Volume I Part 17 (1/2)
[Footnote 150: Collections of the Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76-78.]
[Footnote 151: Collections of the Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, Vol.
VIII., Second Series, pp. 76, 78, 79.]
[Footnote 152: Danforth Papers, Collections of Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 98, 108, 109, Second Series.
The following particulars are given of the proceedings of the Court at a subsequent meeting on the same subject:
”October 10th, 1666. The General Court met again, according to adjournment in May last. At this Court many express themselves very sensible of our condition. Several earnest for sending, and some against sending. Those for sending none spake out fully that they would have the Governor (Mr. Bellingham) and Major Hawthorne go; but some will have men go to plead our cause with his Majesty; to answer what may be alleged against us, alleging reason, religion and our own necessity as forcing us thereto. Others are against it, as being the loss of all, by endangering a _quo warranto_ to be brought against our patent, and so to be condemned; a middle sort would have some go to present the Court's present to his Majesty, of two large masts and a s.h.i.+p's load of masts: and in case any demand were made why the Governor, Major Hawthorne, and others did not appear, to crave his Majesty's favour therein, and to plead with his Majesty, showing how inconsistent it is with our being, for any to be forced to appear to answer in a judicial way in England--to answer either appeals or complaints against the country.
”The last proposal is obstructed by sundry, as being ruinous to the whole; and so nothing can be done, the Governor and some others chiefly opposing it, so as that no orderly debate can be had to know the mind of the Court.
”The Court agreed to send two large masts aboard Capt. Pierce, 34 yards long, and the one 36 and the other 37 inches in diameter, and agreed to levy 1,000 for the payment of what is needful at present; but is obstructed--none will lend money unless men be sent, others because anything is to be sent; a return whereof made to the Court, they say they know not what to do more--in case they that have money will not part with it, they are at a stand. Some speak of raising by rate immediately. Others think there is so much dissatisfaction that men are not sent, that it will provoke and raise a tumult; and in case that it be raised by loan, it will be hardly paid--if consent be not given in their sending men with it, and there be no good effect, which is contingent, and thus we are every way at a stand; some fearing these things will precipitate our ruin, and others apprehending that to act further will necessitate our ruin.”--_Ib._, pp. 110, 111.
From these notes, which Mr. Danforth made at the time when the proceedings referred to took place, it is plain there were a large number of loyalists even among the Congregationalists, as they alone were eligible to be members of, or to elect to the Court, and that the a.s.serters of independence were greatly perplexed and agitated.]
[Footnote 153: Danforth Papers, Collections of Ma.s.sachusetts Historical Society, Vol. VIII., pp. 99, 100, 108, 109.]
[Footnote 154: ”There had been a press for printing at Cambridge for near twenty years. The Court appointed two persons (Captain Daniel Guekins and Mr. Jonathan Mitch.e.l.l, the minister of Cambridge), in October, 1662, licensers of the press, and prohibited the publis.h.i.+ng of any books or papers which should not be supervised by them;” and in 1668, the supervisors having allowed the printing ”Thomas a Kempis, de Imitatione Christi,” the Court interposed (it being wrote by a popish minister, and containing some things less safe to be infused among the people), and therefore they commended to the licensers a more full revisal, and ordered the press to stop in the meantime. (Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 257, 258.)]
[Footnote 155: Even during the Commonwealth in England, the Congregational Government of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay was one of unmitigated persecution. Mr. Hutchinson, under date of 1655, remarks:
”The persecution of Episcopalians by the prevailing powers in England was evidently from revenge for the persecution they had suffered themselves, and from political considerations and the prevalence of party, seeing all other opinions and professions, however absurd, were tolerated; but in New England it must be confessed that bigotry and cruel zeal prevailed, and to that degree that no opinion but their own could be tolerated. They were sincere but mistaken in their principles; and absurd as it is, it is too evident, they believed it to be to the glory of G.o.d to take away the lives of his creatures for maintaining tenets contrary to what they professed themselves. This occasioned complaints against the colony to the Parliament and Cromwell, but without success.” (History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., p. 189.)]
[Footnote 156: ”Proceedings and sentence of the County Court held at Cambridge, on adjournment, April 17, 1666, against Thomas Goold, Thomas...o...b..rne, and John George [157] (being Baptists):
”Thomas Goold, Thomas...o...b..rne, and John George, being presented by the Grand Jury of this county (Cambridge), for absenting themselves from the public wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d on the Lord's dayes for one whole year now past, alleged respectively as followeth, viz.:
”Thomas...o...b..rne answered that the reason of his non-attendance was that the Lord hath discovered unto him from His Word and Spirit of Truth, that the society where he is now in communion is more agreeable to the will of G.o.d; a.s.serted that they were a Church, and attended the wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d together, and do judge themselves bound to do so, the ground whereof he said he gave in the General Court.
”Thomas Goold answered that as for coming to public wors.h.i.+p, they did meet in public wors.h.i.+p according to the rule of Christ; the grounds thereof they had given to the General Court of a.s.sistants; a.s.serted that they were a public meeting, according to the order of Christ Jesus, gathered together.
”John George answered that he did attend the public meetings on the Lord's dayes where he was a member; a.s.serted that they were a Church according to the order of Christ in the Gospell, and with them he walked and held communion in the public wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d on the Lord's dayes.”
SENTENCE OF THE COURT.
”Whereas at the General Court in October last, and at the Court of a.s.sistants in September last, endeavours were used for their conviction.
The order of the General Court declaring the said Goold and Company to be no orderly Church a.s.sembly, and that they stand convicted of high presumption against the Lord and his holy appoyntments was openly read to them, and is on file with the records of this Court.
”The Court sentenced the same Thomas Goold, Thomas...o...b..rne, and John George, for their absenting themselves from the public wors.h.i.+p of G.o.d on the Lord's dayes, to pay four pounds fine, each of them, to the County order. And whereas, by their own confessions, they stand convicted of persisting in their schismatical a.s.sembling themselves together, to the great dishonour of G.o.d _and our_ profession of his holy name, contrary to the _Act_ of the General Order of the Court of October last, prohibiting them therein on the penalty of imprisonment, this Court doth order their giving bond respectively in 20, each of them, for their appearance to answer their contempt at the next Court of a.s.sistants.
”The above named Thomas Goold, John George, and Thomas...o...b..rne made their appeal to the next Court of a.s.sistants, and refusing to put in security according to law, were committed to prison.
”_Vera Copia._”
”THO. DANFORTH, _Recorder_.”
(Hutchinson's History of Ma.s.sachusetts Bay, Vol. I., pp. 397-401.)]
[Footnote 157: _Note_ by Mr. Hutchinson.--”These three persons scrupled at Infant Baptism, separated from the Churches of the country, and with others of the same persuasion with themselves, set up a church in Boston. Whilst Congregationalists in England were complaining of the intolerant spirit of Episcopalians, these Antipaedo Baptists in New England had equal reason to complain of the same spirit in the Congregationalists there.”]