College in the class of 1669, was employed to preach at the village. In
October, 1671, he transferred his relations from the church in Newbury
to the First Church in Salem. It seems that several persons of
considerable influence in the village were dissatisfied with the manner
in which he had been brought forward, and became prejudiced against
him. The disaffection was not removed, but suffered to take deep root
in their minds. The parish soon became the scene of one of those
violent and heated dissensions to which religious societies are
sometimes liable. The unhappy strife was aggravated from day to day,
until it spread alienation and acrimony[i.246] throughout the village.
A majority of the people were all along in favor of Bayley; but the
minority were implacable. His engagement to preach was renewed from
year to year. At length, the controversy waxed so warm that some
definite action became necessary. On the 10th of March, 1679, both
parties applied to the mother-church for advice. A paper was presented
by his opponents, with sixteen, and another from his friends, with
thirty-nine signers. There was still another, also in his favor, signed
by ten persons living near, but not within the village line. Although
the number of his opponents was so much less than of his friends, they
included persons, such as Nathaniel Putnam and Bray Wilkins, of large
estates and families, and much general influence; and it is evident
that the First Church was not inclined wholly to disregard them. The
record of that church says, "There was much agitation on both sides,
and divers things were spoken of by the brethren; but the business
being long, and many of the brethren gone, we could not make a church
act of advice in the case; therefore it was left to another time." At a
meeting on the 22d of April, the Salem Church advised the minority "to
submit to the generality for the present;" but, when a church should be
formed there, "then they might choose him or any other." This advice
does not appear to have satisfied either party; and the quarrel went on
with renewed vehemence on both sides. At length, it reached such a
pitch that it became necessary to carry it up to the General[i.247]
Court. The whole affair was investigated by that body, and all the
papers that had passed in relation to it were adduced. They are quite
voluminous, and on file in the office of the Secretary of State, in
Boston. These interesting and curious documents illustrate the energy
of action of both parties; and give, it is probable, the best picture
anywhere to be found of a first-rate parish controversy of the olden
times.
The General Court came down upon the case with a strong hand. They
decided in favor of Bayley, whom they pronounced "orthodox, and
competently able, and of a blameless and self-denying conversation;"
and they "do order, that Mr. Bayley be continued and settled the
minister of that place, and that he be allowed sixty pounds per annum
for his maintenance, one-third part thereof in money, the other
two-thirds in provisions of all sorts such as a family needs, at equal
prices, and fuel for his family's occasions; this sum to be paid by the
inhabitants of that place." This was thirteen pounds a year more than
Bayley's friends had ever voted for him. To make the matter sure, the
General Court required the parish to choose three or five men among
themselves to apportion every man's share of the tax to secure the
sixty pounds: and, if any difficulty should occur in getting men among
themselves to perform this duty, they appointed to act, in that event,
Mr. Batter, Captain Jonathan Corwin, and Captain Price, of the old
parish of Salem, to make the rate; and gave[i.248] ample power to the
constable of the village or the marshal of the county, to enforce the
collection of it, by distress and attachment, if any should neglect or
refuse to pay the sum assessed upon him. To make it still more certain
that Mr. Bayley should get his money, they ordered "that all the rate
is to be paid in for the use of the ministry unto two persons chosen by
the householders to supply the place of deacons for the time, who are
to reckon with the people, and to deliver the same to the said minister
or to his order." The arrangement as to the agency of deacons was "to
continue until the Court shall take further order, or that there be a
church of Christ orderly gathered and approved in that place." This
procedure of the Court was a pretty high-handed stretch of power even
for those days; and giving the appointment of officers, with the title
and character of deacons to mere householders, and where there was no
church or organized body of professed believers, was in absolute
conflict with the whole tenor and spirit of the ecclesiastical system
then in force and rigidly maintained elsewhere throughout the colony.
The Court seems itself to have been alarmed at the extent to which it
had gone in forcing Mr. Bayley upon the people of Salem Village, and
fell back, in conclusion, upon the following proviso: "This order shall
continue for one year only from the last of September last past." The
date of the order was the 15th of October, 1679. It had less than a
year to run. In fact, the order, after all, before it comes to the end,
is[i.249] diluted into a mere recommendation of Mr. Bayley. "In the
mean while, all parties," it is hoped, will "endeavor an agreement in
him or some other meet person for a minister among them;" but the
General Court takes care to wind up by demanding "five pounds for
hearing the case, the whole number of villagers equally to bear their
proportion thereof."
While the power thus incautiously conceded to householders was duly
noted, the apparently formidable action of the Court did not in the
least alarm the opposition, or in the slightest degree abate their
zeal. The householders continued, as before, to manage all affairs
relating to the ministry in general meetings of the inhabitants. They
proceeded at once to elect their two deacons. "Corporal Nathaniel
Ingersoll" was one of them; and he continued to hold the office, in
parish and in church, for forty years.
As no attention was paid to the order of the General Court, so far as
it attempted to fasten Mr. Bayley upon the parish; as the church in
Salem would not take the responsibility of recommending his ordination
in the face of such an opposition; and as it was out of the question to
think of reconciling or reducing it, Mr. Bayley concluded to retire
from the conflict and quit the field; and his ministry in the village
came to an end. As evidence that the heat of this protracted
controversy had not consumed all just and considerate sentiments in the
minds of the people, I present the substance of a deed found in the
Essex Registry. It will be noticed, that the most conspicu[i.250]ous of
Mr. Bayley's opponents, Nathaniel Putnam, is one of the parties to the
instrument.
"Thomas Putnam, Sr., Nathaniel Putnam, Sr., Thomas Fuller, Sr., John
Putnam, Sr., and Joseph Hutchinson, Sr. Deed of gift to Mr. James
Bayley. Whereas, Mr. James Bayley, minister of the gospel, now resident
of Salem Village, hath been in the exercise of his gifts by preaching
amongst us several years, having had a call thereunto by the
inhabitants of the place; and at the said Mr. Bayley's first coming
amongst us, we above-named put the said Bayley in possession of a
suitable accommodation of land and meadow, for his more comfortable
subsistence amongst us. But the providence of God having so ordered it,
that the said Mr. Bayley doth not continue amongst us in the work of
the ministry, yet, considering the premises, and as a testimony of our
good affection to the said Mr. Bayley, and as full satisfaction of all
demands of us or any of us, of land relating to the premises, do by
these presents fully grant, &c., to said Bayley" twenty-eight acres of
upland, and thirteen acres of meadow in all. The several lots are
described in the deed, and constitute a very valuable property. The
instrument bears date May 6, 1680. Mr. Bayley's residence is indicated
on the map. The land on which it stood belonged to the part contributed
by Nathaniel Putnam, with some acres in front of it contributed by
Joseph Hutchinson. He continued to own and occasionally occupy his
property in the village for some years after the witchcraft
trans[i.251]actions. He left the ministry, and prepared himself for the
profession of medicine, which he practised in Roxbury. He died on the
17th of January, 1707.
It is not very easy to ascertain from the parish records, or from the
mass of papers in the State-house files, the precise grounds of the
obstinate controversy in reference to him. It is evident that it began
in consequence of some alleged irregularity in the proceedings that led
to his first engagement to preach at the village. There are
intimations, that, in the tone and style of his preaching, he did not
quite come up to the mark required by some. The objection does not seem
to have been against his talents or learning, but, rather, that he did
not take hold with sufficient vehemence, or handle with sufficient zeal
and warmth, points then engrossing attention. One or two expressions in
the papers which proceeded from his opponents seem to hint that he had
not the degree of strictness or severity in his aspect or ways thought
necessary in a minister. Papers in the files of the County Court bring
to light, perhaps, precisely the shape in which the charges against him
had currency. On the 4th of April, 1679, complaint was made by Thomas
and John Putnam, Srs., Daniel Andrew, and Nathaniel Ingersoll, against
Henry Kenny "for slandering our minister, Mr. Bayley, by reporting that
he doth not perform family duties in his family." This was an
expression then in use for "family prayers." One young woman testified
as follows: "Being at Mr. Bayley's house three weeks together, I never
heard Mr. Bayley read a[i.252] chapter, nor expound on any part of the
Scripture, which was a great grief to me." On the other hand, three men
and one woman depose thus: "Having, for a year, some more, some less,
since Mr. Bayley's coming to Salem Farms, lived at his house, we
testify to our knowledge, that he hath continually performed family
duties, morning and evening, unless sickness or some other unavoidable
providence hath prevented." Two of the above witnesses depose more
specifically as follows: "We testify,—one of us being a boarder at Mr.
Bayley's house, at times, for two or three years, and the other having
lived there about a year and a quarter,—that Mr. Bayley did not only
constantly perform family prayers twice a day, except some unusual
providence at any time prevented, but also did sometimes read the
Scriptures and other profitable books, and also repeat his own sermons
in his family that he preached upon the Lord's Days; always endeavoring
to keep good order in his family, carrying himself exemplarily
therein." The evidence against Bayley was afterwards found to be
unworthy of credit, and was wholly overborne at the time by
unimpeachable testimony in his favor. The conclusion seems to be safe,
from all the papers and proceedings, that Mr. Bayley was, as the
General Court had pronounced him, "of a blameless conversation." A
letter from him to his people, relating to the disaffection of some,
and expressing a willingness to relinquish his position, if the
interests of the society would thereby be promoted, is among the
papers. It[i.253] is creditable to his understanding, temper, and
character.
The opposition to Mr. Bayley laid the train for all the disastrous and
terrible scenes that followed. His wife was Mary Carr, of Salisbury.
Her family, besides land in that town, owned the large island in the
Merrimack, just above Newburyport, called still by their name, and
occupied by their descendants to this day. Mrs. Bayley brought with her
to the village a younger sister, Ann, who, when scarcely sixteen years
of age,—on the 25th of November, 1678,—married Sergeant Thomas Putnam.
The Carrs were evidently well-educated young women; and there is every
indication that Ann was possessed of qualities which gave her much
influence in private circles. Her husband was the eldest son of the
richest man in the village, had the most powerful and extensive
connections, was a member of the company of troopers, had been in the
Narragansett fight, and, as his records show, was a well-educated
person. Marriage with him brought his wife into the centre of the great
Putnam family; and, her sister Bayley being the wife of the minister, a
powerful combination was secured to his support. The opposition so
obstinately made to his settlement, appearing to his friends, as it
does to us, so unreasonable, if not perverse, engendered a very bitter
resentment, which spread from house to house. Every thing served to
aggravate it. The disregard, by the opposition, of the advice of the
old church to agree to his ordination, and of the strong[i.254]
endorsement of him by the General Court; and the failure of either of
those bodies to take the responsibility of proceeding to his
ordination,—made the dissatisfaction and disappointment of his friends
intense. His connection by marriage with such a wide-spread influence,
and the harmony and happiness of social life, made his settlement so
very desirable that his friends could not account for the resistance
made to it. His amiable character, which had been shown to be proof
against slander; and his domestic bereavements in the loss of his wife
and three children,—made him dear to his friends. More than three to
one earnestly, persistently, from year to year, begged that he might be
ordained; but what was regarded as an unworthy faction was permitted to
succeed in preventing it. All these things sunk deep into the heart of
the wife of Sergeant Thomas Putnam. She was a woman of an excitable
temperament, and, by her talents, zeal, and personal qualities, wrought
all within her influence into the highest state of exasperation. This
must be borne in mind when we reach the details of our story. It is the
key to all that followed.
The friends of Bayley, while they yielded to his determination to
withdraw from his disagreeable position, never relinquished the hope to
get him back, but renewed a struggle to that end, whenever a vacancy
occurred in the village ministry. With that object in view, they were
unwise and unjust enough to cherish aversion to every one who succeeded
him, and thus kept alive the fatal elements of division. But it is due
to[i.255] him to say, that he does not appear to have been at all
responsible for the course of his friends. Although retaining his
property in the village, and often residing there, there is no
indication that he had a hand in subsequent proceedings, or was in the
slightest degree connected with the troubles that afterwards arose.
Arts were used to inveigle him into the witchcraft prosecutions: his
resentments, if he had any, were invoked; but in vain. He resisted
attempts, which were made with more effect upon one of his successors,
to rouse his passions against parties accused. He kept himself free
from the whole affair. His name nowhere appears as complainant,
witness, or actor in any shape. He was, so far as the evidence goes, a
peaceable, prudent, kind, and good man; and if the people of Salem
Village had been wise enough, or been permitted, to settle him, the
world might never have known that such a place existed.
George Burroughs, in November, 1680, was engaged to preach at Salem
Village. He is supposed to have been born in Scituate; but his origin
is as uncertain as his history was sad, and his end tragical. He was a
graduate of Harvard College in the class of 1670. What little is known
of him shows that he was a man of ability and integrity. Papers on file
in the State House prove, that, in the district of Maine, where he
lived and preached before and after his settlement at the village, he
was regarded with confidence by his neighbors, and looked up to as a
friend and counsellor. Certain incidents are related, which prove that
he was[i.256] self-denying, generous, and public-spirited, laboring in
humility and with zeal in the midst of great privations, sharing the
exposures of his people to Indian violence, and experiencing all the
sufferings of an unprotected outpost. In 1676, while preaching at
Casco,—now Portland,—the entire settlement was broken up by an Indian
assault. Thirty-two of the inhabitants were killed or carried into
captivity. Mr. Burroughs escaped to an island in the bay, from which he
was rescued by timely aid from the mainland. He wrote an account of the
catastrophe, communicated by Brian Pendleton to the Governor and
Council at Boston. In 1683 he was again at Casco; and, again driven off
by the Indians in 1690, transferred his labors to Wells. A grant of one
hundred and fifty acres of land was made to him, included in the site
of the present city of Portland. As population began to thicken near
the spot, the town applied to him to relinquish a part of it, other
lands to be given him in exchange. In their account of the transaction,
they state, that, in answer to their application, Mr. Burroughs said
they were welcome to it; that he freely gave it back, "not desiring any
land anywhere else, nor any thing else in consideration thereof."
In a vote passed at a meeting of Salem Village parish, Feb. 10, 1681,
it was agreed that Mr. Burroughs should receive £93. 6_s._ 8_d._ per
annum for three years, and £60 per annum afterwards. I suppose that he
had no money or property of any kind. The parsonage was out of repair;
and the larger sum for the first[i.257] three years, amounting to £100,
in three instalments, was to be given him as an outfit in housekeeping.
Immediately upon coming to the village to reside, he encountered the
hostility of those persons who, as the special friends of Mr. Bayley,
allowed their prejudices to be concentrated upon his innocent
successor. The unhappy animosities arising from this source entirely
demoralized the Society, and, besides making it otherwise very
uncomfortable to a minister, led to a neglect and derangement of all
financial affairs. In September, 1681, Mr. Burroughs's wife died, and
he had to run in debt for her funeral expenses. Rates were not
collected, and his salary was in arrears. In making the contract with
the parish, he had taken care to add, at the end of the articles, these
words, "All is to be understood so long as I have gospel
encouragement." It is not improbable that there was a lack of sympathy
between him and the ministers in this part of the country. He concluded
that no benefit would accrue from calling a council to put things into
order; and, as he was in despair of remedying the evils that had become
fastened upon the village, he concluded to give up the idea of getting
a settlement of his accounts, abandoned his claims altogether, and
removed from the village.
At the April term of Court in Ipswich, 1683, a committee of the parish
petitioned for relief, stating that Mr. Burroughs had left them, and
that they had been without services in their meeting-house for four
sabbaths. They pray the Court, that "they be pleased to[i.258] write to
Mr. Burroughs, requiring him to attend an orderly hearing and clearing
up the case," and "to come to account" with them. The Court accordingly
directed a meeting of the inhabitants to be held, and wrote to Mr.
Burroughs to attend it. When the day came, the Court sent a letter to
be read at the meeting, directing the parties to "reckon," and settle
their accounts. What transpired at this curious meeting is best given
by presenting the documents on file in a case that went into Court.
They show the proceedings that interrupted the "reckoning" at the
meeting in a most extraordinary manner:—
[County Court, June, 1683.—Lieutenant John Putnam _versus_ Mr. George
Burroughs. Action of debt for two gallons of Canary wine, and cloth,
&c., bought of Mr. Gedney on John Putnam's account, for the funeral of
Mrs. Burroughs.]
"_Deposition_.
"We, whose names are underwritten, testify and say, that at a public
meeting of the people of Salem Farms, April 24, 1683, we heard a letter
read, which letter was sent from the Court. After the said letter was
read, Mr. Burroughs came in. After the said Burroughs had been a while
in, he asked 'whether they took up with the advice of the Court, given
in the letter, or whether they rejected it.' The moderator made answer,
'Yes, we take up with it;' and not a man contradicted it to any of our
hearing. After this was passed, was a discourse of settling accounts
between the said Burroughs and the inhabitants, and issuing things in
peace, and parting in love, as they came together in love. Further, we
say that the second, third, and fourth days of the following week were
agreed upon by Mr. Burroughs and[i.259] the people to be the days for
every man to come in and to reckon with the said Burroughs; and so they
adjourned the meeting to the last of the aforesaid three days, in the
afternoon, then to make up the whole account in public.
"We further testify and say, that, May the second, 1683, Mr. Burroughs
and the inhabitants met at the meeting-house to make up accounts in
public, according to their agreement the meeting before; and, just as
the said Burroughs began to give in his accounts, the marshal came in,
and, after a while, went up to John Putnam, Sr., and whispered to him,
and said Putnam said to him, 'You know what you have to do: do your
office.' Then the marshal came to Mr. Burroughs, and said, 'Sir, I have
a writing to read to you.' Then he read the attachment, and demanded
goods. Mr. Burroughs answered, 'that he had no goods to show, and that
he was now reckoning with the inhabitants, for we know not yet who is
in debt, but there was his body.' As we were ready to go out of the
meeting-house, Mr. Burroughs said, 'Well, what will you do with me?'
Then the marshal went to John Putnam, Sr., and said to him, 'What shall
I do?' The said Putnam replied, 'You know your business.' And then the
said Putnam went to his brother, Thomas Putnam, and pulled him by the
coat; and they went out of the house together, and presently came in
again. Then said John Putnam, 'Marshal, take your prisoner, and have
him up to the ordinary,—that is a public house,—and secure him till the
morning.'
(Signed) "Nathaniel Ingersoll, aged about fifty.
Samuel Sibley, aged about twenty-four.
"To the first of these, I, John Putnam, Jr., testify, being at the
meeting." [i.260]
The above document illustrates the general position of the Putnam
family through all the troubles of the Salem Village parish. Thomas and
John were the heads of two of its branches, and participated in the
proceedings against Burroughs. Nathaniel generally was on the other
side in the course of the various controversies which finally
culminated in the witchcraft delusion. His son, John Putnam, Jr., on
this occasion, was a witness friendly to Mr. Burroughs. Nathaniel
Ingersoll does not appear to have been a partisan on either side. His
sympathies, generally, were with the friends of Bayley; but, on this
occasion, his sense of justice led him to take the lead in behalf of
Burroughs. Other depositions are as follows:—
"The Testimony of Thomas Haynes, aged thirty-two years or
thereabouts.—Testifieth and saith, that, at a meeting of the
inhabitants of Salem Farms, May the second, 1683, after the marshal had
read John Putnam's attachment to Mr. Burroughs, then Mr. Burroughs
asked Putnam 'what money it was he attached him for.' John Putnam
answered, 'For five pounds and odd money at Shippen's at Boston, and
for thirteen shillings at his father Gedney's, and for twenty-four
shillings at Mrs. Darby's;' that then Nathaniel Ingersoll stood up, and
said, 'Lieutenant, I wonder that you attach Mr. Burroughs for the money
at Darby's and your father Gedney's, when, to my knowledge, you and Mr.
Burroughs have reckoned and balanced accounts two or three times since,
as you say, it was due, and you never made any mention of it when you
reckoned with Mr. Burroughs.' John Putnam answered, 'It is true, and I
own it.'[i.261] Samuel Sibley, aged twenty-four years or thereabouts,
testifieth to all above written."