USA > Massachusetts > Suffolk County > Charlestown > The history of the First church, Charlestown, in nine lectures, with notes > Part 19
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
199
It deserves especial notice, that the Platform was re-affirmed " for the substance of it," for in some particulars, there was an early, and at length, a universal departure from the Platformn; but these particulars were then, and are now, few in number, and by no means essential to it. Mather enumerates four of these departures or modifications. The first respected the power of the pastor to administer the sacraments to any but his own congregation. The Platform does not deny this power, but inasmuch as Cotton and others had, it was not fully asserted. [See chapter v. section 2.] This power, however, was very soon universally conceded ; and by a meeting of the neighboring min- isters, at Cambridge, it was declared to be their judgment that the Platform approved of it.
2. The doctrine of the distinct office of ruling elders, was also early questioned.
3. Lay ordination also was rarely practised, and as rarely approved. The right and validity of such ordinations, when necessary, has been always admitted; but the propriety of them, in the presence of or- dained ministers, was from the first questioned, and has been so gen- erally disapproved of, that their occurrence has been very rare.
4. The practice of public examinations, for admission to the church, has been discontinued.
And besides these, the doctrine of the power of the civil magistrate, in matters ecclesiastical, has been modified since the adoption of the constitution of 1780.1
NOTE 24, page 51.
THOMAS ALLEN'S LETTER RESPECTING THE EARLY INDIAN MISSIONS.
" Honored Sir :
" Ir seems that some of late have been so impudently bold (which I cannot sufficiently wonder at) as to report and publiquely affirme, that there was no such thing as the preaching and dispensing of the Gospell amongst the Natives in New England. Verily Sir, I doe be- lieve that the Devill himselfe (who is the Father of Lyes) would not, yea, durst not have uttered such a notorious untruth as that was. Now, although I confesse I have not been present at the places where the Indians are wont to meete, to heare such as doe preach unto them, by reason of my bodily weakness, and indisposition to travell so farre into the Wildernesse, yet thus much I can testifie, (if my Testimony may be of any use), being lately come over from New England, that there are divers persons in severall places, who doe take paines, and labour in that Worke there; viz., not onely Mr. Eliot of Roxbury, who hath preached among them for many yeares, up and downe in the Jurisdiction of the Massachusets ; and Mr. Mahew, who for a good
1 Winthrop Il. 264-269, 308-330. Magnalia II. 179-212. Hubb. ch. v. 8.
200
while hath taken paines among the Indians, at an Island called Mar- tin's Vineyard ; but of late, also Mr. Leveridge, in the Jurisdiction of Plymouth, and Mr. Blynman, who lives now in a new Plantation, in the Pequott's Country. As for the successe of the preaching of the Gospell unto the Natives, I have heard Mr. Eliot affirme, that he is so well perswaded of the Worke of grace in some of them, as that he could comfortably joyne in Church fellowship with them. Mr. Mahew, also, (who came to see mee a little before my coming from thence,) told me that after Mr. Whitefield's coming thence, (for he had been upon that Island, as he came to the Bay, and was present also with Mr. Mahew amongst the Indians,) there were neer upon one hundred (I think he said Ninety and odd) persons of them more who came in to heare him preach unto them, and some Pawaws also, and one of some eminency amongst them, who did acknowledge his evill in such doings, and made a Declaration of the manner how he came at first to be a Pawaw, the which also Mr. Mahew did relate unto mee. Sir, that there is such a work in hand in New England, as the preaching of the Gospel unto the Natives there, all the Magistrates and Ministers, and people in that place (who know anything) will be readie to attest ; and therefore, such as dare affirme the contrary, may as well say that the Sunne doth not shine at Noone day, when the skie is cleere, and doe indeed deserve a Publique Witnesse to be borne against them for such a Publique and so notorious an untruth ; the good Lord humble them deeply for it, if it be his good will, and pardon it to them through his grace in Christ.
" Thus, Sir, not having furthur at this present to be troublesome unto you, desiring an interest in your earnest prayers for mee, beseech- ing the Lord to let his presence and blessing be with you, and upon your great and weighty businesses, I take leave, resting
" Your humble Servant in the Lord, THOMAS ALLEN."
" Norwich, 8th 11mo., 1651."
NOTE 25, page 59.
ORIGIN OF THE BAPTIST CHURCH.
I HAVE thought it best to transcribe from the records, all that re- mains respecting the cases of Thomas Gould and Thomas Osborn. The following extracts follow, at intervals, the one to be found on pages 56 and 57, and together with that, present the whole history of the case, as left by the records of the church.
Nov. 18, 1663. Bro. Thomas Osburn being leavened with princi- ples of Anabaptisme was (the brethren consenting) 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 impenitent in his sin. On the same day also, it
201
was consented to by the brethren, that his wife, leavened with princi- ples of Anabaptisme and Quakerisme, should receive an admonition, for her notorious 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 impenitent 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 withdraw- ing 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) declared to be under the great offence of the church, and rebuked for his impenitency in that sin of his.
Feb. 21, 1664. Bro. Thomas Osburn 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 degree 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, &c.
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 refus- ing to give an account to the church who did enquire concerning a private meeting kept at his house on the Lord's day (Novemb. 8, 1663) with Bro. Osburn and other Anabaptists, when he should, and might conveniently have been present 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. Os- burn had together with other Anabaptists, embodied themselves in a pretended church way ; sent Deacon Lynd and Deacon Stittson to them with this message ; viz : That they should be present with this church the next Lord's day in the public worship 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 for- mer offences : and the church did then desire our Deacons to acquaint our Sister Osburn (that hath been for some time under the public offence of the church) with that meeting, and that she should be pres- ent likewise with her husband.
July 16, 1665. Our Deacons having carried the message of the church to Bro. Gool, Bro. Osburn, and our Sister Osburn, to come and hear the church ; the answer returned back to the church was nega- tive. Bro. Gool said he should not come, and if our church had any thing 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. Osburn 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 humun learning to be in the
26
1
£
202
ministry ; 3. our severe dealing with those of a contrary judgment from us ; and therefore said he should not come to the church. Our Sister Osburn'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 refusing to appear, the church judged it meet to wait with some further 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 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 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 abovesaid to Bro. Gool, Bro. Osburn, and Sister Osburn ; the answer returned by 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. Osburn said he should not come to the church and that the church might pro- ceed as they pleased with him: our Sister Osburn'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 repentance manifested by these persons to the church between this and the neat Lord's day, whether then the church should proceed (seeing these matters had formerly been so fully and often 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 then these our brethren and she our sister should have the censure of excommunication passed against them ? It was unanimously carried by a silentiary vote in the affirma- tive, not one of the brethren present expressing a word against it.
July 30, 1665. Nothing of repentance intervening, Bro. Thomas Gool, Bro. Thomas Osburn, and his wife our Sister Osburn, were (with the consent of the brethren) excommunicated for their impeni- tency in their schismatical withdrawing from the church and neglect- ing to hear the church."
A document has been preserved by Backus, and incorporated into his history of the Baptists, purporting to be a narrative written by Mr. Gould himself, of his treatment by the church. This document, he says, he met with among Mr. Callender's papers, and had good reason to think it genuine. In order that both sides of the controversy may be presented, I have thought it best to give the substance of Mr. Gould's own account, abridging it, but preserving its spirit and style.
He says, that having had scruples a long time in regard to infant baptism, he refrained from offering his child, born in 1655, for that ordinance, keeping silence, and waiting to see what the church would do. On a third day of the week, when there was a meeting at his house to keep a day of thanksgiving to God for the mercy shown to his wife, he received a note from the elders of the church, desiring
1
1
----
1
203
him to come down to their house on the morrow, and let them know when he would come, and they would stay at home for him; and if he could not come that day, to send them word. He was prevented from accepting this proposal by a previous engagement, and sent back word accordingly. On the fifth day, meeting with Elder Green, he told him how it was; and the elder promised to see the pastor, and appoint another day and send him word. After a silence of two months, he was requested to stop on a first day in the afternoon, and meet the church. He was then called out, and " Master Sims" told the church that he withheld his child from baptism, and had refused to meet them or appoint a time for it, when they wrote to him to take his own time and send them word. This led to an angry altercation as to what the letter contained-Mr. Symmes charging Mr. Gould with falsehood- when Brother Thomas Wilder producing the letter, substantiated Mr. Gould's statement, and forced Mr. Symmes to confess that he was mistaken. After this, Mr. Gould was questioned in regard to his reasons for withholding his child from baptism. The following week, at a meeting of the church, held at Mr. Russell's house, efforts con- tinued to be made to satisfy his conscience, when Mr. Symmes is rep- resented again as being very positive, and being obliged to confess himself in the wrong.
At another meeting, during the discussion, W. D. stood up in the church and said twice, " put him in the court." Mr. Symmes said, "pray, forbear such words;" but Mr. Gould said it proved so, for he was soon put into seven or eight courts, while he was still looked upon as a member of their church. The elder pressed the church to lay him under admonition, but they were backward to do it. After this, he went out at the sprinkling of children ; but because it was a great trouble to some honest hearts, he was prevailed upon to stay ; he sat down, however, during the administration, and then they dealt with him for irreverent conduct ; one accused him of stopping his ears, but he denied it.
At another meeting, he was asked if he would suffer the church to fetch his child and baptize it? Ile replied, yes, if it might be made known that he had no hand in it; then some of the church were against doing so. A brother stood up and said, Brother Gould, you were once for infant baptism, why are you fallen from it ? He replied, why were you once for crossing in baptism ? This greatly offended Mr. Symmes, who desired the church to take notice that he compared the ordinance of Christ to the cross in baptism; and this was made one of the offences for which he was dealt with. After this, the Dep- uty Governor, meeting him in Boston, desired him to let the church baptize his child, to which he consented, if they did it on their own account. He then called to Mrs. Norton, of Charlestown, and prayed her to fetch Goodman Gould's child and baptize it. She, through misapprehension, however, gave the impression that he would bring his child out. This led to another interview with the church, when one of the brethren said if he would not bring his child to one ordi- nance, it was meet he should not partake of the other. So many of the church concluded to lay him under admonition ; but before they did it, Mr. Symmes told him it was more according to rule, for him to withdraw from the ordinance, than for them to put him by-quoting
204
Matt. v. 23, 24. But he replied that he did not know that his brother had anything justly against him, and therefore he durst not withdraw from that ordinance that he had found so much of God in. After this, they proceeded to admonition. Elder Green said, " Brother Gould, you are to take notice that you are admonished 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 notice, that you are not to partake any more of the ordi- nance of Christ with us till you give satisfaction for these things." Mr. Gould says he does not know what this " lie" referred to, unless to the letter mentioned above. This admonition took place seven or eight years before he was cast out. After this, he went to Cambridge meeting, which was as near to his house as the other ; upon that, he was put into court, because he did not come to hear ; but it appearing that he went constantly to Cambridge, he was cleared. After this, he was dealt with for schism, or rending from the church. But he told them he did not rend from them, for they put him away. " Master Symmes was very earnest for another admonition, which most of the church were against; but it seems he set it down for an admonition on a bit of paper."
Things remained in this condition for a long time. In the mean- time some Baptist friends having come from England, they began to hold meetings at Mr. Gould's house, on the Lord's day. For this he was again summoned before the church. His answer was, "I know not what reason the church had to call me forth." Being asked if he was not a member of the church, he replied, " they had not acted to- ward me as a member-they had denied me the privileges of a mem- ber, who had put me by the ordinances seven years ago. They asked whether I looked upon admonition as an appointment of Christ? I told them yes, but not to lie under it above seven years, and to be put by the ordinances of Christ in the church; for the rule of Christ is, first to deal with men in the first and in the second place, and then in the third place before the church; but the first time that ever they dealt with me, they called me before the whole church. Many meet- ings were held about this thing, whether I was a member or not ; but they could come to no conclusion, for I still affirmed that their actings rendered me no member. Then Mr. Synes told the church I was ripe for excommunication, and was very carnest for it, but the church would not consent." Ile then desired a council, but Mr. Symmes answered, " we are a church of Christ ourselves, and you shall know that we have power to deal with you ourselves." Mr. Russell said, " we have not gone the right way to gain this our brother, for we have dealt too harshly with him." Still Mr. Symmes pressed the church to excommunicate him. Mr. Russell said, " There were greater errors in the church in the apostles' time, and yet they did not so deal with them." Mr Symmes asked him what they were ? He replied, " How say some of you that there is no resurrection of the dead ?" Mr. Symmes was troubled, and said, " I wonder you will bring this place of Scripture to encourage him in his error !" Mr. Symmes was earnest for another admonition ; then stood up Solomon Phips, and said, " You may clap one adinonition on him upon another, but to what end, for he
205
was admonished about seven years ago." Mr. Symmes said, " Brother ! do you make such a light matter of admonition, to say ' clap one upon another!' doth not the apostle say, 'after the first and second admoni- tion reject an heretic ?' therefore, there might be a second admoni- tion." It was answered, it was a hard matter to prove a man an her- etic, for every error doth not make a man a heretic. Mr. Symmes said, "It was not seven years, nor above three since I was admonished, and that was for schism." A brother replied, "It was seven years since I was admonished." A difference arising for what he was ad- monished, " Mr. Symmes pulled a bit of paper out of his pocket and said, ' This is that he was admonished for, and that was but three years since.' Brother Phips asked him when that paper was writ, for he never heard of that admonition before. He answered, he set it down for his own memory ; then he read it, that it was for schism, and rending from the church. I told him I did not rend from the church, but the church put me away from them four years before this. Then there was much agitation when the admonition was given, and what it was for. And this was all the church records that could be found which was about seven years after the admonition was given ; so after many words, we broke up, which was the last time we met together. Now let any man judge of the church records that were drawn up against me, and read at the dispute in Boston, which contained three or four sheets of paper-read by Mr. Shepard, and drawn up by him, a little while before the dispute, who was not an eye nor ear witness to the church's actings not above half the time."
After this Mr. Gould and his associates embodied themselves into a church. The church hearing of this, sent three messengers to him, telling him the church required him to come before them the next Lord's day. IIe replied, the church had nothing to do with him, for they had put him from them eight years before. He said he was joined to another church and that church was not willing he should come, and he would not come without their consent. The next week the same number of messengers came to him, requiring his attendance the next Lord's day. IIe again declined. They told him that if he did not come, the church would proceed against him the next Lord's day. He told told them he could not come, for they were to break bread the next Lord's day. " The last day of that week, three loving friends coming to me of their own account, one of them said, Brother Gould, though you look upon it as unjust for them to cast you out, yet there be many that are godly among them that will act with them through ignorance, which will be a few of them, and you are per- suaded I believe that it is your duty to prevent any one from any sinful act, for they will cast you out for not hearing the church ; now your coming will stop them from acting against you, and so keep many from that sin. Upon these words I was clearly convinced that it was my duty to go, and replied, although I could not come the next day, yet I promised to attend the following Lord's day. He replied, what if the church I am joined to was not willing ? I told him I did not question that any one would be against it upon this ground. After I had propounded it to the church, not one was against it. I entreated these friends to make it known to the elders that I would come to them the next Lord's day after ; yet, though they knew of it, they
206
proceeded against me that day, and delivered me up to Satan for not hearing the church."
Such is Mr. Gould's own account of this unhappy controversy. A part of it, it will be seen, respects proceedings of which we have no account on the part of the church, and if, therefore, it should receive all the consideration which similar ex parte representations are com- monly held entitled to, it would not be sufficient to prejudice a candid mind against Mr. Symmes and the church, in the particulars in which it bears so hard against them. We do not mean to say that nothing was said or done by the church and pastor, in the excitement and heat of the controversy, of which Mr. Gould might not justly com- plain ; we would on the contrary give to his narrative all the confi- dence which is due to narratives of the kind ; but, when we remember how much is to be allowed for the coloring which the interested party cannot fail to impart to such a narrative, how long a period of time it covers, how much which respected the action of the church he was necessarily ignorant of and could learn only from others, and how long after the transactions he mentions his narrative was in all proba- bility written, we shall not be disposed to regard the entire narrative as a veritable history, and condenin a pastor and people unheard in self-defence, on the testimony of a single witness, and he, an interested party, though we doubt not of honest intentions.
Between Mr. Gould's narrative and the church records some contra- dictions will be observed. He denies the correctness of Mr. Symmes' account, and implies that it was written long after the transactions mentioned. Mr. Symmes, however, concludes his record of the meet- ing of June 6, 1658, thus : " This transaction was speedily, after the acting thereof, truly recorded by the then only elder of this church, Zech: Symmes." He also says, that the church records read in the dispute in Boston, were drawn up at that time by Mr. Shepard, and that he was not an eye or ear witness to the church's actings above half the time. These records no doubt are the same which still exist, and they have every appearance of having been written at the time the dates specify, being interspersed with other votes and transactions recorded in like manner under their respective dates. And to all the transactions which he recorded, Mr. Shepard was undoubtedly a wit- ness. Mr. Gould was excommunicated July 30, 1665, and Mr. Shep- ard was settled April 13, 1659, more than six years before and less than a year after the commencement of this case of discipline, as recorded by Mr. Symmes June 6, 1658.
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.