again. May 26, 1658, the following order was passed by the General Court, viz.: "that Major-General Daniel Denison diligently peruse, examine, and weigh every law, and compare them with others of like nature; and such as are clear, plain, and good, free from any just exception, to stand without any animadversion as approved; such as are repealed, or fit to be repealed, to be so marked and the reasons given; such as are obscure, contradictory, or seeming so, to be rectified, and the emendations prepared. When there is two or more laws about one and the same thing, to prepare a draught of one law, that may comprehend the same; to make a plain and easy table, and to prepare what else may present in the perusing of them to be necessary and useful, and make return at the next session of this Court." (Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 337.)

Denison was not negligent in his work; for in five months the Court were able to send the fruit of it to the printer, appointing Mr. Danforth "to oversee the impression." (Ibid., 422.)

The volume thus produced is extremely rare. The Massachusetts Historical Society has a copy, and the library of Dane College in our University of Cambridge, another; the latter, wanting the title-page. The body of the book consists of eighty-eight pages, including six pages of forms of legal process and of oaths. The Titles are arranged in alphabetical order; and, for further convenience in consultation, a good " Alphabetical Table" is appended.

A few statements will sufficiently describe that ecclesiastical order, existing by law in Massachusetts, in 1658, which was not unlikely to be the first

object of attack, if the ancient gov ernment of England should be restored. Laws of this class may be arranged, according to their objects, under the following heads.

1. Religious institutions were to be supported. Each town, as a corporation, was legally bound to provide for its minister a convenient habitation and competent support; and, in cases of neglect, the County Court was to interfere, and enforce the obligation. (Code of 1658, pp. 26, 27.) 2. Any sufficient number of persons might form a church. But, if this was done without the approbation of "the Magistrates and the Elders of the neighbor churches," the members of that church obtained no title to the franchise of the Colony. (Ibid., 25.) 3. Churches had liberty to manage their own affairs. But no church censure was of force to

66

degrade or depose any man from any civil dignity, office, or authority;" the government had "power and liberty to see the peace, ordinances, and rules of Christ be observed in every church;" and no person might "publicly and constantly preach to any company of people, whether in church society or not, or be ordained to the office of a Teaching Elder, where any two organic churches, Council of State, or General Court, should declare its dissatisfaction thereat. . . . . . In case of ordination of any teaching elder, timely notice was to be given unto three or four of the neighboring organic churches for their approbation." (Ibid., 25, 26. The last of these provisions was made in 1658, the year when the laws were consolidated; and a reference in its preamble to "this hour of temptation, wherein the enemy designeth to sow corrupt seed," points to the English

.....

Quakers, Ranters, Levellers, &c.; comp. Mass. Rec., IV. (i.) 122, 151.) 4. A person guilty of "contemptuous behavior towards the word preached, or the messengers thereof," by interruptions, or false charges of error "in the open face of the church," was for a second offence to "pay five pounds to the public treasury, or stand two hours openly upon a block or stool, four foot high, on a lecture day, with a paper fixed on his breast, written in capital letters, 'An open and obstinate contemner of God's holy ordinances; "" and whoever should "go about to disturb or destroy the order and peace of the churches.... either upon pretence that the churches were not planted by any new apostle, or that ordinances are for carnal Christians, or for babes in Christ, . . . . . or upon any other such like groundless conceit," was to "forfeit to the public treasury forty shillings for every month, so long as he should continue in that his obstinacy." (Code of 1658, p. 26.) 5. Absence from public worship "without just and necessary cause," was made punishable by a fine of five shillings. 6. Banishment was the penalty for obstinate persistence in attempts "to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion by broaching and maintaining any damnable heresies," such as the law proceeded to specify, including the denial of "the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful authority to make war.” (Ibid., 34.) 7. Blasphemy, as defined in several specifications, was a capital offence. (Ibid., 8.) 8. Violations of the Sabbath, by "playing, uncivil walking, drinking, travelling from town to town, going on shipboard, sporting, or any way misspending that precious time," were made punishable by an admonition for the

first offence, and a fine of five shillings for the second, and of ten shillings for the third. (Ibid., 69.)

Whether it was owing to solicitude as to the course of affairs in England after the downfall of the royal power, or to the absence of the moderating influence of Winthrop, or to sentiments engendered, on the one hand, by the alarm from the Presbyterians in 1646, and, on the other, by the confidence inspired by the Synod of 1648, or to all these causes in their degree, the years 1650 and 1651 appear to have been a time of some more than common sensibility in Massachusetts to danger from heretics. In the former year, the General Court, coming together in October, were horrified by "the sight of a book, lately printed [in London] under the name of William Pynchon," and " brought over by a ship a few days" before. It was "entituled The Meritorious Price of our Redemption, Justification, &c., clearing it from some Common Errors,' &c.," and contained "many errors and heresies generally condemned by all orthodox writers." (Mass. Rec., III. 215.) In a "Discourse acted between a Tradesman and a Divine," it maintained, “1. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable torments of God's wrath that commonly are called hell torments" (pp. 1-9); “2. That Christ did not bear our sins by God's imputation, and therefore he did not bear the curse of the law for them" (9-83); "3. That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, not by suffering the said curse for us, but," &c.

In short, its doctrine was directly in the face of that law of Massachusetts, passed four years before, (Mass. Rec.,

II. 177; comp. Code of 1658, p. 34,) which condemned to banishment whosoever should "go about to subvert and destroy the Christian faith and religion by broaching and maintaining" certain "damnable heresies," among which was specified that of "denying that Christ gave himself a ransom for our sins." The Court had no way of escape. The existence of the law passed, very probably, with little thought as to this particular, so unlikely to be infringed - was notorious. The violation of it was unquestionable, and matter of public scandal. Whom ever else the law thus affronted could afford to spare, and yet retain its authority, it could not afford to bow before an ancient and venerated Magistrate. Such a submission would have been a death-blow to its credit with the people.

66

The Court accordingly put on its most awful frown. By a formal "declaration and protestation," designed partly for the clearing of itself to Christian brethren and others in England," whither it was "sent to be printed," it signified to "all men" that it "utterly disliked and detested" the book. It directed that a "sufficient answer" should be prepared "by one of the reverend Elders;" that Mr. Pynchon should “ appear before the next General Court to answer;" and that his book should "be burned by the executioner in the marketplace in Boston, on the morrow, immediately after the lecture." (Mass. Rec., III. 215, 216.)

......

By the arguments of Mr. Cotton, Mr. Norris, and Mr. Norton,—the last being appointed to answer his book, Pynchon was brought to appear before the Court, in May, 1651, with some

sort of recantation of his errors. But as it was not thought to prove more than that he was "in a hopeful way to give good satisfaction," he was dismissed with an injunction to appear again at the next session. (Ibid., 229, 230.) At the next session, which was in October, he probably was not present. He was then "enjoined, under the penalty of one hundred pounds, to make his personal appearance at and before the next General Court, to give a full answer to satisfaction, if it may be, or otherwise to stand to the judgment and censure of the Court.” (Ibid., 257.) What the judg ment and censure of the Court would have been, had the affair proceeded, cannot be known. The Court was disembarrassed by his voluntary departure, before the next spring, for England, where, in the tenth year afterwards, he ended his days. Sir Henry Vane wrote to the Magistrates, complaining of the course which they had taken, and was answered in a joint letter by nine of them, including Bellingham (Mass. Hist. Coll., XXI. 35–37), who worked more kindly with his associates now that Winthrop was no more. The Court gave their thanks and twenty pounds "to Mr. John Norton for his worthy pains in his full answer to Mr. Pynchon's book " (Mass. Rec., III. 239), and sent it to England to be printed. (Ibid., 248.)

It was accordingly published there, in 1653, with the title, "A Discussion of that great Point in Divinity, the Sufferings of Christ," &c. It consists of 270 pages. In an Appendix is a letter from the ministers, Cotton, Mather, Symmes, Wilson, and Tompson, in which they say that, when Pynchon's book reached Boston, a vessel was

just about to sail thence for England; and that the General Court hastened their action accordingly. In 1655 Pynchon published in London an answer to Norton, in 440 pages, quarto, which he dedicated to Oliver St. John, esteeming him "to be an able Judge, not only in those controversies that concern the common laws of the land, but also in divine controversies."

About the same time the General Court had a difficulty with the church of Malden. Mr. Marmaduke Matthews, having "given offence to Magistrates, Elders, and many brethren, in some unsafe, if not unsound, expressions in his public teaching," and the church of Malden having proceeded to ordain him, in disregard of remonstrances from "both Magistrates, ministers, and churches," Matthews was fined ten pounds for assuming the sacred office in these circumstances, and the church was summoned to make its defence (Mass. Rec., III. 237); which failing to do satisfactorily, it was punished by a fine of fifty pounds, Mr. Hathorne, Mr. Leverett, and seven other Deputies, recording their votes against the sentence. (Ibid., 250; comp. 276, 389.)

In 1649, the Second Church of Boston was formed, and a house of worship was erected on the north side of North Square. After some ineffectual attempts to obtain a minister, Michael Powell, a gifted brother, and the highest on the list of seven who originally constituted the church (Robbins, History of the Second Church, &c. 7.; comp. Mass. Rec., III. 66, 121), was chosen to be its Teacher. The General Court interposed with "loving advice" to desist from any further proceeding, on account of Mr. Powell's want of" such ability, learning, and qualifications as

are requisite and necessary for an able ministry of the Gospel." (Mass. Rec., III. 293, 294; comp. 331, 359.) He modestly withdrew his pretensions, in a letter which showed him to have every other preparation except book knowledge (Mass. Hist. Col., XXI. 45-47), and was invested with the office of Ruling Elder.

The salaries paid to ministers in the County of Suffolk, in 1657, appear in a report of a committee of the General Court. The highest, £ 100, was that of Mr. Thatcher, of Weymouth; the lowest, £ 40, was that of the minister of Hull. They were paid in corn and labor. The ministers of the First Church of Boston were not maintained by stated salaries. (Ibid., 49.)

1 In its twelfth year (May 23, 1650) the College was, by the General Court, made a Corporation, consisting of “a President, five Fellows, and a Treasurer or Bursar," to have perpetual succession. The Overseers, constituted by the original Act, were continued in their trust, for the exercise of certain powers specified in the new Charter; and Henry Dunster was named as the first President. (Mass. Rec., III. 195; IV. (i.) 12.) Whatever uneasiness may have been felt on account of Dunster's well-known leaning to Anabaptist opinions, his eminent worth and accomplishments had kept him, not only undisturbed, but greatly honored, at the head of the College for now ten years. He remained in that place four years longer; at the end of which time (May 3, 1654) appears a vote of the General Court, " commending it to the pious consideration and special care of the officers of the College, and the selectmen of the several towns, not to permit or suffer any such to be con

Virtual independence in respect to England.

tinued in the office or place of teaching, educating, or instructing of youth or child, in the College or schools, that have manifested themselves unsound in the faith, or scandalous in their lives, and not giving due satisfaction according to the rules of Christ; forasmuch as it greatly concerns the welfare of the country, that the youth thereof be educated not only in good literature, but sound doctrine." (Ibid., III. 343, 344.) I take it for granted that Dunster considered this as a blow aimed at him; for in the next month he sent in his resignation, which the Court ungraciously accepted. (Ibid., 352; IV. (i.) 182.) His "life," no man doubted, was of the noblest and purest. The particular intolerable offence, which his "unsoundness in the faith," so long borne with, had now given, was not specified. It may probably be found in a recent conversation of his with Jonathan Mitchell, minister of Cambridge. Mitchell related, that on the 24th of December, 1653, he came away from an interview with Dunster with such a strange confusion and sickliness upon his spirit," as "interrupted his study for the Sabbath," and "made him fearful to go needlessly to Mr. Dunster, for he thought he found a venom and poison in his insinuations and discourses against pædobaptism." Mitchell's perturbation of mind was evidently so great, that it is likely he did not divulge the matter at once;

66

and when he did, it must have occasioned a strong excitement in reference to Dunster's station in the College; for how could the babes of grace be trusted with a man, who had thrown "matchless Mitchell" off his balance? At all events, the time was one of peculiar uneasiness in respect to the encroachments of Baptists (see above, p. 346, et seq.); and it may be that Dunster, after the treatment which his fellow-believers from Rhode Island had received, felt self-rebuked for his silence, and that this was what prompted him "to bear his testimony in some sermons against the administration of baptism to any infant," as Mather says he did. (Magnalia, Book IV. Chap. IV. § 10.)

Mr. Charles Chauncy, formerly of Plymouth and Scituate (see Vol. I. 546, Bradford, 384), was chosen to be Dunster's successor. Before coming to America, he had been Professor of Greek, and afterwards of Hebrew, in the English University of Cambridge. While he possessed distinguished fitness for the place which he was now to fill, his unsound theory in respect to the mode of baptism and of the celebration of the Lord's supper was perhaps regarded with less displeasure by the government, as it would tend to protect them against that charge of intolerance which their recent action had provoked. He was however required, and he consented, to engage that he