USA > Massachusetts > Essex County > Salem > The history of Salem, Massachusetts, vol 1, 1924 > Part 29
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
Aug. 1, 1637, the general court suggested that some course be taken to cause men to record the description of their lands, by
1Dec. 4, 1637, the whole town being met together, it was agreed "that there shall forthwth a faire book be pcured & all the lawes and orders or other records weh are written in the Court booke shall be fairely written out at the cost & chardges of the towne."
2Salem Town Records, volume I, page 37 (printed).
256
HISTORY OF SALEM
fining them for their failure to do so. These records were made in the town records, as registries of deeds did not come into exist- ence until several years later.
Dec. 25, 1637, the town "agreed that the marsh & meadow Lands that haue formerly layed in comon to this Towne shall now be appropriated to the Inhabitants of Salem, proportioned out vnto them according to the heads of their families. To those that have the greatest number an acre thereof & to those that haue least not aboue haue an acre, & to those that are betweene both 3 q'ters of an acre, alwaies provided & it is so agreed that none shall sell away their proportions of meadow, more or lesse, nor lease them out to any aboue 3 yeares, vnlesse they sell or lease out their howses wth their meadow."
Rev. Samuel Skelton continued to be the nominal pastor of of the church in Salem, though unable to conduct many if any of of its services. The work fell to Rev. Roger Williams, who per- formed it with zeal. Mr. Skelton died Aug. 2, 1634.
Edward Johnson, in his "Wonder-Working Providence," wrote the following lines :- 1
Scelton for Chrift did leave his Native foile, Chrift Grace first wrought for him, or he had never A Paftor been in Wilderneffe to toile,
Where Chrift his Flock doth into Churches gather; For five yeares pace to end they war-faire thou,
Muft meete with wantes, what wants can be to him?
Whofe Shepherd's Chrift, Earths fullneffe hath forgon;
And Heavens rich Crowne for thee, with's conqueft win.
After his death, the wife of Richard Beggarly attended to the settlement of Mr. Skelton's affairs. Who she was has never been determined. She was apparently the same person who, three years later, had a grant of land in Salem under the name of Mrs. Alice Daniel, who subsequently married John Greene. She was probably some connection of Mr. Skelton.2
After Mr. Skelton's death, his house went to ruin, and being in danger of falling, to the injury of persons and cattle, the quarterly court, held at Salem, Aug. 27, 1644, ordered that the house be taken down within ten days. This order was apparently complied with at once.
At a court of assistants, at Cambridge June 5, 1638, "It was ordered wth the consent of M's Baggerly that the increase of Mr
1History of New England; Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New England, By Edward Johnson, 1654.
"Copies of interesting accounts filed in the record office of the superior court in Boston are printed in the Historical Collections of the Essex In- stitute, volume 14, pages 143-152.
257
COMING OF ROGER WILLIAMS
Skeltons cattle should bee divided according to M' Skelton's will, & that the goods & household stuffe which belongs to the 3 eldest child'n should bee divided by some of the church of Salem, and committed to the church of Salem."
Apparently, as soon as Rev. Mr. Williams took sole charge of the ministerial work here, the building of a meeting house was commenced, the front end being on Essex Street. It was com- pleted before August, 1635. Its size is unknown, except HIGHWAY what inferences may be drawn from the number of HIGHWAY people it must have accom- modated, and the character, SITE OF education and means of the MEETINGH HOUSE co early settlers of Salem. Rec- ords relative to repairs of the Parsonage building indicate that it was 4271. large. It had at least one LOT OF gallery, with a pair of stairs WILLIAM LORD leading to it, glass windows and a bell.
Apparently, the people erected the meeting house by SITE OF MEETING HOUSE. subscription, as at a town meeting, May 15, 1637, "M" Sharpe hath remitted freely by the Towne ye 4€ he did und"writ for meet- ing house. But Jnº Sweet 2& is not remitted."
No site had been left for a meeting house when the town was first laid out; and the northwesterly corner of the houselot of William Lord was taken therefor. This was the easterly part of the lot now occupied by the First Church edifice in Town House Square.2
Wednesday, Aug. 20, 1634, was kept as a day of public thanksgiving in the several plantations for the safe arrival of the ships and passengers that summer.
At the general court, held Nov. 8, 1633, the standard price of corn of the country was fixed at six shillings a bushel, cows from twenty to twenty-six pounds, mares at thirty-five pounds
1Salem Town Records, volume I, page I.
2By vote of the thirteen men (selectmen), March 28, 1636, Mr. Lord was granted a two-acre lot of land as near as possible to the ten-acre lots to compensate him for the land taken.
May 15, 1660, he was further granted by the selectmen ten acres of land for the same reason.
He made another claim for payment for his land so taken, but the town voted, March 19, 1667-8, that he had already been paid, "and he may take what further Courfe he feeth good."
258
HISTORY OF SALEM
and ewe goats from three to four pounds. These prices were high. Each year many cattle were brought from England and some from Virginia.
At the same court, on the same day, the maximum amount of profit on the sale of certain necessities, as provisions, clothing, tools, etc., was fixed at four pence in a shilling, or one-third more than the cost in England. The court added that "wee doe advise all men to be a rule to themselves, in keeping a good conscience, assuring them that, if any man shall exceed the bounds of moderacon, wee shall punish them seuerely."
An attempt was made by the general court, September 3, 1634, to regulate prices at the ordinaries. It was ordered that six pence was all that could be received for a meal and not more than a penny for an ale quart of beer, out of meal time.
In order to further economy among the people, the court, at the same sitting, undertook to regulate the cost of apparel, which they called a "great, superfluous and unnecessary" expense. The regulation was directed, principally, against "some new and im- modest fashions," and, also, the ordinary wearing of silver, gold and silk laces, girdles, hatbands, etc. It was ordered that neither men nor women should make or buy any apparel, either woolen, silk or linen, with any lace on it, either silver, gold or thread. They were prohibited from making or buying any slashed clothes, other than one slash in each sleeve and another in the back ; also, from making or wearing any cut work, embroidered or needle- worked caps, bands and rails, and gold or silver girdles, hatbands, belts, ruffs and beaver hats. The penalty in each case was the forfeiture of the article.
If any man was offended by another wearing prohibited articles, or long hair, or anything of a like nature, or if in his judgment it was "uncomely or prejudicial to the common good, and the party offending reform not the same upon notice given him," an assistant might bind the offender to answer at the next court. Such apparel as was on hand when the laws were passed, was allowed to be used until worn out, except "the imoderate greate sleeves, slashed appell, imoderate great rayles, longe wings &c."
Oct. 28, 1636, the general court ordered that no person should make or sell any bone lace, or other lace, to be worn upon any garment or linen ; neither should any tailor set any lace upon any garment, except that binding or small edging laces might be used upon garments or linen.
CHAPTER XIV. THE RED CROSS INCIDENT.
HE antipathy of Protestants toward Catholics in early days is little understood. Like some factions who, because of religious over-zeal, made rules of conduct in an endeavor to compel their believers to lead a life consistent with their recognized tenets, the Puritans in Salem sought to remove every vestige of Roman rule and re- ligion and turn the thoughts of the settlers solely to what they believed to be pure faith and service. For this reason, for instance, the names of the days of the week and of the months were gen- erally discarded, and they were known only by their numbers, as first, second, third and so on, in their order. Edward Johnson, in his Wonder-Working Providence, published in 1654, wrote1 that it was done "not out of any pevifh humor of fingularity, as fome are ready to cenfor them with, but of purpofe to prevent the Heathenifh and Popifh obfervation of Dayes, Moneths and Yeares, that they may be forgotten among the people of the Lord."
Governor Endecott was not a whit behind his associates in their endeavors to remove from the view of the people everything that seemed even suggestive of papacy.
National banners were occasioned more by religion than by patriotism, and it is not strange to find upon them emblems that were religious in their inception and use. The banner of William the Conqueror was presented to him by the pope, and others had similar origin. The British ensign, at this time, had, in its left- hand upper corner, a red St. George's cross. Governor Endecott believed that it was given to the King of England by the pope as an emblem of victory, and so a superstitious thing of the Anti- christ, and refused to recognize its authority. Some others of the
1History of New England; Wonder-Working Providence of Sions Saviour in New-England, by Edward Johnson, 1654, book I, chapter 27, page 59.
259
260
HISTORY OF SALEM
military company in Salem also refused to follow the ensign. How far the expressed thought of Roger Williams may have in- duced this decision of Endecott will probably never be known.
Without conference with the magistrates or other colonial officials, Governor Endecott acted up- on this determination, and deliberately removed the cross from the ensign, cutting it out, it is said with his sword. This was in the spring of 1634, at Salem.
Captain William Trask command- ed the Salem company at this time and Richard Davenport was the en- sign.
At a meeting of the assistants, held in October of that year, com- plaint was made by Richard Brown of Watertown, in the name of himself and others, that the ensign at Salem ENSIGN. was defaced, by taking out "one part of the red cross." An "attachment" was thereupon awarded against Richard Davenport, the bearer of the ensign, to appear and answer at the next session of the court, for defacing his colors, which he was ordered to bring with him, as well as any persons who had defaced the colors. It was con- sidered to be a serious matter, for the defacement of the king's colors might be construed as an act of rebellion or treason or of like high nature. Probably most of the people as well as the officials approved of the change in the banner, but the reception of the news of the incident by the king might have a great influ- ence, to say the least, upon the future of the colony as well as its very existence.
On the twenty-seventh of the next month, the assistants met at the house of the governor, Thomas Dudley, to discuss the subject. This was also considered at the meeting of the ministers in Boston, January 19, 1634-5. They were divided in their opinion as to whether it was lawful to carry the cross in their banners, and so the discussion of the matter was deferred until the next meet- ing.1 It was finally decided to write to Mr. Downing, in England, the truth of the matter, as warily as possible, under the hands of all the assistants, so that, if occasion required, it might show as an excuse, because therein they would express their disapproval of the occurrence, and their purpose to punish the offenders.
1Winthrop's Journal, Boston, 1825, volume I, page 154.
261
THE RED CROSS INCIDENT
By reason of the great snow storms and cold weather the general court did not meet during the winter months, so the matter did not receive a hearing in court until March 4th following, when it was "cheifly caled about Captyne Indicott his fact about the crosse." Mr. Bellingham was the chief speaker. Mr. Endecott was required to answer for his defacing of the ensign. The court failed to agree, as to whether the men should be compelled to fol- low the ensign, and the matter was continued until the next session of the court; and it was ordered that, in the meantime, all ensigns be laid aside, etc. At this court Mr. Endecott, John Holgrave, Charles Gott and Peter Palfrey were present.
The next general court, at which the annual election took place, was held May 6, 1635. Mr. Endecott was left out. At this session, he was called to answer for defacing the colors; a committee was chosen to hear the evidence and report to the court, and recommend the character and extent of the censure that the offence demanded. After an hour or two, the committee reported that they found the offence to be great, and not only indiscreet, but positively rash; that Governor Endecott took upon himself more authority than he had ; that he did not seek the advice of the court ; and that it was unwarrantable that he, judging the cross to be a sin, did not seek to have the banner reformed in other places than Salem, laying blame also upon the other magistrates, suggesting thereby that they would suffer idolatry, and giving occasion to the government of England to think ill of the colony. The court decided that he should not hold any public office for one year.1 Although they deemed the offence worthy of a heavier sentence, they would not inflict it because they were persuaded that he had committed the act from purely conscientious motives.
A petition on the matter of Endecott's censure was presented at this court, but the court refused to hear any one until the election was over.1
A proposition to change the emblem in the ensign was referred to the next meeting of the court, three weeks later. It was sug- gested to use, instead of the cross, a red and white rose, respective- ly emblematic of the union of the houses of Lancaster and York. In the meantime each man was requested to talk with his neighbors who insisted that the cross be retained, that they might be quieted
1The record of the general court is as follows :- "The comission's chosen to consider of the act of Mr Endecott concerneing the colrs att Salem did reporte to the Court that they apprehend hee had offended therein many wayes, in rashnes, vncharitablenes, indiscrecon, & exceeding the lymitts of his calling; wherevpon the Court hath sensured him to be sadly admonished for his offence, weh accordingly hee was, & also disinabled for beareing any office in the comon wealth, for the space of a yeare nexte ensueing."
'Winthrop's Journal, volume I, page 159.
262
HISTORY OF SALEM
in their minds, until an agreement could be reached. The ministers promised to make it a subject of prayer, and to write to England to learn the "judgment of the most wise and godly there."
No more appears upon the records touching this remarkable incident. It would seem that the magistrates took so much notice of it, not merely because it might have been deemed to be an act of treason, but because they were not consulted upon a proceeding that affected the people generally. There were plenty of enemies of the colony to present the matter to the king in the worst light, but nothing of that kind appears to have been done.1
A letter written in May, 1634, by Capt. Israel Stoughton of Dorchester to his brother Doctor Stoughton," refers to this subject as follows :---
Grace & peace be with you & yo's in Christ
Deere Brother There coming this frend M' Patricson (MT Cradocks agent here) so happilie in the spring, I thought I would not omit to write a word, & but a word bec: I hope to have many opor- tunies more this sumer : tho as yet we have not a ship come nor know not certaynly whither we shall, only we heare of many and hope the best. We are generally in good health : I and my familie have enjoyed our health I bless God with very little interuption from the beginning. Here are divers things where of I would write more fully to you about, but I am willing to waite a while, & Shall do it hereafter. It is like you will heare of many of them more or lesse there, but I hope God will give you & others that feare God ther wisdome to judge of things wisely, and not beleeve all that is reported with all aggravations and additions as are usuall in such cases. much you will heare I suppose about the crosse in the banners & many things true; for tis true Capt. Indicot did defase it upon his owne private head, and is now left out of place of government: & his fact publiquly protested agaynst by the greater part of the country, & the ministers, and some of the magis- trates too : It is allso true some of the magistrates with some ministers, and divers of the people do apprehend it an idoll unlawful to be con- tinued in so honorable a pleace & time to be abolished; & therefore do strongly incline that way ; but tis all so true the greatest part esteeme no such daunger in it: but do desire to informe themselves well in the point, & then to be zealous according to knowledge & all judgment ; not being willing to abuse their Christian liberty to licentiousness before God nor yet to a needless makeing of frends enimies, or to the prevoak- ing of those against us who are willing to lett us alone.
1A tract of nearly thirteen pages, in defence of the cross, by the celebrated Hooker, is among the manuscripts of the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston.
2Published in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol- ume V, 1860-1862, page 134. It is entitled, by some one : "A relation con- cerning some occurences in New England." See, also, a letter written by James Cudworth of Scituate to his "father," Doctor Stoughton, in December, 1634, in English State Papers, Colonial Series, for America and the West Indies, volume I, page 194.
.
263
THE RED CROSS INCIDENT
So that now the truth is this hath bred some evill blood in our body, & I feare will be a greater crosse & more widly to beare then the former : it hath already caused no little alienation of affection, strife, sensuring on their parts who are so zealous for the Crosse its rejection against, & almost contemning their brethren that have not beene so opiniated & affected as themselves, & the truth is if anything would have done it, that party that so deeply condemns the simple use of the crosse in banners, had overborne & chrushtt the other party tho the bigger most by farr; such was their zeale & potencie: but as yet it is not come to that point for the conclusion is, Councell shall be further taken of God, and the learned wise & godly there with you; and in the mean time there shall be a pause; and if there be any need of banners those that will may use their old as they are, without any alteration. And the party that did that fact must stand upon his owne bottom to answer for his attempt; for the greater part of ministers & country have washt their hands of it. ffinally for to end this matter: had not M' Hooker & the rest of the ministers stept in, & with great strength appeared against the contrary part, it had not beene as it is, & yet I daresay the greater number of the magistrates are best pleasd that it is thus & no other wise as well as the people. I forbeare to mention persons & particular passages bec: I will give none offence nor oc- casion : but I suppose you may informe yourselfe by M' Patricson & M' Cradock if you shall desire more full relations.
-
CHAPTER XV. BANISHMENT OF ROGER WILLIAMS.
OGER WILLIAMS had a strong, independent and poetical mind. His style of writing was original ; and the force or eagerness of his thought often over- powered nicety of expression. He was always clear, but not always correct. He had an active imagination, and used figures frequently to express himself.
The court of assistants was informed, Nov. 27, 1634, that Mr. Williams had broken his promise to it by teaching publicly against the patent, and their great sin in claiming right to the land and country generally and for usually terming the churches of England anti-christian. He was ordered to appear before the court at its next session ; but nothing more was heard of the order.
April 30, 1635, Governor Dudley and the assistants sent for Mr. Williams. It was understood that he had taught publicly that a magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man, because he thereby would have communion with a wicked man in the worship of God, and cause him to take the name of God in vain. Mr. Williams was heard by all the ministers, and very clearly stated his position. Mr. Endecott was at first of the same opinion, but eventually agreed otherwise.1
Mr. Williams became so rank in his enmity to the Church of England and the churches of New England that, as the church at Salem would not refuse communication with them, he declined to continue as its pastor. He sent a letter to the church which was read in the public church assembly. In this letter he notified the church of his decision. The latter's more conservative members were amazed at his method of procedure, and would not yield to his wishes. He never came into the church assembly afterward, and professed separation from them on the assumption that they
1Backus, volume I, pages 56, 57, 62 and 516.
. 264
265
BANISHMENT OF ROGER WILLIAMS
were anti-christian. He also withdrew all private religious com- munication from every one who would hold communion with the church. He would neither pray nor give thanks at meals with his own wife nor any other of his family, because they attended the church assemblies.
Several members of the church, who had been thoroughly leavened by his teaching, were zealous in his support. He con- ducted religious meetings in his own house, to which a numerous company resorted, not only on Sundays, but on other days. In this way, they manifested their separation from, and opposition to, the local church. The magistrates noticed that this practice was increasing, and would, if not stopped, end in disturbance and division, and weakness of the church and commonwealth.1
Mr. Williams finally embraced anabaptism and renounced his belief in the propriety or efficacy of the christening of infants.
July 8th of that summer (1635), at the meeting of the general court, Mr. Williams, who had been summoned to appear, did so, and he was charged by the magistrates and churches with uttering a variety of "dangerous opinions." These were four in number, viz: I. A magistrate ought not to punish a person for the breach of the first table of the Mosaic law, when such breach did not disturb the civil peace. 2. He ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man. 3. A man "ought not to pray with such, tho wife, children, &c."2 4. A man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meals.
The several churches in the colony thought it their duty to write to the church at Salem, requesting it to admonish Mr. Williams of these errors, notwithstanding the fact that the church had since called him to the office of teacher.
Much debate was had about these opinions of Mr. Williams, and they were adjudged by all, both magistrates and ministers (who were desired to be present), to be "erroneous and danger- ous." Because the church at Salem, in face of the conclusions of the magistrates and ministers, called Mr. Williams to such office, the church was adjudged to be in great contempt of authority. Mr. Williams and the church at Salem were given until the next general court to consider these things. Then they were advised that they must give satisfaction to the court, or else expect punish- ment.
The ministers who gave their advice at the request of the court professedly declared that he who obstinately maintained such opinions was to be removed, and that the other churches
1New Englands Memorial, by Nathaniel Morton, Plymouth, 1826, page 98.
2Winthrop's Journal, Boston, 1825, volume I, page 162.
266
HISTORY OF SALEM
ought to request the magistrates to do so. It was believed that, by holding such opinions, the church might run into heresy, apostacy or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrates could not interfere.
Four days after this meeting and discussion (July 12, 1635), some Salem men, who had prepared a petition and presented it to the general court, requesting some land on Marblehead Neck, to which they claimed title as belonging to Salem, failed to secure it at that time, because they had persisted in their election of Mr. Williams, while he was in disfavor with the court. Upon this refusal, the Salem church wrote to the other churches to admonish the magistrates and deputies of this as a heinous sin. Because of this last act of the church in Salem, at the next general court their deputies were not received, but were "sent backe to the freemen of their towne that sent them to fetch satisfaccon for their Ires sent to the seuall churches, wherein they have exceedingly repched & vilifyed the magistrates & deputyes of the Genall Court, or els the argum's of those that will defend the same with the subscripcon of their names."" Mr. Endecott protested against this proceeding of the court, and it was thereupon voted that he be committed to prison for his contempt in thus protesting, but upon his submission and full acknowledgment, he was discharged.2 At this court there were also present Capt. William Trask, John Woodbury and Jacob Barney. Thereupon, Mr. Williams, who was then sick and unable to speak, wrote to his church, protesting that he could not com- municate with the churches in the Bay unless it first refused com- munion with the rest of the churches, which grieved the whole of the church very much. It seems that the Salem church generally supported the contention of Mr. Williams, except on this matter of friendship and communion with the other Congregational churches in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.
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.