History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix, Part 11

Author: Sumner, William H. (William Hyslop), 1780-1861. cn
Publication date: 1858
Publisher: Boston, J. E. Tilton
Number of Pages: 883


USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston; with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix > Part 11
USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > East Boston > History of East Boston : with biographical sketches of its early proprietors, and an appendix. > Part 11


Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72


No further notice was taken of him, although he still con- tinued absent for more than five years ; nor until he had begun to hold meetings upon the Sabbath in his own house. Upon this new offence, he received, in February, 1664, a second "admonition" for "schism," and for refusing to make any explanations regarding " a private meeting kept at his house on the Lord's day."


At the same time, Osborne, who in the preceding November had been "admonished" together with his wife, the former for "anabaptism," the latter, not only for that, but also for what the church styled " Quakerism," received a second censure. The object of the church in this proceeding being still unat- tained, and, in addition to the former reasons, it appearing that these persons had formed themselves into a church, they were summoned to meet the Charlestown church to account for their withdrawal. They refused to appear; a further delay was had, a second summons being in the mean time issued, which met with the same result. After still a third notifica- tion, on the 30th of July, 1665, Gould, Osborne, and Mrs. Osborne were, for "withdrawing from the church and neglect- ing to hear the church," formally excommunicated.


Had these persons been subjected to no more violent pro- ceedings than these of the Charlestown church, they would have had slight cause to complain. That their principles were in several respects irreconcilable with those of their former church ; that the manner in which their opinions were ex- pressed was far from conciliatory and respectful; that the pro- ceedings against them were neither hurried nor unlawful; and


118


HISTORY.


[1665.


that their treatment of the church's authority was certainly not according to usage, is clearly evident. In the cases of Gould and Osborne, the final action was taken for long withdrawal from public worship, and refusal to meet the charges against them; Osborne complaining that they "gave no liberty to several brethren to prophesye," and "that they limited the min- istry to learned men." In the case of Osborne's wife, action was taken for "her notorious neglect of the public worship of God, denying our churches to be true churches, and also the church's power over her ;" in that of John Farnum, one of the first members, - having been early a member of the Dorchester church, and afterwards of the Second Church in Boston, -it was "for renouncing communion with the church, holding familiarity with excommunicated persons, slanders against several holy and worthy men," and in persisting to refuse com- munion with the church except upon the preposterous condi- tions that "they must set up the ordinance of prophecy ; promise to baptize no more infants; all be baptized (i. e. rebaptized) themselves; put away their present teacher (Rev. Mr. Mayo) from his office." As they denied the Puritan churches to be churches, and "did not consider that any but practical believers who had been baptized upon a profession of faith (thus excluding the great bulk of church-members) could be visible members of the church of Christ,"1 it is difficult to see how the churches could have taken any different action. Indeed, soon after, the Baptist church itself excommunicated Farnum for the same offence of withdrawing from worship and refusing to hear the church, as we shall see. But when the state brought its force to bear against these few conscientious and powerless men and women, the subject takes a different aspect; for, although their conduct was in many respects unjus- tifiable, neglect would have rendered harmless those whom force exalted into martyrs.


.


For the first ten years this church appears to have held its meetings mostly at Noddle's Island. In August following its formation, their place of meeting was not publicly known; for the constable of Charlestown was directed to use his endeavors


1 Hist. First Bap. Church, Boston, 1853.


119


WORSHIP AT NODDLE'S ISLAND.


1666-74.]


to discover it. But in the next April (1666) they plead in court that they steadly attended public worship; which open statement, with the legacy in the will of Henry Shrimpton, July 17, 1666, already quoted, makes it evident that their place of gathering was then well known; though when these meet- ings were first held there, and at just what time Gould moved there (which were apparently coincident), it is impossible to tell; yet it seems evident that it was as early as the summer of 1665. Drake says:1 " The date of the first Baptist church in Boston is reckoned from the time of Mr. Gould's removal to Noddle's Island, ascertained to be in the year 1668. From this date the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary was celebrated in 1818." This is an error, as various circumstances go to show that Gould resided at the Island two or three years previous to 1668.


In 1668 the church had increased to eighteen members; and for some years, as appears from their correspondence, they were known as the " Church of Jesus Christ worshipping at Noddle's Island in New England." Samuel Hubbard of Newport, R. I., so addressed them in Nov. 1671. In Nov., 1670, Drinker, in a letter to Clarke and his church at Newport, says, " Warrants are in two Marshal's hands for brother Gould, but he is not yet taken because he lives in Noddle's Island, and they wish to take him at town." And again, " we keep a meeting at Noddle's Island every first day, and the Lord is adding some souls to us still, and is enlightening some others. The priests are much enraged." 2 Under date of 1674, Capt. John Hull, in his MS. Diary, writes, " This sumer the Anabaptists yt were wont to meet at Noddle's Island met at Boston on ye Lords Day. One Mr. Symond Lind letteth one of them an house which was formerly Mr. Rucks."


At this time half a dozen of these brethren were living at Woburn, among whom were Elder John Russell, Senr., who held meetings with them on the Sabbath, when they could not go to the Island. As, besides having " set up the ordinance of prophesies," which thereby allowed all members to take part in their meetings, they had several elders, it is not probable that


1 Hist. Boston, p. 378.


2 Backus, Hist. Bap. I. 398.


120


HISTORY.


[1668.


these meetings were discontinued at that time, although Gould was in prison. Drinker is styled " Reverend," and Isaac Hill, the first person admitted after the organization, is included among their ministers. But Gould, while he lived, was regarded as their pastor, and his residence at Noddle's Island, until the erection of a church at Boston twelve years after- ward, was their house of worship. " Little is known of him," says the brief history of the church already quoted, " more than that he suffered much from the bigotry of his opponents, and was founder of the church which included almost the whole of the Baptist interests in the colony of Massachusetts for more than forty years."


The laws, whose severity Gould and his associates were made to feel for the ensuing ten years, were by no means new enactments, nor did all of them have special reference to the Baptists. Such was the first in point of time, passed in 1635, which forbade citizens from "meeting upon the Lord's day " under a penalty of imprisonment and a fine not exceeding five shillings for each offence, to be imposed by any two assistants ; and which was reenacted with more fulness in 1646. Such also was the law of March 3d, 1635, which rendered illegal the formation of a new church without the consent of " the magis- trates, and the elders of the greater part of the churches ; " a law intended for those of the established faith, and considered necessary in a country so thinly settled as to render a multi- plying of churches not only troublesome as to harmony, but burdensome as to support, and which bore with especial sever- ity on those who not only subdivided, but renounced the fellowship of, the churches which they abandoned. The law, however, which was intended directly for such cases, was passed 13th Nov., 1644, against the Anabaptists ; that, after recapitu- lating the troubles which had arisen from these people in other commonwealths as they "who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors," and mentions that " divers of this kind" had appeared in Massachusetts who denied the ordinance of magistracy and the lawfulness of mak- ing war, declares that all persons who should offend in the specified particulars shall be banished. It is fair, however, to notice the statement of the general court, two years after, that


121


THE BAPTISTS ADMONISHED.


1665.]


those who differed merely in judgment in point of baptism and live peaceably amongst us" were not to be molested; to which the venerable Increase Mather, in 1681, adds his unim- peachable testimony, that he had never known "those that scruple Infant Baptism to be molested merely on the account of their opinion ; " and he bases the propriety of the banishment of such as created trouble upon the fact that they themselves had, at great labor and sacrifice, transported themselves and their families into a "Wilderness that so they might be a pecul- iar People by themselves," and appeals to their opponents " to do as they would be done by, and deal with us as they would have us to deal with them were they in our case and we in theirs."


There was a law enacted on the 4th Nov., 1646, against any person who should go about to destroy or disturb the order of the churches by open renouncing their church state or their ministry, or other ordinance, upon various specified " pretences," for which the penalty was 40s. per month, " so long as he con- tinue in his obstinacy."


Under all these enactments were the Baptists prosecuted. In less than three months after the church was gathered, 20th Aug., 1665, the constable of Charlestown was directed to dis- cover the place of meeting of Gould and his associates, and in case of failure to report their names and places of abode to some magistrate.1 In consequence, perhaps, of the latter direc- tion, Gould, Turner, Osborne, and George were summoned in September before the court of assistants held at Boston, and " legally convicted of a schismatical opposition to the churches of Christ here settled, and of profaning the holy appointment of Christ, and in special, the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper, by administering the same to persons under censure of an offended church among us, and presuming, as a covert of their irreligious and pernicious practices, to declare themselves to be a church of Christ." 2 No penalty was inflicted at this time beyond an admonition to desist from their meetings and irre- ligious practices ; but in October, on their own acknowledged disregard of this advice and their expressed determination to


1 Backus, Hist. Bap. I. 371.


2 Mass. Records, Vol. IV. Part 2, p. 290. 11


122


HISTORY.


[1666-8.


persist, they were disfranchised, and made liable, upon convic- tion before any magistrate, to be imprisoned during the pleas- ure of the general court.


In April following (1666) they were "presented" in the county court at Cambridge, " for absenting themselves from the public worship." They replied, referring to their meeting at Noddle's Island, that they constantly attended such worship. The court decided that that was not a lawful assembly; and Gould and Osborne were fined £4 each, and required, in bonds of £20 each, to appear at the next court of assistants ; refusing to obey the decision in either respect, they were committed to prison.


At the ensuing session the court of assistants confirmed the sentence of imprisonment until the fines were paid; and in September the general court, after a full review of the case, sus- tained the decision. As the convicted men were soon after at liberty, it is probable that they complied with the arbitrary sentence. At the same time the general court reaffirmed its order of October, 1665, in relation to the " said schismatical assembly."


" Thus they went on from time to time," says Backus, " till the court of assistants met at Boston 3d March, 1668, when on an appeal of Gould from a judgment of the county court at Charlestown, the jury decided in his favor. The decision was not satisfactory to the court, and the jury were sent out again with instructions to return a special verdict. They did so; the decision of the lower court was confirmed; judgment was entered ; the appellant refused to pay the imposed fine, and again was committed to prison.1


Such peculiar arguments failing to convince these men of their errors, the governor and council determined to allow a public discussion on the points at issue. The 14th of April was the day selected; the place was "the meeting-house at Boston ;" the question, " whether it be justifiable by the word of God, for these persons and their company to depart from the communion of the churches, and to set up an assembly here in


1 Backus, I. 373-375.


123


DEBATE.


1668.]


the way of anabaptism, and whether such a practice is to be allowed by the government of this jurisdiction ?"


There was a great concourse on the day appointed. Gould, Farnum, Osborne, and others were present, and with them sev- eral members of Mr. Clarke's church at Newport, sent to assist their brethren in debate. On the other side, several of the min- isters were requested to assemble with the governor and council. An elaborate debate, doubtless as convincing on both sides as such debates usually are, was had and closed ; and, in May, the Baptists were summoned to declare its effect. Their views and resolutions were still unchanged ; and from the apprehension of various dangers to the commonwealth set forth in the sentence, the court ordered their banishment on and after the 20th July next following; and Gould, to whose prison life the public debate had been only an episode, was released to enable him to obey the mandate of the authorities.


They did not submit to the decision; and within a fortnight after the specified time they were again in prison. On the 14th of October they addressed a petition to the government, stating their conscientiousness in their peculiar views, but asserting their " innocence touching the government, both in Civil & Church affairs," and begging to be set at liberty.


Their petition was also sustained by a paper numerously signed by persons in Boston and Charlestown ; but so far from aiding in the desired object, the latter paper, although respect- ful and proper in tone as well as creditable to the signers, gave such offence to the general court that several of its promoters were fined, and others severely censured. The petition itself had no favorable results.


Farnum, as we judge from a court order of 7th November, 1668, submitted to the authorities, and was released. Gould and Turner, more resolute, were still undaunted, and remained in prison. In March, 1669, it is worthy of notice that they were released upon their parole, for three days, to visit their families and also " to apply themselves to any that are able and orthodox for their further concernment." How they chose to interpret this is probably seen in the fact, that on Sunday the 7th of that month a service was held at Gould's house on Noddle's Island, for attending which, Drinker was committed to


124


HISTORY.


[1669, 1679.


prison, where he lay until the ensuing May. Doubtless Gould and Turner were returned to prison.


But tidings of these matters had reached England and excited sympathy. Letters of remonstrance from the Independents came to the colonial government, as to their treatment of the Baptists. Thirteen ministers in London, among whom were Goodwin, Nye, and Owen, wrote to Governor Bellingham, 20th March, 1669, with urgent requests that these proceedings might cease. Others more privately attempted the same thing, declar- ing the peace and mutual affection which existed between such classes in England. It is not known what effect that produced, though it may be on this account that the imprisoned were set at liberty.


But that the temper of the government was unchanged is evident ; for on the 30th of November, Turner was again in prison, and warrants were out for Gould, who consulted his safety by remaining at Noddle's Island, whither the constables did not go. And in May, 1672, the law of 1644, prescribing banishment to such as should openly condemn infant baptism, was reënacted.


On the 7th of December, 1672, Governor Bellingham, always Ri Belingham hostile and rigorous towards the Baptists, died. A large part of the people, though disagreeing with their peculiar views, had always disapproved of the treatment of the government; and when, in May, 1673, John Leverett succeeded to the office of governor, his well-known sentiments in favor of milder treatment found no obstacle to their exercise. For six years the Baptists had peace. Enjoying their own views, they worshipped umolested, and they still continued to meet at Gould's house on Noddle's Island, at least so long as he lived. It was in the midst of this quiet, in October, 1675, that Gould died. After years of ecclesiastical and legal trouble, he had the happiness to leave the church which he had founded, at rest. So prosperous had they been, that the question of a second church was mooted, but for the time deferred.


On the 16th March, 1679, Governor Leverett died. He was succeeded by Bradford. Under his administration the tribu- nals again took cognizance of the Baptists. Several persons


125


THE BAPTISTS HAVE REST.


1679.]


were tried and fined, and others admonished. Still, they pro- ceeded to carry out a plan now conceived, that of erecting a house of worship in Boston, taking care, however, that nothing should be known of its contemplated use until it was finished. They met in it for the first time on the 15th of February, 1679. In May the leaders were summoned before the courts; and to meet this case, and perhaps others, a new law was passed, forbidding the erection or use of any house of worship without permission of the authorities; any meeting-house, after three meetings, to be forfeited to the county. To save their property, they refrained from meeting in it until information of a royal edict, granting liberty of conscience to all Protestants, was received. They then met in it again, notwithstanding the royal order; the doors were nailed up by the order of the court, 8th March, 1680, and a notice posted forbidding all meetings within it. Its owners then met in the yard in front, but a week or two after forced the house open. They entered it, and continued there undisturbed until the 11th of June following, when they were summoned to answer for violating the statute of 15th February, 1679. Squire, Drinker, Russell, and some others, appeared. After a hearing, they were released from fines, but were still forbidden to meet as a society, or to use for public worship the house they had built; to which effect the governor admonished them in open court. But this admonition was the last exercise of power: with it their trials from church and state authorities ended; and, after twenty years of vexa- tious persecution, the Baptists had rest.


At the very time the Baptists were suffering their persecu- tions, Maverick (who had sold his interest in the Island) was laboring, as one of the royal commissioners, to secure religious freedom to all, under instructions from the crown, in which, however well the object of establishing Episcopacy may have been disguised, it was well declared to be "very scandalous that any man should be debarred ye exercise of his religion, according to ye laws & custome of England by those who by ye indulgence granted have liberty left to be of what profess" in religion they please; in a word, persons of good & honest con- versation who have lived long there may enjoy all the privi-


11


126


HISTORY.


[1679.


ledges ecclesiasticall & (in the colonies) civill wch are due to them, and wch are enjoyed by othrs as to choose an be chosen into places of government & the like; and that differences in opinion doe not lessen their charity to each other since charity is a fundamental in all religion."


CHAPTER VI.


SAMUEL MAVERICK, ROYAL COMMISSIONER.


IT has been seen in Chapter IV., that Maverick's Episcopacy, and his efforts to obtain equal civil and religious rights and privileges for people of every religious belief, subjected him to the constant displeasure of the colonial government, under which he suffered persecution and hardship. Under these cir- cumstances it is not strange that he should have become disaf- fected, and should have harbored considerable ill feeling toward the colony. Certainly, the treatment he received was not calculated to make him friendly in his feelings towards, or intercourse with, his provincial neighbors, or strenuous in his exertions to advance those measures of theirs which were so contrary to his own ideas of justice. Indeed, his subsequent life shows that he persisted in his loyalty to Episcopalianism and the king, and that he had not so far conquered the author of evil but that, contrary to the advice in the old hymn, he "let his angry passions rise ;" and, upon a change in the home government, exerted himself most strenuously to maintain his position, and acquire authority and power over those who had ill-treated him. This partook more of weak human nature than of Christian forbearance; but Maverick's disposition was not such as to induce him to submit to indignity.


With this end in view, upon the restoration of Charles II. he went to England to complain to the king, and was two or three years in soliciting that commissioners might be appointed, who should visit New England with authority to settle all diffi- culties.1 His efforts were successful; and on the 23d of April,


1 Hutchinson's Hist. Mass. Vol. I. 250.


128


HISTORY.


[1662.


1664, Charles II. appointed four commissioners, of whom Sam- uel Maverick was one, to whom extraordinary powers were given to reduce "the Dutch at the Manhadoes," to visit the New England colonies, and hear and determine all matters of complaint, settle conflicting questions which had arisen con- cerning the charters, and, indeed, to adjust all difficulties, and effect the peace of the country.1


The colony of Massachusetts never was in high favor with the mother country ; for from the first its leading men, and in fact the colonists generally, had shown a distasteful regard for their rights, and a calm decision in maintaining them. Upon the overthrow of the protectorate of Cromwell, the ene- mies of Massachusetts gained ground rapidly in England ; the principal men of the colony trembled at the restoration, and had continual fears of being deprived of their privileges ; and these were not groundless. The ear of the king was soon obtained by the Quakers, and perhaps other enemies of New England, and he sent a requirement to the colonial government to answer the complaints in England. To this end Mr. Brad- street and Mr. Norton were sent to represent the colony as loyal and obedient! a colony which had justified every circum- stance in the course of Cromwell, and publicly praised the piety and justice of the court which had brought Charles I. to the scaffold.2 On the return of these agents, King Charles sent his oft quoted letter of 28th June, 1662.3 In this letter is a clause, which shows the position which the government intended to assume, and from that time did take, relative to Episcopacy. Maverick could already see the dawn of a brighter day for his


1 The subject of the commission is a very broad one, and covers many important points, and it would require a volume to set it forth in a proper manner. In this narrative there is only room to present the leading facts in such a manner as to give a general idea of the subject. Voluminous docu- ments are to be found in the Mass. Records, N. Y. Col. Hist., Hutchinson's Collections, and Hist. of Mass., etc. The writer has also had the opportunity, by the kindness of G. H. Snelling, Esq., of examining the "Danforth Papers ;" an old MS, of great value, relating exclusively to the difficulties between the colonial authorities and the royal commissioners.


2 Drake's Hist. Boston, p. 359.


3 Mass. Records, Vol. IV. par. 2, pp. 58, 160-162, etc. ; Danforth Papers.


129


THE LETTER OF KING CHARLES.


1662.]


religious opinions; and the colonial authorities could easily perceive how their harsh treatment of him and others who differed from the Puritan mode of worship was soon to bring about its own retribution.


Says Charles in this letter : "Since the principall end & foundation of that charter was & is the freedome & liberty of conscience, wee doe hereby charge & require that that freedome & liberty be duely admitted & allowed, so that such as desire to vse the Booke of Comon Prayer, & performe their devo- tions in that manner as is established here, be not debarred the exercise thereof, or vndergo any prejudice or disadvantage thereby, they vsing their liberty wthout disturbanc to others, & that all persons of good & honest liues & conversations be admitted to the sacrement of the. Lord's supper, according to the Booke of Comon Prayer & their children to baptisme." No explanation is necessary to show how this clause would controvert the views and actions of the colony, or how impor- tant it would have been in its general character if it had been carried out. They had retained their charter up to this time, although it had been more than once demanded; but should they now be required to deliver it up, they would not be able to resist the power which would be brought to bear upon them. It is doubtless true that the charter did not grant to the colo- nists all the privileges which they exercised; but they had enjoyed these so long with the tacit acquiescence of the govern- ment, that they considered themselves entitled to their free exercise.




Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.