, but master Sims, when he was laying out the

sins of these men, before he had propounded it to the church, to know

their mind, the church having no liberty to speak, he wound it up in

his discourse, and delivered them up to Satan, to the amazement of the

people, that ever such an ordinance of Christ should be so abused, that

many of the people went out; and these were the excommunicated persons.”

[Footnote: Mrs. Gould’s Answer, Backus, i. 384.] The sequence is

complete: so long as Gould confined his heresy to pure speculation upon

dogma he was little heeded; when he withheld his child from baptism and

went out during the ceremony he was admonished, denied the sacrament,

and treated as a social outcast; but when he separated, he was

excommunicated and given to the magistrate to be crushed.

Passing from one tribunal to another the sectaries came before the

General Court in October, 1665: such as were freemen were disfranchised,

and all were sentenced, upon conviction before a single magistrate

of continued schism, to be imprisoned until further order. [Footnote:

_Mass. Rec._ vol. iv. pt. 2, p. 291.] The following April they were

fined four pounds and put in confinement, where they lay till the 11th

of September, when the legislature, after a hearing, ordered them to be

discharged upon payment of fines and costs. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec._ vol.

iv. pt. 2, p. 316.]

How many Baptists were prosecuted, and what they suffered, is not known,

as only an imperfect record remains of the fortunes of even the leaders

of the movement; this much, however, is certain, they not only continued

contumacious, but persecution added to their numbers. So at length the

clergy decided to try what effect a public refutation of these heretics

would have on popular opinion. Accordingly the governor and council,

actuated by “Christian candor,” ordered the Baptists to appear at the

meeting-house, at nine o’clock in the morning, on the 14th of April,

1668; and six ministers were deputed to conduct the disputation.

[Footnote: Backus, i. 375.]

During the immolation of Dunster the Rev. Mr. Mitchell had made up his

mind that he “would have an argument able to remove a mountain” before

he would swerve from his orthodoxy; he had since confirmed his faith by

preaching “more than half a score ungainsayable sermons” “in defence of

this comfortable truth,” and he was now prepared to maintain it against

all comers. Accordingly this “worthy man was he who did most service

in this disputation; whereof the effect was, that although the erring

brethren, as is usual in such cases, made this their last answer to the

arguments which had cast them into much confusion: ‘Say what you will

we will hold our mind.’ Yet others were happily established in the right

ways of the Lord.” [Footnote: _Magnalia_, bk. 4, ch. iv. Section 10.]

Such is the account of Cotton Mather: but the story of the Baptists

presents a somewhat different view of the proceedings. “It is true there

were seven elders appointed to discourse with them.... and when they

were met, there was a long speech made by one of them of what vile

persons they were, and how they acted against the churches and

government here, and stood condemned by the court. The others desiring

liberty to speak, they would not suffer them, but told them they stood

there as delinquents and ought not to have liberty to speak.... Two

days were spent to little purpose; in the close, master Jonathan Mitchel

pronounced that dreadful sentence against them in Deut. xvii. 8, to the

end of the 12th, and this was the way they took to convince them, and

you may see what a good effect it had.” [Footnote: Mrs. Gould’s Answer,

Backus, i. 384, 385.]

The sentence pronounced by Mitchell was this: “And the man that will do

presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to

minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that

man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.” [Footnote:

_Deut._ xvii. 12.]

On the 27th of May, 1668, Gould, Turner, and Farnum, “obstinate

& turbulent Annabaptists,” were banished under pain of perpetual

imprisonment. [Footnote: _Mass. Rec._ vol. iv. pt. ii, pp. 373-375.]

They determined to stay and face their fate: afterward they wrote to the

magistrates:--

* * * * *

HONOURED SIRS: ... After the tenders of our service according to Christ,

his command to your selves and the country, wee thought it our duty and

concernment to present your honours with these few lines to put you

in remembrance of our bonds: and this being the twelfth week of our

imprisonment, wee should be glad if it might be thought to stand

with the honour and safety of the country, and the present government

thereof, to be now at liberty. For wee doe hereby seriously profess,

that as farre as wee are sensible or know anything of our own hearts,

wee do prefer their peace and safety above our own, however wee have

been resented otherwise: and wherein wee differ in point of judgment

wee humbly beeseech you, let there be a bearing with us, till god

shal reveale otherwise to us; for there is a spirit in man and the

inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding, therefore if wee

are in the dark, wee dare not say that wee doe see or understand, till

the Lord shall cleare things up to us. And to him wee can appeale to

cleare up our innocency as touching the government, both in your civil

and church affaires. That it never was in our hearts to thinke of doing

the least wrong to either: but have and wee hope, by your assistance,

shal alwaies indeavour to keepe a conscience void of offence towards god

and men. And if it shal be thought meete to afforde us our liberty, that

wee may take that care, as becomes us, for our families, wee shal engage

ourselves to be alwayes in a readines to resigne up our persons to your

pleasure. Hoping your honours will be pleased seriously to consider our

condition, wee shall commend both you and it to the wise disposing and

blessing of the Almighty, and remaine your honours faithful servants in

what we may.

THO: GOLD WILL: TURNER JOHN FARNUM. [Footnote: _Mass. Archives_, x.

220.]

* * * * *

Such were the men whom the clergy daily warned their congregations

“would certainly undermine the churches, ruine order, destroy piety, and

introduce prophaneness.” [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 11.] And when they

appealed to their spotless lives and their patience under affliction,

they were told “that the vilest hereticks and grossest blasphemers have

resolutely and cheerfully (at least sullenly and boastingly) suffered as

well as the people of God.” [Footnote: _Ne Sutor_, p. 9.]

The feeling of indignation and of sympathy was, notwithstanding, strong;

and in spite of the danger of succoring heretics, sixty-six inhabitants,

among whom were some of the most respected citizens of Charlestown,

petitioned the legislature for mercy: “They being aged and weakly men;

... the sense of this their ... most deplorable and afflicted condition

hath sadly affected the hearts of many ... Christians, and such as

neither approve of their judgment or practice; especially considering

that the men are reputed godly, and of a blameless conversation.... We

therefore most humbly beseech this honored court, in their Christian

mercy and bowels of compassion, to pity and relieve these poor

prisoners.” [Footnote: Backus, i. 380, 381.] On November 7, 1668, the

petition was voted “scandalous & reproachful,” the two chief promoters

were censured, admonished, and fined ten and five pounds respectively;

the others were made, under their own hands, to express their sorrow,

“for giving the court such just ground of offence.” [Footnote: _Mass.

Rec._ vol. iv. pt. 2, p. 413.]

The shock was felt even in England. In March, 1669, thirteen of the most

influential dissenting ministers wrote from London earnestly begging

for moderation lest they should be made to suffer from retaliation; but

their remonstrance was disregarded. [Footnote: Backus, i. 395.] What

followed is not exactly known; the convicts would seem to have lain

in jail about a year, and they are next mentioned in a letter to Clark

written in November, 1670, in which he was told that Turner had been

again arrested, but that Gould had eluded the officers, who were waiting

for him in Boston; and was on Noddle’s Island. Subsequently all were

taken and treated with the extremest rigor; for in June, 1672, Russell

was so reduced that it was supposed he could not live, and he was

reported to have died in prison. Six months before Gould and Turner had

been thought past hope; their sufferings had brought them all to the

brink of the grave. [Footnote: Backus, i. 398-404, 405.] But relief was

at hand: the victory for freedom had been won by the blood of heretics,

as devoted, as fearless, but even unhappier than they; and the election

of Leverett, in 1673, who was opposed to persecution, marks the moment

when the hierarchy admitted their defeat. During his administration the

sectaries usually met in private undisturbed; and soon every energy

of the theocracy became concentrated on the effort to repulse the ever

contracting circle of enemies who encompassed it.

During the next few years events moved fast. In 1678 the ecclesiastical

power was so shattered that the Baptists felt strong enough to build a

church; but the old despotic spirit lived even in the throes of death,

and the legislature passed an act forbidding the erection of unlicensed

meeting-houses under penalty of confiscation. Nevertheless it was

finished, but on the Sunday on which it was to have been opened the

marshal nailed the doors fast and posted notices forbidding all persons

to enter, by order of the court. After a time the doors were broken

open, and services were held; a number of the congregation were summoned

before the court, admonished, and forbidden to meet in any public place;

[Footnote: June 11, 1680. _Mass. Rec._ v. 271.] but the handwriting was

now glowing on the wall, priestly threats had lost their terror;

the order was disregarded; and now for almost two hundred years

Massachusetts has been foremost in defending the equal rights of men

before the law.

The old world was passing away, a new era was opening, and a few words

are due to that singular aristocracy which so long ruled New England.

For two centuries Increase Mather has been extolled as an eminent

example of the abilities and virtues which then adorned his order. In

1681, when all was over, he published a solemn statement of the attitude

the clergy had held toward the Baptists, and from his words posterity

may judge of their standard of morality and of truth.

“The Annabaptists in New England have in their narrative lately

published, endeavoured to ... make themselves the innocent persons and

the Lord’s servants here no better than persecutors.... I have been

a poor labourer in the Lord’s Vineyard in this place upward of twenty

years; and it is more than I know, if in all that time, any of those

that scruple infant baptism, have met with molestation from the

magistrate merely on account of their opinion.” [Footnote: Preface to

_Ne Sutor_.]

CHAPTER V.

THE QUAKERS.

The lower the organism, the less would seem to be the capacity for

physical adaptation to changed conditions of life; the jelly-fish dies

in the aquarium, the dog has wandered throughout the world with his

master. The same principle apparently holds true in the evolution of the

intellect; for while the oyster lacks consciousness, the bee modifies

the structure of its comb, and the swallow of her nest, to suit

unforeseen contingencies, while the dog, the horse, and the elephant are

capable of a high degree of education. [Footnote: _Menial Evolution in

Animals_, Romanes, Am. ed. pp. 203-210.]

Applying this law to man, it will be found to be a fact that, whereas

the barbarian is most tenacious of custom, the European can adopt

new fashions with comparative ease. The obvious inference is, that

in proportion as the brain is feeble it is incapable of the effort of

origination; therefore, savages are the slaves of routine. Probably

a stronger nervous system, or a peculiarity of environment, or both

combined, served to excite impatience with their surroundings among the

more favored races, from whence came a desire for innovation. And the

mental flexibility thus slowly developed has passed by inheritance,

and has been strengthened by use, until the tendency to vary, or think

independently, has become an irrepressible instinct among some modern

nations. Conservatism is the converse of variation, and as it springs

from mental inertia it is always a progressively salient characteristic

of each group in the descending scale. The Spaniard is less mutable than

the Englishman, the Hindoo than the Spaniard, the Hottentot than

the Hindoo, and the ape than the Hottentot. Therefore, a power whose

existence depends upon the fixity of custom must be inimical to

progress, but the authority of a sacred caste is altogether based upon

an unreasoning reverence for tradition,--in short, on superstition;

and as free inquiry is fatal to a belief in those fables which awed the

childhood of the race, it has followed that established priesthoods have

been almost uniformly the most conservative of social forces, and

that clergymen have seldom failed to slay their variable brethren when

opportunity has offered. History teems with such slaughters, some of the

most instructive of which are related in the Old Testament, whose code

of morals is purely theological.

Though there may be some question as to the strict veracity of the

author of the Book of Kings, yet, as he was evidently a thorough

churchman, there can be no doubt that he has faithfully preserved the

traditions of the hierarchy; his chronicle therefore presents, as

it were, a perfect mirror, wherein are reflected the workings of the

ecclesiastical mind through many generations. According to his account,

the theocracy only triumphed after a long and doubtful struggle. Samuel

must have been an exceptionally able man, for, though he failed to

control Saul, it was through his intrigues that David was enthroned,

who was profoundly orthodox; yet Solomon lapsed again into heresy, and

Jeroboam added to schism the even blacker crime of making “priests

of the lowest of the people, which were not of the sons of Levi,”

[Footnote: I Kings xii. 31.] and in consequence he has come down to

posterity as the man who made Israel to sin. Ahab married Jezebel, who

introduced the worship of Baal, and gave the support of government to a

rival church. She therefore roused a hate which has made her immortal;

but it was not until the reign of her son Jehoram that Elisha apparently

felt strong enough to execute a plot he had made with one of the

generals to precipitate a revolution, in which the whole of the house of

Ahab should be murdered and the heretics exterminated. The awful story

is told with wonderful power in the Bible.

“And Elisha the prophet called one of the children of the prophets,

and said unto him, Gird up thy loins, and take this box of oil in thine

hand, and go to Ramoth-gilead: and when thou comest thither, look out

there Jehu, ... and make him arise up ... and carry him to an inner

chamber; then take the box of oil, and pour it on his head, and say,

Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king over Israel....

“So the young man ... went to Ramoth-gilead.... And he said, I have an

errand to thee, O captain....

“And he arose, and went into the house; and he poured the oil on his

head, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I have

anointed thee king over the people of the Lord, even over Israel.

“And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge

the blood of my servants the prophets....

“For the whole house of Ahab shall perish: ... and I will make the house

of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, ... and the dogs

shall eat Jezebel....

“Then Jehu came forth to the servants of his lord: ... And he said, Thus

spake he to me, saying, Thus saith the Lord, I have anointed thee king

over Israel.

“Then they hasted, ... and blew with trumpets, saying, Jehu is king. So

Jehu ... conspired against Joram....

“But king Joram was returned to be healed in Jezreel of the wounds which

the Syrians had given him, when he fought with Hazael king of Syria....

“So Jehu rode in a chariot, and went to Jezreel; for Joram lay there....

“And Joram ... went out ... in his chariot, ... against Jehu.... And it

came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And

he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel

and her witchcrafts are so many?

“And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is

treachery, O Ahaziah.

“And Jehu drew a bow with his full strength, and smote Jehoram between

his arms, and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his

chariot....

“But when Ahaziah the king of Judah saw this, he fled by the way of the

garden house. And Jehu followed after him, and said, Smite him also in

the chariot. And they did so....

“And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted

her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window.

“And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Had Zimri peace, who slew

his master?...

“And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down: and some of her

blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trod her

under foot....

“And Ahab had seventy sons in Samaria. And Jehu wrote letters, ... to

the elders, and to them that brought up Ahab’s children, saying, ... If

ye be mine, ... take ye the heads of ... your master’s sons, and come to

me to Jezreel by to-morrow this time.... And it came to pass, when the

letter came to them, that they took the king’s sons, and slew

seventy persons, and put their heads in baskets, and sent him them to

Jezreel....

“And he said, Lay ye them in two heaps at the entering in of the gate

until the morning....

“So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and

all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him

none remaining.

“And he arose and departed, and came to Samaria. And as he was at the

shearing house in the way, Jehu met with the brethren of Ahaziah king of

Judah....

“And he said, Take them alive. And they took them alive, and slew them

at the pit of the shearing house, even two and forty men; neither left

he any of them....

“And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained unto Ahab in

Samaria, till he had destroyed him, according to the saying of the Lord,

which he spake to Elijah.

“And Jehu gathered all the people together, and said unto them, Ahab

served Baal a little; but Jehu shall serve him much. Now therefore call

unto me all the prophets of Baal, all his servants, and all his priests;

let none be wanting: for I have a great sacrifice to do to Baal;

whosoever shall be wanting, he shall not live. But Jehu did it in

subtilty, to the intent that he might destroy the worshippers of

Baal....

“And Jehu sent through all Israel: and all the worshippers of Baal came,

so that there was not a man left that came not. And they came into

the house of Baal; and the house of Baal was full from one end to

another....

“And it came to pass, as soon as he had made an end of offering the

burnt offering, that Jehu said to the guard and to the captains, Go in,

and slay them; let none come forth. And they smote them with the edge of

the sword; and the guard and the captains cast them out....

“Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel.” [Footnote: 2 _Kings_ ix., x.]

Viewed from the standpoint of comparative history, the policy

of theocratic Massachusetts toward the Quakers was the necessary

consequence of antecedent causes, and is exactly parallel with the

massacre of the house of Ahab by Elisha and Jehu. The power of a

dominant priesthood depended on conformity, and the Quakers absolutely

refused to conform; nor was this the blackest of their crimes: they

believed that the Deity communicated directly with men, and that these

revelations were the highest rule of conduct. Manifestly such a doctrine

was revolutionary. The influence of all ecclesiastics must ultimately

rest upon the popular belief that they are endowed with attributes which

are denied to common men. The syllogism of the New England elders was

this: all revelation is contained in the Bible; we alone, from our

peculiar education, are capable of interpreting the meaning of the

Scriptures: therefore we only can declare the will of God. But it was

evident that, were the dogma of “the inner light” once accepted, this

reasoning must fall to the ground, and the authority of the ministry be

overthrown. Necessarily those who held so subversive a doctrine would

be pursued with greater hate than less harmful heretics, and thus

contemplating the situation there is no difficulty in understanding why

the Rev. John Wilson, pastor of Boston, should have vociferated in his

pulpit, that “he would carry fire in one hand and faggots in the other,

to burn all the Quakers in the world;” [Footnote: _New England Judged_,

ed. 1703, p. 124.] why the Rev. John Higginson should have denounced the

“inner light” as “a stinking vapour from hell;” [Footnote: _Truth and

Innocency Defended_, ed. 1703, p. 80.] why the astute Norton should have

taught that “the justice of God was the devil’s armour;” [Footnote: _New

England Judged_, ed. 1703, p. 9.] and why Endicott sternly warned the

first comers, “Take heed you break not our ecclesiastical laws, for then

ye are sure to stretch by a halter.” [Footnote: _Idem_, p. 9.]

Nevertheless, this view has not commended itself to those learned

clergymen who have been the chief historians of the Puritan

commonwealth. They have, on the contrary, steadily maintained that

the sectaries were the persecutors, since the company had exclusive

ownership of the soil, and acted in self-defence.

The case of Roger Williams is thus summed up by Dr. Dexter: “In all

strictness and honesty he persecuted them--not they him; just as the

modern ‘Come-outer,’ who persistently intrudes his bad manners and

pestering presence upon some private company, making himself, upon

pretence of conscience, a nuisance there; is--if sane--the persecutor,

rather than the man who forcibly assists, as well as courteously

requires, his desired departure.” [Footnote: _As to Roger Williams_, p.

90.]