USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Boston > The history of the First Baptist church of Boston (1665-1899) > Part 3
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
But the case of Moses does not seem to have greatly frightened him, nor to have swerved him from his course of dissent, for in the following April (1657) he was again presented by the grand jury, and in. com- pany with ex-President Dunster, who was presented
34
by the same grand jury, was indicted and brought be- fore the court on the same charge : "Thomas Goold being presented by the Grand Jury held at Cambridge, April 7, 1657, for not bringing his child to the holy ordinance of baptism, the said Goold appearing in Court confessed his child to be unbaptized, the Court sollemly admonished him of his dangerous error."1 In June,
Thomas Goold being again called the 24 : (4). 57 : and not ap- pearing the Court ordered that the Clarke of the Court should send an attachment for him to appear before any magistrate, in case he did refuse upon notice given him, to give twenty pounds bond for his appearance at the next Court of Assistants at Boston and that he should pay the costs of Court. 2
I shall insert in full the original record of the Charlestown Church, and also Goold's own narrative concerning the long course of discipline which now ensued. The facts have been so frequently distorted by writers on colonial history, that in the interests of justice the two records ought to be put side by side. The judicial reader will then be able to decide for himself what is the exact truth in this notable case of discipline. The Charlestown Church was founded in 1628, but no records of its history are pre- served prior to this record of discipline as here set forth, sixth day, fourth month, 1658. This record was not entered in their books until some time after the events recorded. It was then made from the memory of its only elder, Zech. Symmes, who seems to have shown more heat and zeal in the discipline than wis-
1 " Middlesex Court Original Papers, " also Armitage, " History," p. 699. 2 "Cambridge Court Record."
6
35
1818100
dom or brotherliness. How far the recollections of a man of such a temper are to be trusted, when they are put into the church record a considerable time after Goold was excommunicated and outlawed for being a Baptist, the impartial reader must determine. How significant the discipline and final withdrawal of Goold and Osborn appeared to the officers of the church may be inferred from their desire to put it on record as the first important entry of their church book ! Their prescience was singularly correct, and has been fully justified by history, for it was by far, in its various bearings, the most important event in their history. It was the beginning of organized and fear- less dissent in Massachusetts, and marked the opening of that long and weary struggle, the end of which alinost two centuries later was complete religious lib- erty and the severance of Church and State.1
The church tried persuasion ; the Court tried coer- cion ; but both were alike vain. The church proposed argument and excommunication ; the Court proposed fines and imprisonment; but no proposal proved per- suasive with the indomitable spirit of Thomas Goold. The general spirit of the severer class of Puritans of this period may be better understood in the light of some of their familiar utterances: "Anabaptismn is so cruel and hard-hearted opinion."2 "Anabaptism is an En- gine framed to cut the throat of the Infanttry of the Church."2 "'Tis Satan's policy to plead for an in- definite and boundless toleration."2 "Anabaptisme
1 Complete separation of Church and State was not guaranteed by the Constitution of Massachusetts until 1833.
2 Thomas Shepherd, " Election Sermon " ( 1672), pp. 24, 25.
£
36
we shall find hath ever been looked at by the Godly Leaders of this people as a Scab."1 " Protestants ought not to persecute any, yet that Protestants may punish Protestants; and as the case may be circumstanced, a Congregation of such as call themselves Protestants cannot rationably be denied."2 "Experience tells us that such a rough thing as a New England Anabap- tist is not to be handled over tenderly." 3 "It was toleration that made the world Antichristian."4 "The Lord keep us from being bewitched with the whore's cup, lest while we seem to detest & feject her with open face of profession, we do not bring her in by a back door of Toleration."5 "Separation and Anabap- tism are wonted intruders, and seeming Friends, but secret fatall Enemies to Reformation."6 Such passages from sermons of the time might be multiplied indef- initely. The Baptist schism was the most dreaded of all with which the colony was threatened, and no epi- thets were too opprobrious to be hurled at its adher- ents. The ministers were insistently urging the civil magistrates to use coercive measures and to punish heretics. "To purge New England of heresie," was the favorite appeal, and was the open door through which the civil courts let loose the fierce horde of fines, imprisonments, and banishments.
1 Thomas Shepherd, " Election Sermon " (1672), pp. 24, 25.
2 Increase Mather, Intro. " Ne Sutor Ultra Crepidam."
3 Samuel Willard, " Ne Sutor Ultra Crepidam." 4 Ibid. 5 John Cotton, " Bloody Tenet Washed," p. 132, 192.
6 Jonathan Mitchell, " Election Sermon " 1667.
CHAPTER III
DISCIPLINE OF THOMAS GOOLD. RECORD OF CHARLESTOWN CHURCH. THOMAS GOOLD'S OWN NARRATIVE.
III
THE following is a transcript from the records of the First Parish Church of Charlestown :
Upon the 6th of 4th m. 1658.
Brother Thomas Gold, according to the agreement of the church the Lord's day before, was called forth to give an account of his long withdrawing from the public ordinances amongst us on the Lord's day. It was asked brother Gold, whether he had any rule from God's word so to do? or whether it were not a manifest breach of rule and order of the gospel ? His answer several times was to this effect that he had not turned from any ordinance of God, but did attend the word in other places. It was then asked him, whether he did not own church covenant as an ordinance of God, and himself in covenant with this church? He answered he did, but we had cut him off, or put him away by denying to him the Lord's Supper, when only he had been admonished, and so now had no more privilege than an Indian, and therefore he looked not now at himself as a member of our church, but was free to go anywhither. He was likewise blamed, that having so often expressed his desire to attend any light that might help him in his judgment and practice, about children's baptism : that yet he should forbear, and stay away, when he could not but know, that his pastor was speaking largely to that subject. He confest his wife told him of it : and being asked how he could in faith partake of the Lord's Supper, whilst he judged his own baptism void and null ? he owned it was so, as administered to him as a child ; but since God had given him grace, he now came to make use of it, and get good by it. It being replied that a person owned by all, as gracious, and fit for (the) Supper, is not yet to be ad- mitted to it, till baptized : he said little or nothing to it, but spoke divers things, generally offensive to the brethren, and would own no failing. Hence after much time spent, the brethren consent- D
39
40
ing, he was admonished for breaking away from the church, in way of schism, never having used any means to convince the church of any irregular proceeding, but continuing peremptorily and contumaciously to justifie his schism. This transaction was speedily after the acting thereof truly recorded by the then only elder of this church : Zech. Symmes, Mr. Green the ruling elder dying a little before. Nov 18, 1663. Bro. Thomas Osborn being leavened with principles of Anabaptisme was (the brethren con- senting) admonished for frequent irregular withdrawing himself from the publick worship of God, holding it to be no sin to neglect the publick ordinances of God upon the Lord's day, even when they might conveniently be enjoyed ; and for continuing impen- itent in his sin. On the same day also, it was consented to by the brethren that his wife, leavened with principles of Anabap- tisme and Quakerisme, should receive an admonition for her no- torious neglect of the publique worship of God, denying our churches to be true churches, and denying her membership with us, and, also, the churches power over her, and continuing im- penitent in her sin. She went home from the assembly, when the admonition should have been declared to her, but however it was declared that she was under the publiq offence of the church. And at the same time Bro. Thomas Gool also persisting in his schismatical withdrawing from the church, notwithstanding his former admonition, and now for denying his relation to this church, as a brother of it, and also for denying the churches power over him, was againe (with the consent of the brethren) de- clared to be under the great offence of the church, and rebuked for his impenitency in that sin of his. Feb. 21. 1664. Bro. Thomas Osborn received a second admonition (with the consent of the brethren) for his obstinacy in his former sin, for which he had been (Nov. 18) admonished, and aggravated by another de- gree of schisme, refusing (as he expressly and vehemently affirmed) to hold communion with the church any longer, as formerly he had done : because we held baptisme of children to be an ordi- nance of God & etc. Feb. 28, 1664. Bro. Thomas Gool was again admonished (with the consent of the brethren) for his impenitency in his former sin of schisming for which he had been admonished, and withall now refusing to give an account to the church who did
41
enquire concerning a private meeting kept at his house on the Lord's day (November 8, 1663) with Bro. Osborn and other Ana- baptists, when he should, and might conveniently have been pres- ent with the church in the publiq worship of God : he said it was not the season for him to answer, and therefore would not give an account of it : for which things above said, he was accordingly censured. July 9, 1665. The Church, hearing that Bro. Gool and Bro. Osborn had together with other Anabaptists, embodied themselves in a pretended church way : sent Deacon Lynd and Deacon Stillson to them with this message : viz : That they should be present with this church the next Lord's day in the public wor- ship of God, and at the evening thereof to stay, and give an account to the church of that report which was heard concerning them, as also concerning their former offences : and the church did then desire our Deacons to acquaint our sister Osborn (that had been for some time under the public offence of the church) with that meeting, and that she should be present likewise with her husband. July 16, 1665. Our Deacons having carried the message of the church to Bro. Gool, Bro. Osborn and our sister Osborn, to come and hear the church : the answer returned back to the church was negative. Bro. Gool said he should not come, and if our church had anything to say against him, they should acquaint the society with it to which he was then joined: saying also that he was no member of our church : and said, your church hath nothing to do with me. Bro. Osborn said that he had given his reasons to the church formerly why he could not hold communion with it : viz : because of Infant Baptism : 2. our allowing none but such as had human learning to be in the ministry. 3. our severe dealing with those of a con- trary judgment from us : and, therefore said he should not come to the church. Our sister Osborn's was that she desired not to continue with the church, but would be dismissed which way they would, and that she could not come to the church. She should sin against her conscience if she did. These members thus re- fusing to appear, the church judged it meet to wait with some fur- ther patience upon our brethren abovesaid, and sister : and they did therefore desire our Deacons again, with our brother Ensign Tidd, to carry this message following to them, viz : to tell them that they are under the further offence of the church for their separating
42
from our communion, and refusing to hear the church, and that the church doth desire, and require them in the name of Christ that they should return to us, and come and hear the church and give an account the next Lord's day of their withdrawing. July 23, 1665. Our messengers having delivered the message above- said to Bro. Gool, Bro. Osborn, and Sister Osborn : the answer returned to them was the same (in a manner) they gave the week before : Bro. Gool denying his relation to the church in Charles- town, and that they had nothing to do with him, and also said that they were to have the Lord's Supper administered in their church the next Lord's day, and therefore he should not come : Bro. Osborn said he should not come to the church, and that the church might proceed as they pleased with him : Our sister Os- born's answer was as formerly, refusing to come. Whereupon it was propounded to vote (after a proposal of it had been made by some of the brethren) that if there did come in nothing of repent- ance manifested by these persons to the church between this and the next Lord's day, whether then the church should proceed (seeing these matters had formerly been so fully and oft debated) without further debating the matter the next Lord's day, and (if nothing of more than ordinary weight to hinder did fall out in the interim) that these our brethren and she our sister should have the censure of excommunication passed against them ? It was unan- imously carried by a silentiary 1 vote in the affirmative, not one of the brethren present expressing a word against it. July 30, 1665. Nothing of repentance intervening, Bro. Thomas Gool, Bro. Thomas Osborn, and his wife our sister Osborn, were (with the consent of the brethren) excommunicated for their impenitency in their schismatical withdrawing from the church and neglecting to hear the church.
The following is Thomas Goold's own narration con- cerning the same discipline :
It having been a long time a scruple to me about infant bap- tism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me by the rule
1 Silentiary vote was a vote by common consent. No one arose to say anything adversely. Only male members had a vote.
43
of the gospel, that children were not capable nor fit subjects for such an ordinance, because Christ gave this commission to his apostles, first to preach to make them disciples, and then to bap- tize them, which infants were not capable of ; so that I durst not bring forth my child to be partaker of it; so looking that my child had no right to it, which was in the year 1655, when the Lord was pleased to give me a child ; I staid some space of time and said nothing to see what the church would do with me. On a third day of the week when there was a meeting at my house, to keep a day of thanksgiving to God for his mercy shown to my wife, at that time one coming to the meeting, brought a note from the elders of the church to this effect, that they desired me to come down on the morrow to the elder's house, and to send word again what time of that day I would come, and they would stay at home for me; and if I could not come that day to send them word. I, looking on the writing with many friends with me, I told them I had promised to go another way on the morrow. Master Dunstan 1 being present desired me to send them word, that I could not come on the morrow, but that I would come any other time that they would appoint me ; and so I sent word back by the same messenger. The fifth day, meeting with elder Green, I told him how it was ; he told me it was well, and that they would appoint another day when he had spoken with the pastor, and then they would send me word. This lay about two months, before I heard any more from them. On a First-day, in the after- noon, one told me I must stop, for the church would speak with me. They called me out, and Master Sims told the church, that this brother did withhold his child from baptism, and that they had sent unto him to come down on such a day to speak with them, and if he could not come on that day to set a day when he would come, and they be at home, but he refusing to come would appoint no time, when we writ to him to take his own time and send us word.
I replied that there was no such word in the letter, for me to appoint the day ; but what time that day I should come. Mr. Sims stood up and told me, I did lie, for they sent to me to ap-
1 Henry Dunster.
44
point the day. I replied again that there was no such thing in the letter. He replied again, that they did not set down a time, and not a day, therefore he told me it was a lie ; and that they would leave my judgment and deal with me for a lie ; and told the church that he and the elder agreed to write, that if I could not come that day, to appoint the time when I could come, and that he read it, after the elder writ it, and the elder affirmed it was so ; but I still replied, there was no such thing in the letter, and thought that I could produce the letter. They bid me let them see the letter, or they would proceed against me for a lie. Brother Thomas Wilder, sitting before me, stood up and told them, that it was so in the letter as I said, for he read it when it came to me. But they answered it was not so, and bid him pro- duce the letter, or they would proceed with me. He said, I think I can produce the letter, and forthwith took it out of his pocket, which I wondered at ; and I desired him to give it to Mr. Russell to read, and so he did, and he read it very faithfully, and it was just as I had said, that I must send them word what time of that day I would come down ; so that their mouths were stopped, and Master Sims put it off, and said he was mistaken, for he thought he had read it otherwise ; but the elder said, This is nothing, let us proceed with him for his judgment. Now let any man judge what a fair beginning this was, and if you wait awhile you may see as fair an ending. They called me forth to know why I would not bring my child to baptism. But before I speak to that, observe tbe providence of God in the carriage of this letter. Brother Wilder was with us when their letter came to my house, and after Mr. Dunstan [Dunster] had read it, he gave it to brother Wilder and he put it into his pocket, and it lay there eight or nine weeks, till, that day I was called forth, going a good space from his house, finding it too cold to go in the clothes he had on, [he] returned again and put on another pair of breeches which were warmer, and when he had so done, put his hand into his pocket to see if he had any paper to write with, and there found that letter, and put it in again and went to meeting, yet not knowing what would be done that day concerning me. God had so appointed it, to stop their fierce proceedings against me for a lie, which they sought to take me in. Then asking me why I did
£
45
not bring my child to baptism, my answer was, I did not see any rule of Christ for it, for that ordinance belongs to such as can make profession of their faith, as the Scripture doth plainly hold forth. . . They answered me, That was meant of grown per- sons, and not of children ; but that which was most alleged by them was, that children were capable of circumcision in the time of the law, and therefore as capable in the time of the gospel of baptism ; and asked me, why children were not to be baptized in the time of the gospel, as well as children were circumcised in the time of the law? My answer was, God gave a strict command in the law for circumcision of children ; but we have no com- mand in the gospel, nor example, for the baptizing of children. Many other things were spoken, then a meeting was appointed by the church the next week at Mr. Russell's.
Being met at Mr. Russell's house, Mr. Sims took a writing out of his pocket wherein he had drawn up many arguments for in- fants' baptism, and told the church that I must answer those arguments, which I suppose he had drawn from some author ; and told me I must keep to those arguments. My answer was, I thought the church had met together to answer my scruples, and to satisfy my conscience by a rule of God, and not for me to an- swer his writing. He said he had drawn it up for the help of his memory, and desired we might go on. Then I requested three things of them. Ist. That they should not make me offender for a word. 2d. They should not drive me faster than I was able to go. 3d. That if any present should see cause to clear up anything that is spoken by me, they might have their liberty without offence ; because here are many of you that have their liberty to speak against me if you see cause. But it was denied, and Mr. Sims was pleased to reply, that he was able to deal with me himself and that I know it. So we spent four or five hours speaking to many things to and again ; but so hot, both sides, that we quickly forgot and went from the arguments that were written. At last one of the company stood up and said, I will give you one plain place of Scripture where children were baptized. I told him that would put an end to the controversy. That place in the second of the Acts, 39th, 40th verses. After he had read the Scripture, Mr. Sims told me that promise belonged to infants, for the Scripture
£
46
saith, The promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off; and he said no more, to which I replied, Even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Mr. Sims replied, that I spoke blasphemously in adding to the Scriptures. I said, pray do not condemn me, for if I am deceived, my eyes deceive me. He re- plied again, I added to the Scripture, which was blasphemy. I, looking in my Bible, read the words again, and said it was so. He replied the same words the third time before the church. Mr. Russell stood up and told him it was so as I had read it. Ay, it may be so in your Bible, saith Mr. Sims. Mr. Russell answered, Yea in yours too if you will look into it. Then he said he was mistaken, for he thought on another place ; so after many other words we broke up for that time.
At another meeting the church required me to bring out my child to baptism. I told them I durst not do it, for I did not see any rule for it in the word of God. They brought many places of Scripture in the Old and New Testaments, as circumcision and the promise to Abraham, and that children were holy, and they were disciples. But I told them that all these places made nothing for infants' baptism. Then stood up W. D. in the church and said, " Put him in the Court ! Put him in the Court !" But Mr. Sims answered, I pray forbear such words ; but it proved so, for pres- ently after, they put me in the Court, and put me in seven or eight Courts, whilst they looked upon me to be a member of their church. The elder pressed the church to lay me under admoni- tion, which the church was backward to do. Afterwards I went out at the sprinkling of children, which was a great trouble to some honest hearts, and they told me of it. But I told them I could not stay, for I look upon it as no ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment I might stay, for they know I did not join with them. So I stayed and sat down in my seat when they were at prayer and administering that service to infants. Then they dealt with me for my unreverent carriage. . . One stood up and accused me, that I stopped my ears ; but I de- nied it.
At another meeting they asked me if I would suffer the church to fetch my child and baptize it? I answered, If they would fetch my child and do it as their own act they might do it ; but when
47
they should bring my child, I would make known to the congre- gation that I had no hand in it; then some in the church were against doing of it. A brother stood up and said, Brother Gould, you were once for children's baptism, why are you fallen from it ? I answered, It is true, and I suppose you were once for crossing in baptism, why are you fallen from that? The man was silent. But Mr. Sims stood up in a great heat, and desired the church to take notice of it, that I compared the ordinance of Christ to the cross in baptism ! This was one of the great offences they dealt with me for. After this the Deputy Governor meeting me in Boston, called me to him and said, Goodman Gould, I desire you that you would let the church baptize your child. I told him that if the church would do it upon their own account they should do it, but I durst not bring out my child. So he called to Mrs. Nor- ton of Charlestown, and prayed her to fetch Goodman Gould's child and baptize it. So she spake to them, but not rightly, in- forming them, she gave them to understand that I would bring out my child. They called me out again and asked me if I would bring forth my child ? I told them No, I durst not do it, for I see no rule for it. One of the brethren stood up and said, If I would not let my child partake of one ordinance, it was meet I should not partake of the other ; so many of the church concluded to lay me under admonition ; but before they did it Mr. Sims told me, it was more according to rule for me to withdraw from the ordi- nance, than for them to put me by ; bringing that place of Scrip- ture, If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy offering and be reconciled first to thy brother. But I told them I did not know that my brother had anything justly against me ; for they had not shown me any rule of Christ that I had broken, therefore I durst not withdraw from that ordinance that I had found so much of God in ; but if they would put me by, I hoped God would feed my soul another way. So they proceeded to admonition. Elder Green said, Brother Gould, you are to take notice that you are ad- monished for three things ; the first is, that you refused to bring your child to be baptized ; the second is, for your contentious words and unreverent carriage in the time of that ordinance ; the third is, for a late lie you told ; and therefore you are to take no-
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.