require "Mr. Parris to keep the ministry house in good repair," and
that he "shall also have the use of the ministry pasture;" and this was
not objectionable as involving any expense upon him, but solely because
the language employed precluded the supposition that the parish had
countenanced the idea of ever conveying the parsonage and parsonage
lands[i.294] to him in his own right and absolutely. This was an object
which he evidently had in view from the first, and to which he clung to
the last. It is to be feared, that some of the members of the
"Young-America" committee, in their heedless and inconsiderate
eagerness to "effect" something, to settle Mr. Parris forthwith, and
thereby prove how much more competent they were than "the aged men" to
transact a weighty business, had encouraged Mr. Parris to think that
his favorite object could be accomplished. Upon a little inquiry,
however, they discovered that it could not be done; but that the house
and land were secured by the original deeds of conveyance, and by
irreversible agreements and conditions, to the use of the ministry, for
the time being and for ever. So far as the committee or any of its
members had favored this idea in their conference with Mr. Parris, they
had taken a position from which they had to retreat. They had
compromised themselves and the parish. For this reason, perhaps, they
made no report; and no mention of their agency appears on the records.
How far Deacon Ingersoll was misled by his younger associates on this
occasion, I know not; but he was not a man to break a promise if he
could keep it, no matter how much to his own loss. He recognized his
responsibility as chairman of the unfortunate committee, and retrieved
the mistake they had made, by giving to Mr. Parris, by deed, a lot of
land adjoining the parsonage property, and in value equal to the whole
of it. The date of that conveyance, immediately after Mr. Parris's
ordination, corroborates[i.295] the conjecture that it was made to
compensate Mr. Parris for the failure of his expectation to get
possession of the ministry property. It ought to have been received by
him as an equivalent, and have soothed his angry disappointment; but it
did not. He had indulged the belief, that he had effected a bargain
with the parish, at his settlement, which had made him the owner, in
fee simple, of the parish property; and when he found that the record
of the terms of his settlement, in the parish-book, absolutely
precluded that idea, his exasperation was great, and no reparation
Deacon Ingersoll or any one else could make was suffered to appease it.
The following deposition, made in court some years afterwards, gives an
account of a scene in the meeting-house after Parris's ordination:—
"Ipswich Court, 1697.—Parris _versus_ Inhabitants of Salem Village.
"We the undersigned testify and say, that, a considerable time after
Mr. Parris his ordination, there was a meeting of the inhabitants of
Salem Village at the usual place of meeting; and the occasion of the
meeting was concerning Mr. Parris, and several persons were at that
meeting, that had not, before this meeting, joined with the people in
calling or agreeing with Mr. Parris; and the said persons desired that
those things that concerned Mr. Parris and the people might be read,
and accordingly it was. And the entry, that some call a salary, being
read, there arose a difference among the people, the occasion of which
was finding an entry in the book of the Village records, relating to
Mr. Parris his maintenance, which was dated the 18th of June,[i.296]
1689; and, the entry being read to the people, some replied that they
believed that Mr. Parris would not comply with that entry; whereupon
one said it was best to send for Mr. Parris to resolve the question.
Accordingly, he was sent for. He coming to the people, this entry of
the 18th of June, 1689, was read to Mr. Parris. His answer was as
follows: 'He never heard or knew any thing of it, neither could or
would he take up with it, or any part of it;' and further he said,
'They were knaves and cheaters that entered it.' And Lieutenant
Nathaniel Putnam, being moderator of that meeting, replied to Mr.
Parris, and said, 'Sir, then there is only proposals on both sides, and
no agreement between you and the people.' And Mr. Parris answered and
said, 'No more, there is not; for I am free from the people, and the
people free from me:' and so the meeting broke up. And we further
testify, that there hath not been any agreement made with Mr. Parris,
that we knew of or ever heard of,—never since.
"Joseph Porter.
Daniel Andrew.
Joseph Putnam.
"Sworn in Court, at Ipswich, April 13, 1697, by all three.
Attest, Stephen Sewall, _Clerk_."
The answer which Mr. Parris made to Nathaniel Putnam's inquiry probably
settled the question in the suit then pending, and led to the final
release of the parish from him. It is hard to find any point of
difference between his own account of the conditions he himself made,
and the record of the parish-book, of sufficient importance to account
for the storm of passion[i.297] into which the reading of the latter
drove him, except in the language which I have suggested as the
probable occasion of his wrath. Unfortunately for him, there is
evidence quite corroborative of this suggestion.
The parish-book has the following record:—
"At a general meeting of the inhabitants of Salem Village, Oct. 10,
1689, it was agreed and voted, that the vote, in our book of record of
1681, that lays, as some say, an entailment upon our ministry house and
land, is hereby made void and of no effect; one man only dissenting.
"It was voted and agreed by a general concurrence, that we will give to
Mr. Parris our ministry house and barn, and two acres of land next
adjoining to the house; and that Mr. Parris take office amongst us, and
live and die in the work of the ministry among us; and, if Mr. Parris
or his heirs do sell the house and land, that the people may have the
first refusal of it, by giving as much as other men will. A committee
was chosen to lay out the land, and make a conveyance of the house and
land, and to make the conveyance in the name and in the behalf of the
inhabitants unto Mr. Parris and his heirs."
The record of these votes is not signed by the clerk, and there is no
evidence that the meeting was legally warned. It does not appear in
whose custody the book then was. But, however the entry got in, it
proves that Parris's friends were determined to gratify his all but
insane purpose to get possession of what he ought to have known it was
impossible for the parish to give, or for him or his heirs to hold. It
was indeed a miserable commencement of his ministry, to introduce
such[i.298] a strife with a people who really seem to have had an
earnest desire to receive him with united hearts, and make his
settlement and ministry the harbinger of a better day. But he alienated
many of them, at the very start, by his sharp practice in negotiating
about the pecuniary details of his agreement with the parish. When,
after all their care to prevent it, it became known that somehow or
other a vote had got upon the records, conveying to him outright their
ministerial property, there was great indignation; and a determined
effort was made to recover what they declared to be "a fraudulent
conveying-away" of the property of the society.
A more violent conflict than any before was let loose upon that devoted
people. The old passions were rekindled. Men ranged themselves as the
friends and opponents of Mr. Parris in bitter antagonism. Rates were
not collected; the meeting-house went into dilapidation; complaints
were made to the County Court; orders were issued to collect rates, but
they were disregarded; and all was confusion, disorder, and contention.
A church was organized in connection with the village parish, and Mr.
Parris ordained on Monday, Nov. 19, 1689. The covenant adopted was the
"confession of faith owned and consented unto by the elders and
messengers of the churches assembled at Boston, New England, May 12,
1680." In the library of the Connecticut Historical Society, there is a
manuscript volume of sermons and abstracts of sermons preached[i.299]
by Mr. Parris between November, 1689, and May, 1694. It begins with his
ordination sermon, which has this prefix: "My poor and weak ordination
sermon, at the embodying of a church at Salem Village on the 19th of
the ninth month, 1689, the Rev. Mr. Nicholas Noyes embodying of us; who
also ordained my most unworthy self pastor, and, together with the Rev.
Mr. Samuel Phillips and the Rev. Mr. John Hale, imposed hands,—the same
Mr. Phillips giving me the right hand of fellowship with beautiful
loveliness and humility." The text is from Josh. v. 9: "And the Lord
said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt
from off you."
The first entry in the church-records, after the covenant and the names
of the members, is the following: "Nov. 24, 1689.—Sab: day. Brother
Nathaniel Ingersoll chosen, by a general vote of the brethren, to
officiate in the place of a deacon for a time."
Mr. Parris commenced his administration by showing that he meant to
exercise the disciplinary powers intrusted to him, as pastor of a
church, with a high hand, and without much regard to persons or
circumstances. Ezekiel Cheever had been a member of the mother-church
in Salem twenty years before, was one of the founders of the parish
church, and appears to have been a worthy and amiable person, occupying
and owning the farm of his uncle, Captain Lothrop. On the sudden
illness of a member of his family, being "in distress for a horse,"
none of his own being[i.300] available at the time, he rushed, in his
hurry and alarm, to the stable of a neighbor, took one of his horses,
"without leave or asking of it," and rode, post haste, for a doctor.
One would have thought that an affair of this sort, in such an
exigency, might have been left to neighborly explanation or adjustment.
But Mr. Parris regarded it as giving a good opportunity for an exercise
of power that would strike the terrors of discipline home upon the
whole community. About five or six weeks after the occurrence, Cheever
was dealt with in the manner thus described by Mr. Parris, in his
church-record, dated "Sab: 30 March, 1690." He was "called forth to
give satisfaction to the offended church, as also the last sabbath he
was called forth for the same purpose; but then he failed in giving
satisfaction, by reason of somewhat mincing in the latter part of his
confession, which, in the former, he had more ingenuously acknowledged:
but this day, the church received satisfaction, as was testified by
their holding-up of their hands; and, after the whole, a word of
caution by the pastor was dropped upon the offender in particular, and
upon us all in general."
Mr. Parris was evidently inclined to magnify the importance of the
church, and to get it into such a state of subserviency to his
authority, that he could wield it effectually as a weapon in his fight
with the congregation. With this view, he endeavored to render the
action of the church as dignified and imposing as possible; to enlarge
and expand its ceremonial proceedings, and make it the theatre for the
exercise of[i.301] his authority as its head and ruler. This feature of
his policy was so strikingly illustrated in the course he took in
reference to the deacons, that I must present it as recorded by him in
the church-book. It is worth preserving as a curiosity in
ecclesiastical administration.
Nathaniel Ingersoll had been a professor of religion almost as long as
Mr. Parris had lived. He was eminently a Christian man, of acknowledged
piety, and beloved and revered by all. He had been the patron,
benefactor, and guardian of the parish and all its interests from its
formation. He had long held the title of deacon, and exercised the
functions of that office so far as they could be exercised previous to
the organization of a church. He had been the almoner of the charities
of the people, and their adviser and religious friend in all things. He
was approaching the boundaries of advanced years, and already
recognized among the fathers of the community. It would have seemed no
more than what all might have expected, to have had him recognized as a
deacon of the church, in full standing, at the first. It was, no doubt,
what all did expect. But no: he must be put upon probation. He was
chosen deacon "for the present" in November, 1689. Mr. Parris kept the
matter of confirmation hanging in his own hands for a year and a half.
The appointment of the other deacon was kept suspended for a full year.
On the 30th of November, 1690, there is the following entry:[i.302]—
"This evening, after the public service was over, the church was, by
the pastor, desired to stay, and then by him Brother Edward Putnam was
propounded as a meet person for to be chosen as another deacon. The
issue whereof was, that, it being now an excessive cold day, some did
propose that another season might be pitched upon for discourse
thereof. Whereupon the pastor mentioned the next fourth day, at two of
the clock, at the pastor's house, for further discourse thereof; to
which the church agreed by not dissenting."
The record of the proceedings on the "next fourth day" is as follows:—
"3 December, 1690.—This afternoon, at a church meeting appointed the
last sabbath, Brother Edward Putnam was again propounded to the church
for choice to office in the place of a deacon to join with, and be
assistant to, Brother Ingersoll in the service, and in order to said
Putnam's ordination in the office, upon his well approving himself
therein. Some proposed that two might be nominated to the church, out
of which the church to choose one. But arguments satisfactory were
produced against that way. Some also moved for a choice by papers; but
that way also was disapproved by the arguments of the pastor and some
others. In fine, the pastor put it to vote (there appearing not the
least exception from any, unless a modest and humble exception of the
person himself, once and again), and it was carried in the affirmative
by a universal vote, _nemine non suffragante_.
"Afterwards, the pastor addressed himself to the elected brother, and,
in the name of the church, desired his answer, who replied to this
purpose:[i.303]—
'Seeing, sir, you say the voice of God's people is the voice of God,
desiring your prayers and the prayers of the church for divine
assistance therein, I do accept of the call.'"
When we consider that Edward Putnam was, at Mr. Parris's ordination
more than a year before, and had been for some time previous to that
event, Ingersoll's associate deacon, and that there probably never was
any other person spoken or thought of than these two for deacons, it is
evident that it was Mr. Parris's policy to make a great matter of the
affair, and produce a general feeling of the weighty importance of
church action in the premises. But this was only the beginning of the
long-drawn ceremonial solemnities by which the occasion was magnified.
"Sab: day, 7 December, 1690.—After the evening public service was over,
several things needful were transacted; viz.:—
"1. The pastor acquainted those of the church that were ignorant of it,
that Brother Edward Putnam was chosen deacon the last church meeting.
"2. He also generally admonished those of the brethren that were absent
at that time, of their disorderliness therein, telling them that such,
the apostle bids, should be noted or marked (2 Thess. iii. 6-16); that
is, with a church mark,—a mark in a disciplinary way; and therefore
begged amendment for the future in that point and to that purpose.
"3. He propounded whether they so far were satisfied in Brother
Ingersoll's service as to call him to settlement in[i.304] the
deaconship by ordination, or had aught against it. But no brother made
personal exception. Therefore, it being put to vote, it was carried in
the affirmative by a plurality, if not universality.
"4. The Lord's Table, not being provided for with aught else but two
pewter tankards, the pastor propounded and desired that the next
sacrament-day, which is to be the 21st instant, there be a more open
and liberal contribution by the communicants, that so the deacons may
have wherewith to furnish the said table decently; which was consented
to."
The last clause, "which was consented to," is in a smaller hand than
the rest of the record. It was written by Mr. Parris, but apparently
some time afterwards, and with fainter ink. There is reason to suppose
that nothing was accomplished at that time in the way of getting rid of
the "pewter tankards." The farmers were too hard pressed by taxes
imposed by the province, and by the weight of local assessments, to
listen to fanciful appeals. They probably continued for some time, and
perhaps until after receiving Deacon Ingersoll's legacy, in 1720, to
get along as they were. They did not believe, that, in order to
approach the presence, and partake of the memorials, of the Saviour, it
was necessary to bring vessels of silver or gold. In their
circumstances, gathered in their humble rustic edifice for worship,
they did not feel that, in the sight of the Lord, costly furniture
would add to the adornment of his table.
Nearly six months after Putnam's election, Mr.[i.305] Parris brought up
the matter again at a meeting of the church, on the 31st of May, 1691,
and made a speech relating to it, which he entered on the records
thus:—
"The pastor spoke to the brethren to this purpose, viz.:—
"Brethren,—The ordination of Brother Ingersoll has already been voted a
good while since, and I thought to have consummated the affair a good
time since, but have been put by, by diversity of occurrents; and,
seeing it is so long since, I think it needless to make two works of
one, and therefore intend the ordination of Brother Putnam together
with Brother Ingersoll in the deaconship, if you continue in the same
mind as when you elected him: therefore, if you are so, let a vote
manifest it. Voted by all, or at least the most. I observed none that
voted not."
At last the mighty work was accomplished. Deacon Ingersoll had been on
probation for eighteen months from the date of his election, which took
place five days after Mr. Parris's ordination. His final induction to
office was observed with great formality, and in the presence of the
whole congregation. Mr. Parris enters the order of performances in the
church records as follows:—
"Sab: 28 June, 1691.—After the afternoon sermon upon 1 Tim. iii. 8, 9,
10, 11, 12, 13, as the brethren had renewed their call of Brother
Ingersoll to the office of a deacon, and he himself had declared his
acceptance, the pastor proceeded to ordain him, using the form
following:
"Beloved Brother, God having called you to the office[i.306] of a
deacon by the choice of the brethren and your own acceptance, and that
call being now to be consummated according to the primitive pattern, 6
Acts 6, by prayer and imposition of hands,—
"We do, therefore, by this solemnity, declare your investiture into
that office, solemnly charging you in the name of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the King of his Church, who walks in the midst of his golden
candlesticks, with eyes as of a flame of fire, exactly observing the
demeanor of all in his house, both officers and members, that you labor
so to carry it, as to evidence you are sanctified by grace, qualified
for this work, and to grow in those qualifications; behaving of
yourself gravely, sincerely, temperately, with due care for the
government of your own house, holding the mystery of the faith in a
pure conscience; that as they in this office are called 'helps,' so you
be helpful in your place and capacity, doing what is your part for the
promoting of the work of Christ here. We do charge you, that, whatever
you do in this office, you do it faithfully, giving with simplicity,
showing mercy with cheerfulness. Look on it, brother, as matter of
care, and likewise of encouragement, that both the office itself and
also your being set up in it is of God, who, being waited upon, will be
with you, and accept you therein, assisting you to use the office of a
deacon well, so as that you may be blameless, purchasing to yourself a
good degree and great boldness in the faith.
"Note.—That Brother Putnam was not yet willing to be ordained, but
desired further considering time, between him and I and Brother
Ingersoll, in private discourse the week before the ordination above
said."
"Brother Putnam" probably partook of the general[i.307] wonder what all
this appearance of difficulty and delay, under the peculiar
circumstances of the case, meant; and being, as the record truly says,
a modest and humble man, he naturally shrank from the formidable
ceremoniousness and pretentious parade with which Mr. Parris surrounded
the transaction. At any rate, he hesitated long before he was willing
to encounter it. It is probable that he positively refused to have his
induction to the office heralded with such solemn pomp. There is no
mention of his public ordination, which Mr. Parris would not have
omitted to record, had any such scene occurred. All we know is that he
was recognized as deacon forthwith, and held the office for forty
years.
The disposition of Mr. Parris to make use of his office, as the head of
the church, to multiply occasions for the exercise of his influence,
and to gain control over the minds of the brethren, is apparent
throughout his records. He raised objections in order to show how he
could remove them, and started difficulties about matters which had not
before been brought into question. In the beginning of his ministry, he
manifested this propensity. At a church meeting at John Putnam's house,
Feb. 20, 1690, less than three months after his ordination, he threw
open the whole question of baptism for discussion among the brethren.
There is no reason to suppose that their attention had been drawn to it
before. He propounded the question to the plain, practical husbandmen,
"Who are the proper subjects of baptism?" He laid down the true[i.308]
doctrine, as he regarded it, in this answer, "Covenant-professing
believers and their infant seed." He put the answer to vote, and none
voted against it. He then proceeded with another question, "How far may
we account such seed infant seed, and so to be baptized?" Here he had
got beyond their depth, and, as some of them thought, his own too; for
there was only a "major vote" in favor of his answer: "two or three, I
think not four, dissented." There was some danger of getting into
divisions by introducing such questions; but he managed to avoid it, so
far as his church was concerned. He worked them up to the highest
confidence in his learning and wisdom, and gained complete ascendency
over them. He aggrandized their sense of importance, and accomplished
his object in securing their support in his controversies with his
congregation. The brethren, after a while, became his devoted
body-guard, and the church a fortress of defence and assault. There is
reason, however, to believe, that the points he raised on the subject
of baptism led to perplexities, in some minds, which long continued to
disturb them. While showing off his learning, and displaying his
capacity to dispose of the deep questions of theology, he let fall
seeds of division and doubt that ripened into contention in subsequent
generations. The only ripple on the surface of the Village Church
during its long record of peace, since the close of his disastrous
ministry, was occasioned by differing opinions on this subject. It
required all the wisdom of his successors to quiet them. From time to
time, formulas had[i.309] to be constructed, half-way covenants of
varying expressions to be framed, to meet and dispose of the
difficulties thus gratuitously raised by him.
The following passages from his record-book show how he made much of a
matter which any other pastor would have quietly arranged without
calling for the intervention of church or congregation: they are also
interesting as a picture of the times:—
"Sab: 9 Aug. 1691.—After all public worship was over, and the church
stayed on purpose, I proposed to the church whether they were free to
admit to baptism, upon occasion, such as were not at present free to
come up to full communion. I told them there was a young woman, by name
Han: Wilkins, the daughter of our Brother Thomas Wilkins, who much
desired to be baptized, but yet did not dare to come to the Lord's
Supper. If they had nothing against it, I should take their silence for
consent, and in due time acquaint them with what she had offered me to
my satisfaction, and proceed accordingly."
No answer was made _pro_ or _con_, and so the church was dismissed.