July 8th, 1645, Townsend Bishop, a prominent man there, was 'presented,' says Felt, for turning his back on the ceremony of infant baptisin.' He adds with significance, he soon left the town.'

But the authorities began to punish Baptists in Massachusetts Bay, under the law of 1644. William Witter, of Lynn, was arraigned before the Essex Quarterly Court, February, 1646, for saying that they who stayed while a child is baptized do worship the devil.' Martha West and Henry Collense testify that he charged such persons with breaking the Sabbath and taking the name of the Trinity in vain. Brother Witter certainly did give very free use to his tongue, but the Court had an effectual cure for all heretics' who did that. The law would not connive at such 'opinions,' they were a 'hazard to the whole commonwealth;' he had openly condemned infant baptisin, and had purposely' departed the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance,' and for such wickedness he must be recompensed. He was sentenced to make a public confession before the congregation at Lynn, on the next Sabbath, or be censured at the next General Court. John Wood was arraigned the next day before the same Court for professing Anabaptist sentiments and withholding his children from baptism,' and John Spur was bound to pay a fine of £20. On July 13th, 1651, Spur was expelled from the Boston Church, 'because he ceased to commune with them, on the belief that their baptism, singing of psalms and covenant, were human inventions.' By this time a spirit of general discontent was settling down upon the public mind, and persons in various places were beginning to express their sympathy for the Baptists and to adopt their sentiments on the subject of infant baptism; a state of things which the magistrates found it difficult to repress, and which at last forced not only resistance, but direct aggression, as the surest method of self-defense. Relief was found only in assuming a firm position and a determined stand against such grinding tyranny. If these Baptists stayed away from Congregational Churches, where they were unhappy, those Churches forced them to attend and treated them shamefully for not coming; then, if they went at their command, their presence made these Churches equally unhappy. They were disturbers of the peace when they kept away, and they were contentious when they went; a contradictory state of things which must cure itself, being a slander on the Lamb of God and a disgrace to the seventeenth century.

F

CHAPTER VI.

THE BOSTON BAPTISTS.

IERCE bigotry and intolerance did much for the ancient Baptists in Jerusalem

of old, and this history repeated itself in Boston during the year 1651. The story is very simple. William Witter, a plain old farmer, lived at Swampscott, near‍ Lynn, and was a member of the Congregational Church there. As far back as February 28th, 1643, he renounced infant baptism, and was brought before the Court, charged with speaking indecently of that ordinance. But having made some sort of an apology, he was arraigned a second time, February 18th, 1646, and was formally excommunicated July 24th, 1651, 'for absenting himself from the public ordinances nine months or more and for being rebaptized. Meanwhile he had become a member of Clarke's Church at Newport; at what time does not appear, but evidently some time before, as he had not attended the Church at Lynn for more than nine months. Having become blind as well as old, and living little, if any thing, less than seventy-five miles from his Church, he was unable to attend its communion or to share its Christian sympathy and fellowship, all his surroundings being hostile to him. Whether he had invited a visit from representatives of the Newport Church, or they were prompted to visit him in his affliction, is not stated, but the Church records say: Three of the brethren, namely, Mr. John Clarke, pastor, Obadiah Holmes and James Crandall, were taken upon the Lord's day, July 20th, 1651, at the house of one of the brethren whom they went to visit ; namely, William Witter, in the town of Lyn.' But it is clear from the record itself that he was a brother' in that Church, as Backus calls him; also Arnold, in his History of Rhode Island,' calls him 'an.aged member,' and Dr. Palfrey mentions him as a 'brother in the Church of Baptists.'

The above named three started on this mission of love worthy of Jesus himself and an honor to his servants. They passed quietly on their long journey, possibly through Boston, and reached Witter's home on Saturday night, hoping for a quiet Sabbath under a Christian roof. But this was criminal, much as Peter and John sinned against Jerusalem by helping a poor cripple there. When the Sabbath dawned they thought that they would worship God in their own way on the Lord's day' in Witter's family. Yes; but what right had they to think any such thing? Did they not know that it was a crime to worship God in your own way,' even under your own roof, in Massachusetts? Notwithstanding this Clarke began to preach God's word, from Rev. iii, 10, to Witter's family, his two traveling com

WITTER'S HOUSE INVADED.

2

687

panions, and, as he says, to four or five strangers that came in unexpected after I had begun.' Quite likely those sinners of the Gentiles, John Wood, Joseph Rednap and Roger Scott, were all present. Wood had been tried, February 19th, 1646, for professing Anabaptist sentiments and withholding his children from baptism;' Rednap had broken the law in usually departing from the congregation at the time of administering the seal of baptism;' and Scott was that drowsy sinner who was tried by the Court, February 28th, 1643, 'for common sleeping at the public exercise upon the Lord's day, and for striking him that waked him,' and was 'severely whipped' for the same in the ensuing December. This deponent saith not whether he really was at Witter's, or, if so, whether he wanted a quiet nap unaroused by a pugnacious Puritan Dogberry; perhaps he thought that a stirring Baptist sermon was just the novelty to keep him wide awake on that Sunday and in that particular place.

But no matter who was there, Clarke had begun to preach powerfully on the faithfulness of God to his people in the hour of temptation, when two constables invaded the farm-house, rushing in with a warrant from Robert Bridges, the 'ordinary; and the Newport brethren were brought before this officer of justice as prisoners. Bridges insisted that they should attend service at the State Church, and they insisted that they would not. Clarke said: 'If thou forcest us into your assembly we cannot hold communion with them.' Clarke was very clear-headed,. but he mistook the 'squire, for it was not 'communion' that he was aiming at. The law required all to attend the State Church, and, therefore, them; and go they should anyhow, so they were forced into the assembly. Clarke says that when he was taken in he removed his hat and 'civilly saluted them,' but when he had been conducted to a seat he put on his hat, opened my book and fell to reading.' This troubled the ordinary,' and he commanded the constable to 'pluck off our hats, which he did, and where he laid mine there I let it lie.' When the service closed Clarke desired to speak to the congregation, but silence was commanded and the prisoners were removed. Some liberty was granted them on Monday, which they used, as Paul and Silas used theirs at Philippi, when they entered into the house of Lydia and exhorted the brethren. So here, Clarke and his brethren entered the house of Witter and actually shocked the magistrates by commemorating the love of Jesus together in observing the Lord's Supper. This act filled the cup of their iniquity to the brim, and it was probably the main object of their visit.

On Monday they were removed to Boston and cast into prison, the charges against them being, for disturbing the congregation in the afternoon, for drawing aside others after their erroneous judgments and practices, and for suspicion of rebaptizing one or more amongst us.' Clarke was fined £20, Holmes £30, Crandall £5, and on refusal to pay they were to be well whipped,' although Winthrop had told the English government that they had no law to whip in that kind.' Edwards says that while Mr. Clarke stood stripped at the whipping-post.

6

688

HOLMES UNMERCIFULLY' WHIPPED.

some humane person was so affected with the sight of a scholar, a gentleman and reverend divine, in such a situation, that he, with a sum of money, redeemed him from his bloody tormentors.' Before this he had asked the Court: 'What law of God or man had he broken, that his back must be given to the tormentors for it, or he be despoiled of his goods to the amount of £20?' To which Endicott replied : 'You have denied infant baptism and deserve death, going up and down, and secretly insinuating into them that be weak, but cannot maintain it before our ministers.' Clarke tells us that indulgent and tender-hearted friends, without my consent and contrary to my judgment, paid the fine.' Thus some one paid the fine of Clarke and Crandall, and proposed to pay that of Holmes. The first two were released, whether they assented or not, but Holmes who was a man of learning, and who afterward succeeded Dr. Clarke as pastor of the Newport Church, would not consent to the paying of his fine, and because he refused he was whipped thirty stripes, September 6th, 1651. He said that he 'durst not accept of deliverance in such a way.' He was found guilty of hearing a sermon in a private manner,' or, as the mittimus issued by Robert Bridges expresses it,

For being taken by the constable at a private meeting at Lin, upon the Lord's day, exercising among themselves, to whom divers of the town repaired and joined with them, and that in time of public exercise of the worship of God; as also for offensively disturbing the peace of the congregation, at their coming into the public meeting in the time of prayer, in the afternoon, and for saying and manifesting that the Church in Lin was not constituted according to the order of our Lord. . . . And for suspicion of their having their hands in rebaptizing of one or more.'

Bancroft says that he was whipped 'unmercifully,' and Governor Jenks, ‘that for many days, if not some weeks, he could take no rest but upon his knees and elbows, not being able to suffer any part of his body to touch the bed whereon he lay.' While enduring this torture, he joined his Lord on the cross and Stephen, in praying that this sin might not be laid to the charge of his persecutors; and when his lacerated flesh quivered and blood streamed from his body, so powerfully did the grace of the Crucified sustain him that he cheerfully said to his tormentors:

'You have struck me with roses!'

His remarkable words call to mind the superhuman saying of another noted Baptist, James Bainham, the learned Barrister of the Middle Temple, who was martyred in the days of Henry VIII. Fox shows (ii, p. 246) that he repudiated the baptism of infants. Sir Thomas More lashed him to the whipping-post in his own house at Chelsea, and the whip drew blood copiously from his back; then, when he was burning at the stake, his legs and arms being half-consumed, he exclaimed in triumph: O, ye Papists! behold ye look for miracles, and here you may see a miracle. In this fire I feel no more pain than if I were in a bed of down; it is to me as a bed of roses!' Holmes had much of this noble martyr's spirit.

Most touchingly he himself wrote:

CHRISTIAN SYMPATHY PUNISHED.

689

'I said to the people, though my flesh should fail and my spirit should fail, yet God will not fail; so it pleased the Lord to come in and so to fill my heart and tongue as a vessel full, and with an audible voice I break forth, praying unto the Lord not to lay this sin to their charge, and telling the people that now I found he did not fail me, and, therefore, now I should trust him forever who failed me not. For, in truth, as the strokes fell upon me I had such a spiritual manifestation of God's presence as the like thereof I never had, nor can with fleshy tongue express, and the outward pain was so removed from me, that, indeed, I am not able to declare it to you. It was so easy to me that I could well bear it; yea, and in a manner felt it not, although it was grievous, as the spectators said, the man striking with all his strength-yea, spitting on his hands three times, as many affirmed-with a three-corded whip, giving me therewith thirty strokes. When he had loosened me from the post, having joyfulness in my heart and cheerfulness in my countenance, as the spectators observed, I told the magistrates, you have struck me as with roses, and said, moreover, although the Lord hath made it easy to me, yet I pray God it may not be laid to your charge.'

The vengeful feeling of the authorities toward these harmless men illustrates the severity which was intended. During their examination, Governor Endicott charged them with being 'Anabaptists,' said they deserved death,' and that they would not have such trash brought into their dominion.' The Court lost its temper, and even John Wilson, a clergyman of a very gentle spirit, struck Holmes, and said: The curse of God go with thee;' to which the sufferer replied: "I bless God I am counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus.' After the whipping of Holmes, thirteen persons suffered in one way or another for the sympathy which they manifested for him and were unable to repress. John Spur and John Hazel were sentenced to receive ten lashes, or a fine of forty shillings each. Their crime was, that they had taken the holy confessor by the hand when he was led to the whipping-post by the executioner. This fine was paid by their friends without their consent. The story which they both tell in detail, of their arrest under warrants issued by Increase Nowel, as well as of their trial and sufferings for greeting their abused brother, are most affecting. Hazel being about sixty years of age and infirm, had come fifty miles to comfort his friend Holmes in prison. Professor Knowles tells us that this old Simeon from Rehoboth died before he reached his home. The saint paid a severe penalty for allowing his soft old heart to pity a poor lacerated brother, who had left his noble wife and eight children to visit the blind in his affliction.

This outrage aroused the most bitter resentment everywhere, and to his honor it should be known to the end of the world, that Richard Saltonstall, one of the first magistrates of Massachusetts, who was then in England, sent a dignified and indignant letter, dated April 25th, 1652, to Rev. Messrs. Cotton and Wilson, in which he wrote:

'It doth not a little grieve my spirit to hear what sad things are reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New England, as that you fine, whip, and imprison men for their consciences. First, you compel such to come into your assem