once more self-confident and more endangered - Colony of Massachusetts, to have been the only one in which Quakers who refused to absent themselves were condemned to die. Her right to her territory was absolute, deplorable as was the extreme assertion of it. No householder has a more unqualified title to declare who shall have the shelter of his roof, than had the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay to decide who should be sojourners or visitors within their precincts. Their danger was real, though the experiment proved it to be far less than was at first supposed. The provocations which were offered were exceedingly offensive. It is hard to say what should have been done with disturbers so unmanageable. But that one thing should not have been done till they had become more mischievous, is plain enough. They should not have been put to death. Sooner than put them to death, it were devoutly to be wished that the annoyed dwellers in Massachusetts had opened their hospitable drawing-rooms to naked women, and suffered their ministers to ascend the pulpits by steps paved with fragments of glass bottles. The reader is aware that in Massachusetts there had been from an early period a law against Baptists, which had for the most part remained a dead letter, Proceedings though in one important instance it had been against carried rigorously into effect.1 A A congregation 17; compare Hening, Statutes at Large, II. 181.) Howgill (Popish Inquisition, &c., 6-9) narrates at length "the grievous suffering of Robert Hodshon [a Friend] by the Governor of the Dutch Plantations in New England." But Hodshon gave up the point, and went away. For an account of Hodshon's case and several others like it, see Brodhead, History of New York, 637–639, 643, 689. Baptists. anabaptistery, &c.," led to an investigation, which, as far as we know, ended in nothing. (Mass. Rec., II. 253.) In the same year, according to Backus (History, &c., iv.), a person of the name of Samuel Hubbard, and his wife, went from Connecticut to Newport, because, according to Hubbard's account, in consequence of being "enlightened" as to “baptizing only visible believers,” they were "threatened with imprisonIn ment to Hartford gaol, if they did not renounce it or remove.” 1 See above, pp. 346-354. 1648, some "misdemeanor" of a Deputy from Dover, "with profession of 1665. 1666. 1668. of that sect, which was organized at Charlestown, gave special offence by receiving to the communion persons who had been excommunicated by other churches. Its meetings were forbidden, but were not discontinued. Five of the members, being freemen, were acOct. 11. cordingly disfranchised; and two, Thomas Gold and Thomas Osborn, were sent to prison, where they remained nearly a year.1 After their discharge, Sept. 11. the meetings were resumed; and three leaders were sentenced to be banished from the jurisdicMay 27. tion, under the penalty of imprisonment, should they venture to return. A petition, with influential signatures, was presented against this measure; and, though it was not granted, no pains appear to have been taken to prosecute the offenders. Nothing further respecting the Baptists occurs in the records for twelve years, and in two years more the agents of the Colony in England had instructions to represent: "As for the Anabaptists, they are now subject to no other penal statutes than those of the Congregational way." 4 A question respecting the rite of baptism, different Nov. 7. According to Samuel Willard (Ne Sutor ultra Crepidam, 13), Gold had "used unbecoming gestures in the time of administration [of baptism], of which being asked the reason, he, before the congregation, acknowledged they were to cast disrespect upon it;" and Osborn, when his practices began, did "not so much as pretend any doubt about infant baptism." (Ibid., 15.) 2 Mass. Rec., IV. (ii.) 290, 316, 373; comp. Mather, Magnalia, VII. 26 – 30. An indication of the feeling which prevailed is seen in the republication, this year, at Cambridge, of a translation of Guy de Brez's exciting book, then a hundred years old, on "The Rise, Spring, and Foundation of the Anabaptists." Had the Magistrates of Massachusetts known all that Lord "that Clarendon knew, they might have tism in the tional Church. from the questions which were presented by the Baptists, occasioned at the same time a lively contention Questions rewithin the Congregational Church itself. Ac- specting bapcording to the original scheme of that Church, Congregathe proper subjects of baptism were such believers, hitherto unbaptized, as desired admission into the church and to the Lord's Supper, and the infant children of church-members in full standing, that is, of communicants. In the lapse of years, numbers, who had been baptized in infancy, but who were not ready for the tests of admission into the church, had now become heads of families. What was their ecclesiastical position? Were they, through their baptism, in any sense members of the church? If so, were they not entitled to have their children baptized? Or, if not so entitled already, might they not become so, by expressly assuming the engagements which at baptism had been made for them by their parents? These questions naturally led to others. Were not the terms of admission to the Lord's Supper, and to full membership in the church, too strict? Ought a relation of personal religious experience to be rigidly insisted on, as a condition? Had not all baptized persons of regular life a right to be received to the communiontable? Some went even further than this, and asked, whether all members of a congregation, who contributed to its support, had not a right to act in the election of its officers with those members of the church to whom hitherto that prerogative had exclusively belonged. The dispute first assumed form and practical importance in the church of Hartford. The Reverend Mr. Stone, whom the reader remembers as the chaplain of Captain Mason's party in the Pequot war,1 had done some act in relation to baptism or to the communion, which by Governor Webster, the Magistrates Whiting and Cullick, and several other members of his congregation, was re 1 See Vol. I. 463. garded as of latitudinarian tendency. One council after Controversy another was convoked, and vainly endeavored Ministers and messento compose the feud. in the church of Hartford. 1656. 1654, 1655. gers came from Massachusetts, but their efforts had no better success. The General Court of Connecticut appointed a committee of four leading men to confer with the ministers of the Colony, and, with their assistance, to prepare such a statement of the matters May. in debate as should be a basis for consulting the several governments of the Confederacy.1 It was drawn up and circulated accordingly, being digested in twenty-one questions. The General Court of Massachusetts advised that it should be submitted at Boston to a Synod of divines from the several Colonies, and appointed a delegation of fifteen distinguished ministers.2 Connecticut accepted the proposal, and nominated on her part four ministers, of whom Mr. Stone was one.3 Plymouth took no action in the matter. New Haven, attached to the old system, and fearful of the consequences of the present movement, refused to have a part in it, and sent a letter of warning, and a full answer to the questions, both Oct. 14. 1657. Feb. 26. Feb. 25. prepared by Mr. Davenport.* Synod of Con The Synod met in Boston, and sat two or three weeks Its Result was embodied in full answers to the necticut and questions which had been proposed. It favored some of the views which had been recently gaining ground. In particular, as to the case of such Massachu setts. June 4. 1 Conn. Rec., I. 281. 2 Mass. Rec., III. 419, IV. (i.) 280. 3 Conn. Rec., I. 288-291. 4 N. H. Rec., II. 195 – 198. - In the British Museum, among the Lansdowne manuscripts (Catalogue, p. 184, Nos. 72-93), there are twenty-two autograph manuscripts belonging to this controversy. The last of them is a letter from Davenport. I examined the collection, when in London; and since, by the kindness of a friend, have a full abstract of them. But they are not instructive to the reader of the present day, even so far as to afford him information concerning the precise occasion of the original dispute. 5 It was printed in London in 1659, in a quarto volume, with the title, “A Disputation concerning Church-Members and their Children." See it in Hubbard, 563 – 569. baptized persons as, without being prepared to come to the Lord's Supper, were of fair character and would own for themselves their baptismal obligations, it decided that they ought to be allowed to present their children for baptism; and that, on the other hand, should they refuse, when called upon, to assume those obligations, they were properly liable to the censure of the church. It would seem naturally to follow, though that consequence was not admitted, that baptized adults of good character had a right to vote in the election of church officers, and in Massachusetts to be invested with the political franchise; for it would be unequal that participation in the liabilities of churchmembership should be disconnected from participation in its privileges. The decision of the Synod had no legal efficacy; no such efficacy was given to it by any General Court; and the dispute was imbittered rather than assuaged. The Hartford church, of which a majority adhered to Mr. Stone and approved the decision of the Synod, was proceeding to discipline its refractory members, when 1 1658. the General Court interposed in behalf of those March 11 magistrates who were imperilled, and commanded the church to desist, till measures of conciliation should be further attempted. They continued to be tried, to as little purpose as before. One ecclesiastical council after another was convened, but separated in disappointment and sorrow. Ministers came from Massachusetts, but could bring about no accommodation. The Federal Commissioners deprecated in vain "the sad effects and dreadful consequences of dissensions heightened and increased in a church of such eminence for light and love."2 Stone stood upon his right, and the right of his church, to regulate their own affairs by their own discretion, and to execute ecclesiastical judg 1 Conn. Rec., I. 312. 2 Records, &c., in Hazard, II. 366. |