Chapter V: Varney, Thomas, ii. 306 (9)

He was succeeded in the ministry at Salem Village by a character of a totally different class. Deodat Lawson is first heard of in this country, according to Mr. Savage, at Martha's Vineyard in 1671. He took the freeman's oath at Boston in 1680, and continued[i.269] to have his residence there. It was not until after much negotiation and considerable importunity, that he was prevailed upon to enter into an engagement to preach at the Village. He began his ministry early in 1684, as appears by the parish record of a meeting Feb. 22, 1684: "Voted that Joseph Herrick, Jonathan Putnam, and Goodman Cloyse are desired to take care for to get a boat for the removing of Mr. Lawson's goods." Votes, about this time, were passed to repair the parsonage, and the fences around the ministry land; thus putting things in readiness to receive him. It does not appear that he became particularly entangled in the conflicts which had so long disturbed the Village, although, while the mother-church signified its readiness to approve of his ordination, and some movement was made in the Village to that end, it was found impossible to bring the hostile parties sufficiently into co-operation to allow of any thing being definitely accomplished. Fortunately for Mr. Lawson, the spirit of strife found other objects upon which to expend its energies for the time being. Some persons brought forward complaints, that the records of the parish had not been correctly kept (this was before Sergeant Thomas Putnam had been charged with that trust); that votes which had passed in "Mr. Bayley's days" and in "Mr. Burroughs's days" had not been truly recorded, or recorded at all; and that what had never been passed had been entered as votes. A great agitation arose on this subject, and many meetings were held. Some demanded that the[i.270] spurious votes should be expunged; others, that the omitted votes should be inserted. Then there was an excited disputation about the ministry lands, and the validity or sufficiency of their title to them. Joseph Houlton had given them; but he had nothing to do with raising the question, and did all he could to suppress it. Some person had discovered that William Haynes, to whom Houlton had succeeded by the right of his wife, had omitted to get his deed of purchase recorded, and the original could not be found. Disputes also arose about the use of the grounds around the meeting-house. These, added to the conflicts with the "Topsfield men," and matters not fully adjusted with the town of Salem, created and kept up a violent fermentation, in which all were miscellaneously involved. In the midst of this confusion, the matter of ordaining Mr. Lawson was put into the warrant for a meeting to be held on the 10th of December, 1686. But it was found impossible to recall the people from their divisions, and no favorable action could be had.

At length, all attempts to settle their difficulties among themselves were abandoned; and they called for help from outside. At a legally warned meeting on the 17th of January, 1687, the inhabitants made choice of "Captain John Putnam" (he had been promoted in the military line since the affair in the meeting-house with Mr. Burroughs), "Lieutenant Jonathan Walcot, Ensign Thomas Flint, and Corporal Joseph Herrick, for to transact with Joseph Hutchinson, Job Swinnerton, Joseph Porter, and Daniel An[i.271]drew about their grievances relating to the public affairs of this place; and, if they cannot agree among themselves, that then they shall refer their differences to the Honored Major Gedney and John Hathorne, Esqs., and to the reverend elders of the Salem Church, for a full determination of those differences." Of course, it was impossible to settle the matter among themselves, and the referees were called in. William Brown, Jr., Esq., was added to them. They were all of the old town, and men of the highest consideration. Their judgment in the case is a well-drawn and interesting document, and shows the view which near neighbors took of the distractions in the village. The following passage will exhibit the purport and spirit of it:—

"_Loving Brethren, Friends and Neighbors_,—Upon serious consideration of, and mature deliberation upon, what hath been offered to us about your calling and transacting in order to the settling and ordaining the Rev. Mr. Deodat Lawson, and the grievances offered by some to obstruct and impede that proceeding, our sense of the matter is this,—first, that the affair of calling and transacting in order to the settling and ordaining the Reverend Mr. Lawson hath not been so inoffensively managed as might have been,—at least, not in all the parts and passages of it; second, that the grievances offered by some amongst you are not in themselves of sufficient weight to obstruct so great a work, and that they have not been improved so peaceably and orderly as Christian prudence and self-denial doth direct; third, to our grief, we observe such uncharitable expressions and uncomely reflections tossed to and fro as look like the effects[i.272] of settled prejudice and resolved animosity, though we are much rather willing to account them the product of weakness than wilfulness: however, we must needs say, that, come whence they will, they have a tendency to make such a gap as we fear, if not timely prevented, will let out peace and order, and let in confusion and every evil work."

They then proceed to give some good advice to "prevent contention and trouble for the future, that it may not devour for ever, and that, if the Lord please, you may be happier henceforth than to make one another miserable; and not make your place uncomfortable to your present, and undesirable to any other, minister, and the ministry itself in a great measure unprofitable: and that you may not bring impositions on yourselves by convincing all about you that you cannot, or will not, use your liberty as becomes the gospel." Their advice is, "that you desist, at present, from urging the ordination of the Rev. Mr. Lawson, till your spirits are better quieted and composed." They give some judicious suggestions about various matters that had been the occasion of difficulty among them, especially to help them get their records put into good shape, and kept so for the future; and wind up in the following excellent, and in some of the clauses rather emphatic and pithy, expressions:—

"Finally, we think peace cheap, if it may be procured by complying with the aforementioned particulars, which are few, fair, and easy; and that they will hardly pass for lovers of peace, truth, ministry, and order, in the day of the Lord,[i.273] that shall so lean to their own understanding and will that they shall refuse such easy methods for the obtaining of them. And, if peace and agreement amongst you be once comfortably obtained, we advise you with all convenient speed to go on with your intended ordination; and so we shall follow our advice with our prayers. But, if our advice be rejected, we wish you better, and hearts to follow it; and only add, if you will unreasonably trouble yourselves, we pray you not any further to trouble us. We leave all to the blessing of God, the wonderful Counsellor, and your own serious consideration: praying you to read and consider the whole, and then act as God shall direct you. Farewell."

[Salem, Feb. 14, 1687. Signed by the five referees,—John Higginson and Nicholas Noyes (the elders of the old church), and the three gentlemen before named.]

At a meeting of the inhabitants of the Village on the 18th of February, it was voted that "we do accept of and embrace the advice of the honored and reverend gentlemen of Salem, sent to us under their hands, and order that it shall be entered on our book of records." But they took care further to vote, that they accepted it "in general, and not in parts." In accordance with the advice of the referees, they brought up, considered anew, and put to question, every entry in their past records about the genuineness and validity of which any division of opinion existed. Some entries that had been complained of and given offence as incorrect were voted out, and others were confirmed by being adopted on a new vote. A new book of records was[i.274] prepared, to conform to these decisions, which, having been submitted for examination to leading persons, appointed for the purpose at a legal meeting representing both parties, and approved by them, was adopted and sanctioned at a subsequent meeting also called for the purpose.

In accordance with the same advice "that the old book of records be kept in being," it was ordered by the meeting to leave the votes that had, by the foregoing proceedings, been rendered null and void, to "lie in the old book of records as they are." From the new book of records we learn that "some votes are left out that passed in Mr. Bayley's days, and some that passed in Mr. Burroughs's days," particularly all the votes but one that passed at a meeting held on the fifth day of June, 1683, the very time that Mr. Burroughs was under bonds in the action of debt brought by John Putnam. The new record specifies some few, but not all, of the votes that were rescinded because it was adjudged that they had not rightfully passed, or been correctly stated. Unfortunately, the old book, after all, has not been "kept in being;" and much that would have exhibited more fully and clearly the unhappy early history of the parish is for ever lost. If the records that have been suffered to remain present the picture I have endeavored faithfully to draw, how much darker might have been its shades had we been permitted to behold what the parties concerned concurred in thinking too bad to be left to view!

The attempt to expunge records is always indefensi[i.275]ble, besides being in itself irrational and absurd. It may cover up the details of wrong and folly; but it leaves an unlimited range to the most unfriendly conjecture. We are compelled to imagine what we ought to be allowed to know; and, in many particulars, our fancies may be worse than the facts. But later times, and public bodies of greater pretensions than "the inhabitants of Salem Village," have attempted, and succeeded in perpetrating, this outrage upon history. In trying to conceal their errors, men have sometimes destroyed the means of their vindication. This may be the case with the story that is to be told of "Salem Witchcraft." It has been the case in reference to wider fields of history. The Parliamentary journals and other public records of the period of the Commonwealth and the Protectorate were suppressed by the infatuated stupidity of the Government of the Restoration. They foolishly imagined that they were hiding the shame, while they were obscuring the glory, of their country. Every Englishman, every intelligent man, now knows, that, during that very period, all that has made England great was done. The seeds of her naval and maritime prosperity were planted: and she was pushed at once by wise measures of policy, internal and external; by legislation developing her resources and invigorating the power of her people; by a decisive and comprehensive diplomacy that commanded the respect of foreign courts, and secured to her a controlling influence upon the traffic of the world; by developments of her military genius under[i.276] the greatest of all the great generals of modern times; and by naval achievements that snatched into her hands the balancing trident of the seas,—to the place she still holds (how much longer she may hold it remains to be seen) as the leading power of the world. If she has to relinquish that position, it will only be to a power that is true to the spirit, and is not ashamed of the name, of a republic. The nation that fully develops the policy which pervaded the records of the English Commonwealth will be the leader of the world. The suppression of those records has not suppressed the spirit of popular liberty, or the progress of mankind in the path of reform, freedom, equal rights, and a true civilization. It has only cast a shadow, which can never wholly be dispelled, over what otherwise would have been the brightest page in the annals of a great people. We depend for our knowledge of the steps by which England then made a most wonderful stride to prosperity and power, not upon official and authoritative records, but upon the desultory and sometimes merely gossiping memoirs of particular persons, and such other miscellaneous materials as can be picked up. The only consequence of an attempt to extinguish the memory of republicans, radicals, reformers, and regicides has been, that the history of England's true glory can never be adequately written.

The referees used the following language touching the point of the ordination of Mr. Lawson: "If more than a mere major part should not consent to it, we[i.277] should be loath to advise our brethren to proceed." This, in connection with the other sentence I have quoted from their communication recommending them "to desist at present" from urging it, was fatal to the immediate movement in his favor; and, not seeing any prospect of their "spirits becoming better quieted and composed," and weary of the attempt to bring them to any comfortable degree of unanimity, Mr. Lawson threw up his connection with them, and removed back to Boston. We shall meet him again; but it is well to despatch at this point what is to be said of his character and history.

It is evident that Deodat Lawson had received the best education of his day. It is not easy to account for his not having left a more distinguished mark in Old or New England. He had much learning and great talents. Of his power in getting up pulpit performances in the highest style of eloquence, of which that period afforded remarkable specimens, I shall have occasion to speak. Among his other attainments, he was, what cannot be said of learned and professional men generally now any more than then, an admirable penman. The village parish adopted the practice at the beginning, when paying the salaries of its ministers from time to time, instead of taking receipts on detached and loose pieces of paper, of having them write them out in their own hand on the pages of the record-book, with their signatures. It is a luxury, in looking over the old volume, to come upon the receipts of Deodat Lawson, in his plain, round hand.[i.278] A specimen is given among the autographs. His chirography is easy, free, graceful, clear, and clean. It unites with wonderful taste the highest degrees of simplicity and ornament. Each style is used, and both are blended, as occasion required. During his ministry, the trouble about the old record-book occurred. The first four pages of the new book are in his handwriting. The ink has somewhat faded; the paper has become discolored, and, around the margins and at the bottom of the leaves, lamentably worn and broken. The first page exhibits Lawson's penmanship in its various styles. It is artistically executed in several sizes of letters, appropriate to the position of the clauses and the import and weight of the matter. In each there is an elegant combination of ornament and simplicity. His chirography was often had in requisition; and papers, evidently from his pen, are on file in various cases, occurring in court at the time, in which his friends were interested.

The first four ministers of the village parish were excellent penmen. Bayley's hand is more like the modern style than the rest. Burroughs's is as legible as print, uniform in its character, open and upright. The specimen among the autographs is from the record referred to at the top of page 262. As it was written at the bottom of a page in the record-book, where there was hardly sufficient room, it had to be in a slanting line. I give it just as it there appears. Parris wrote three different hands, all perfectly easy to read. The larger kind was used when signing his[i.281] name to important papers, or in brief entries of record. The specimen I give is from a receipt in the parish-book, which Thomas Putnam, as clerk, made oath in court, that Parris wrote and signed in his presence. His notes of examinations of persons charged with witchcraft by the committing magistrate, many of which are preserved, are in his smallest hand, very minute, but always legible. In his church-records he uses sometimes a medium hand, and sometimes the smallest. The autographs of Townsend Bishop and Thomas Putnam show the handwriting that seems to have prevailed among well-educated people in England at the time of the first settlement of this country. There was often a profusion of flourishes that obscured the letters. The initial capitals were quite complicated and very curious. The signature of Thomas Putnam, Jr., exhibits his excellent handwriting.

[i.279]

autographs

[i.280]

autographs

I have adduced these facts and given these illustrations to show, that, in this branch of education,—the value and desirableness of which cannot be overrated,—it is at least an open question, whether we have much ground to boast of being in advance of the first generations of our ancestors in America. The early ministers of the Salem Village parish certainly compare, in this particular, favorably with ministers and professional men, and recording officers generally in public bodies of all kinds, in later times.

Sergeant Thomas Putnam did not act as clerk of the parish from April, 1687, to April, 1694. A few entries are made by his hand; but the record, very[i.282] meagre and fragmentary, is for the most part made by others. This is much to be regretted, as the interval covers the very period of our history. His time, probably, was taken up, and his mind wholly engrossed, by an unhappy family difficulty, in which, during that period, he was involved. Thomas Putnam Sr. died, as has been stated, in 1686. It was thought, by the children of his first wife, that the influence of the second wife had been unduly exercised over him, in his last years, so as to induce him to make a will giving to her, and her only child by him, Joseph, a very unfair proportion of his estate. It was felt by them to be so unjust that they attempted to break the will. The management of the case was confided to Sergeant Thomas Putnam, as the eldest son of the family; and the affair, it may be supposed, absorbed his thoughts to such a degree as to render it necessary for him to abandon his services as clerk of the parish. The attempt to set aside the will failed. The circumstances connected with the subject disturbed very seriously—perhaps permanently—the happiness of the whole family, and may have contributed to create the morbid excitement which afterwards was so fearfully displayed by the wife of the younger Thomas.

While Mr. Lawson was at the village, he lost his wife and daughter. In 1690, he was again married, to Deborah Allen. He was settled afterwards over the Second Society in Scituate,—it is singular that our local histories do not tell us when, but that we get all we know on the point from a sentence written by the[i.283] pen on a leaf of one of the two folio volumes of John Quick's "Synodicon in Gallia Reformata," in the possession of a gentleman in this country, Henry M. Dexter, who says it is evidently Quick's autograph. It is in these words: "For my reverend and dear brother, Mr. Lawson, minister of the gospel, and pastor of the church of Scituate, in the province of Massachusetts in New England; from the publisher, John Quick, _honoris et amoris ergo_, Aug. 6, 1693." In 1696, Mr. Lawson went over to England, merely for a short visit, as his people supposed. They heard from him no more. He never asked a dismission, or communicated with them in any way. In 1698, an ecclesiastical council declared them free to settle another minister, which they did in due time. He was, no doubt, alive and in London when, in 1704, his famous Salem Village sermon was reprinted there. But this is the last glimpse we have of him. An inscrutable mystery covers the rest of his history. His manner of leaving the Scituate parish shows him to have been an eccentric person, leaves an unfavorable impression of his character, and is as inexplicable as the only other reference to him that has thus far been found. Calamy, in his "Continuation of the Account of Ejected Ministers," published in 1727, has a notice of Thomas Lawson, whom he describes as minister of Denton in the county of Norfolk, educated at Katherine Hall in Cambridge, and afterwards chosen "to a fellowship in St. John's. He was a man of parts, but had no good utterance. He was the[i.284] father of the unhappy Mr. Deodat Lawson, who came hither from New England." With all his abilities, learning, and eloquence, he disappears, after the re-publication of his Salem Village sermon in London, in the dark, impenetrable cloud of this expression, "the unhappy Mr. Deodat Lawson." Of the melancholy fate implied in the language of Calamy, I have not been able to obtain the slightest information.

The troubles that covered the whole period, since the beginning of Mr. Bayley's ministry, had led to the neglect and derangement of the entire organization of the Village, and resulted in the loss of what little opportunities for education might otherwise have been provided. So great was this evil regarded, that the old town felt it necessary to interpose; and we find it voted Jan. 24, 1682, that "Lieutenant John Putnam is desired, and is hereby empowered, to take care that the law relating to the catechising of children and youth be duly attended at the Village." He is also "desired to have a diligent care that all the families do carefully and constantly attend the due education of their children and youth according to law." We cannot but feel that the man who was ready to fight the "Topsfield men" in the woods—who, when they asked him, "What, by violence?" answered, with axe in hand, "Ay, by violence," and who figured in the manner described in the scene with Mr. Burroughs—was a singular person to intrust with the charge of "catechising the children and youth." But those were queer times, and he was a queer character. He[i.285] had always been a church-member; and, to the day of his death, church and prayer meetings were more frequently held at his house than in any other. He was a rough man, but he was no hypocrite. He was in the front of every encounter; but he was tolerant, too, of difference of opinion. When, at one time, the contests of the Village were at their height, and two committees were raised representing the two conflicting parties, he was at the head of one, and his eldest son (Jonathan) of the other. Their opposition does not seem to have alienated them. While I have found it necessary to hold him up, in some of his actions, for condemnation, there were many good points about him; although he was not the sort of man that would be likely, in our times, to be selected to execute the functions of a Sunday-school teacher.

During all this period, there was a variety of minor controversies among themselves, causing greater or less disturbance. Joseph Hutchinson, who had given a site out of his homestead-grounds for the meeting-house, had no patience with their perpetual wranglings. He fenced up his lands around the meeting-house lot, leaving them an entrance on the end towards the road. They went to court about it, and he was called to account by the usual process of law. The plain, gruff old farmer, who seems all along to have been a man of strong sense and decided character, filed an answer, which is unsurpassed for bluntness of expression. It has no language of ceremony, but goes to the point at once. It has a general inter[i.286]est as showing, to how late a period the inhabitants of this neighborhood were exposed to Indian attacks, and what means of defence were resorted to by the Village worshippers. The document manifests the contempt in which he held the complainants, and it was all the satisfaction they got.

"Joseph Hutchinson his answer is as followeth:—

"First, as to the covenant they spoke of, I conceive it is neither known of by me nor them, as will appear by records from the farmer's book.

"Second, I conceive they have no cause to complain of me for fencing in my own land; for I am sure I fenced in none of theirs. I wish they would not pull down my fences. I am loath to complain, though I have just cause.

"Third, for blocking up the meeting-house, it was they did it, and not I, in the time of the Indian wars; and they made Salem pay for it. I wish they would bring me my rocks they took to do it with; for I want them to make fence with.

"Thus, hoping this honored Court will see that there was no just cause to complain against me, and their cause will appear unjust in that they would in an unjust way take away my land, I trust I shall have relief; so I rest, your Honor's servant,

Joseph Hutchinson."

[Nov. 27, 1686.]

The next minister of Salem Village brought matters to a crisis. Samuel Parris is stated to have been a son of Thomas Parris, of London, and was born in 1653. He was, for a time, a member of Harvard College, but did not finish the academic course, being[i.287] drawn to a commercial life. He was engaged in the West-India business, and probably lived at Barbadoes. After a while, he abandoned commerce, and prepared himself for the ministry. There was at this time, and long subsequently, a very particular mercantile connection between Salem and Barbadoes. The former husband of the wife of Thomas Putnam, Sr.,—Nathaniel Veren,—as has been stated, had property in that island, and was more or less acquainted with its people. Perhaps it was through this channel that the thoughts of the people of the Village were turned towards Mr. Parris. From a deposition made by him a few years afterwards in a suit at law between him and his parishioners, we learn some interesting facts relating to the negotiations that led to his settlement.

It appears from his statement that a committee, consisting of "Captain John Putnam, Mr. Joshua Rea, Sr., and Francis Nurse," was appointed, on the 15th of November, 1688, to treat with him "about taking ministerial office." On the 25th of November, "after the services in the afternoon, the audience was stayed, and, by a general vote, requested Mr. Parris to take office." He hung back for a while, and exercised the skill and adroitness acquired in his mercantile life in making as sharp a bargain as he could.

At that time, there appeared to be a degree of harmony among the people, such as they had never known before. There was a disposition on all sides to come together, and avail themselves of the occasion of[i.288] settling a new minister, to bury their past animosities, and forget their grievances; and there is every reason to believe, if Mr. Parris had promptly closed with their terms, he might have enjoyed a peaceful ministry, and a happy oblivion have covered for ever his name and the history of the village. But he withheld response to the call. The people were impatient, and felt that the golden opportunity might be lost, and the old feuds revive. On the 10th of December, another committee was raised, consisting of Lieutenant Nathaniel Putnam, Sergeant Fuller, Mr. Joshua Rea, Sr., and Sergeant Ingersoll, as "messengers, to know whether Mr. Parris would accept of office." His answer was, "the work was weighty; they should know in due time." They were thus kept in suspense during the whole winter, getting no reply from him. On the 29th of April, 1689, "Deacons Nathaniel Ingersoll and Edward Putnam, Daniel Rea, Thomas Fuller, Jr., and John Tarbell, came to Mr. Parris from the meeting-house," where there had been a general meeting of the inhabitants, and said, "Being the aged men had had the matter of Mr. Parris's settlement so long in hand, and effected nothing, they were desirous to try what the younger could do." Deacon Ingersoll was about fifty-five years of age; but his spirit and character kept him in sympathy with the progressive impulses of younger men. Deacon Putnam was thirty-four years of age. Daniel Rea was the son of Joshua; Thomas Fuller, Jr., the son of Sergeant Fuller; and John Tarbell, the son-in-law of Francis Nurse.[i.289]

This is the first appearance, I believe, in our history, of that notorious and most pretentious personage who has figured so largely in all our affairs ever since, "Young America." The sequel shows, that, in this instance at least, no benefit arose from discarding the caution and experience of years. The "younger men" were determined to "go ahead." They said they were desirous of a speedy answer. Finding them in a temper to "finish the thing up," at any rate, and seeing that they were ambitious to get the credit of "effecting something," and, for that end, predisposed to come to his terms, he disclosed them. They had offered him a salary of sixty pounds per annum,—one third in money, the rest in provisions, at certain specified rates. He agreed to accept the call on the foregoing terms, with certain additional conditions thus described by himself: "First, when money shall be more plenteous, the money part to be paid me shall accordingly be increased. Second, though corn or like provisions should arise to a higher price than you have set, yet, for my own family use, I shall have what is needful at the price now stated, and so if it fall lower. Third, the whole sixty pounds to be only from our inhabitants that are dwelling in our bounds, proportionable to what lands they have within the same. Fourth, no provision to be brought in without first asking whether needed, and myself to make choice of what, unless the person is unable to pay in any sort but one. Fifth, firewood to be given in yearly, freely. Sixth, two men to be chosen yearly to see that due payments be made.[i.290] Seventh, contributions each sabbath in papers; and only such as are in papers, and dwelling within our bounds, to be accounted a part of the sixty pounds. Eighth, as God shall please to bless the place so as to be able to rise higher than the sixty pounds, that then a proportionable increase be made. If God shall please, for our sins, to diminish the substance of said place, I will endeavor accordingly to bear such losses, by proportionable abatements of such as shall reasonably desire it."

A contribution-box was either handed around by the deacons, before the congregation was dismissed, or attached permanently near the porch or door. Rate-payers would inclose their money in papers, with their names, and drop them in. When the box was opened, the sums inclosed would be entered to their credit on the rate-schedule. There was always a considerable number of stated worshippers in the congregation who lived without the bounds of the village, and often transient visitors or strangers happened to be at meeting. It was a point that had not been determined, whether moneys collected from the above descriptions of persons should go into the general treasury of the parish, to be used in meeting their contract to pay the minister's salary, or be kept as a separate surplus.

The terms, as thus described by Mr. Parris, show that he had profited by his experience in trade, and knew how to make a shrewd bargain. It was quite certain that a farming community in a new country, with fields continually reclaimed from the wilderness and[i.291] added to culture, would increase in substance: if so, his annual stipend would increase. If the place should decline, he was to abate the tax of individuals, if desired by them personally, so far as he should judge their petition to that effect reasonable. If "strangers' money," or contributions from "outsiders," were not to go to make up his sixty pounds, it was quite probable that it would come into his pocket as an extra allowance, or perquisite.

He says that the committee accepted these terms, and agreed to them, expressing their belief that the people also would. No record appears on the parish-books of the appointment of this committee of the "younger men," or of the action of the society on their report, or of any report having been made at that time. In the mean while, Mr. Parris continued to preach and act as the minister of the society until his ordination, near the close of the year. There was a meeting on the 21st of May; but the record consists of but a single entry,—the appointment of a committee "as overseers for the year ensuing, to take care of our meeting-house and other public charges, and to make return according to law." The next entry is of a general meeting of the inhabitants, on the 18th of June, 1689. The choice of the regular standing committee for the year is recorded. Immediately following this entry, are these words:—

"At the same meeting,—the 18th of June, 1689,—it was agreed and voted by general concurrence, that, for Mr. Parris, his encouragement and settlement in the work of the[i.292] ministry amongst us, we will give him sixty six pounds for his yearly salary,—one-third paid in money, the other two-third parts for provisions, &c.; and Mr. Parris to find himself firewood, and Mr. Parris to keep the ministry-house in good repair; and that Mr. Parris shall also have the use of the ministry-pasture, and the inhabitants to keep the fence in repair; and that we will keep up our contributions, and our inhabitants to put their money in papers, and this to continue so long as Mr. Parris continues in the work of the ministry amongst us, and all productions to be good and merchantable. And, if it please God to bless the inhabitants, we shall be willing to give more; and to expect, that if God shall diminish the estates of the people, that then Mr. Parris do abate of his salary according to proportion."

Comparing this record with the account given by Mr. Parris of the eight conditions upon which he agreed, in conference with the committee of the "younger" sort, on the 29th of April, to accept the call of the parish, the difference is not very essential. The matter of firewood was arranged, according to his account, by mutual agreement, they to add six pounds to his salary, and he to find his own wood. The rates of "the inhabitants" were to be paid "in papers." The only point of difference, touching this matter, is that the record is silent about contributions by outsiders and strangers; whereas he says it was agreed, on the 29th of April, that they should not go towards making up his salary. The idea of his salary rising with the growth and sinking with the decline of the society is expressed in the record[i.293] substantially as it is by him, only it is made exact; and, in case of a decline in the means of the people, a corresponding decline is to be in the aggregate of his salary, and not by abatements made by him in individual cases. The variations are nearly, if not quite, all unimportant in their nature, and such as a regard to mutual convenience would suggest. Yet there was something in the above record which highly exasperated Mr. Parris.

In his deposition he states, that, at a meeting held on the 17th of May, of which there is no record in the parish book, he was sent for and was present. He says that there was "much agitation" at the meeting. He says that objection was made by the people to two of his "eight" conditions, the fifth and seventh. But there is nothing in the record of the 18th of June in conflict with what he says was finally agreed upon, except the disposition that should be made of "strangers' money." The question then recurs, What was the cause of the "much agitation" at that meeting? What was it in the language of that record which always so excited Mr. Parris's wrath?

I am inclined to think that the offensive words were those which require "Mr. Parris to keep the ministry house in good repair," and that he "shall also have the use of the ministry pasture;" and this was not objectionable as involving any expense upon him, but solely because the language employed precluded the supposition that the parish had countenanced the idea of ever conveying the parsonage and parsonage lands[i.294] to him in his own right and absolutely. This was an object which he evidently had in view from the first, and to which he clung to the last. It is to be feared, that some of the members of the "Young-America" committee, in their heedless and inconsiderate eagerness to "effect" something, to settle Mr. Parris forthwith, and thereby prove how much more competent they were than "the aged men" to transact a weighty business, had encouraged Mr. Parris to think that his favorite object could be accomplished. Upon a little inquiry, however, they discovered that it could not be done; but that the house and land were secured by the original deeds of conveyance, and by irreversible agreements and conditions, to the use of the ministry, for the time being and for ever. So far as the committee or any of its members had favored this idea in their conference with Mr. Parris, they had taken a position from which they had to retreat. They had compromised themselves and the parish. For this reason, perhaps, they made no report; and no mention of their agency appears on the records. How far Deacon Ingersoll was misled by his younger associates on this occasion, I know not; but he was not a man to break a promise if he could keep it, no matter how much to his own loss. He recognized his responsibility as chairman of the unfortunate committee, and retrieved the mistake they had made, by giving to Mr. Parris, by deed, a lot of land adjoining the parsonage property, and in value equal to the whole of it. The date of that conveyance, immediately after Mr. Parris's ordination, corroborates[i.295] the conjecture that it was made to compensate Mr. Parris for the failure of his expectation to get possession of the ministry property. It ought to have been received by him as an equivalent, and have soothed his angry disappointment; but it did not. He had indulged the belief, that he had effected a bargain with the parish, at his settlement, which had made him the owner, in fee simple, of the parish property; and when he found that the record of the terms of his settlement, in the parish-book, absolutely precluded that idea, his exasperation was great, and no reparation Deacon Ingersoll or any one else could make was suffered to appease it. The following deposition, made in court some years afterwards, gives an account of a scene in the meeting-house after Parris's ordination:—

"Ipswich Court, 1697.—Parris _versus_ Inhabitants of Salem Village.

"We the undersigned testify and say, that, a considerable time after Mr. Parris his ordination, there was a meeting of the inhabitants of Salem Village at the usual place of meeting; and the occasion of the meeting was concerning Mr. Parris, and several persons were at that meeting, that had not, before this meeting, joined with the people in calling or agreeing with Mr. Parris; and the said persons desired that those things that concerned Mr. Parris and the people might be read, and accordingly it was. And the entry, that some call a salary, being read, there arose a difference among the people, the occasion of which was finding an entry in the book of the Village records, relating to Mr. Parris his maintenance, which was dated the 18th of June,[i.296] 1689; and, the entry being read to the people, some replied that they believed that Mr. Parris would not comply with that entry; whereupon one said it was best to send for Mr. Parris to resolve the question. Accordingly, he was sent for. He coming to the people, this entry of the 18th of June, 1689, was read to Mr. Parris. His answer was as follows: 'He never heard or knew any thing of it, neither could or would he take up with it, or any part of it;' and further he said, 'They were knaves and cheaters that entered it.' And Lieutenant Nathaniel Putnam, being moderator of that meeting, replied to Mr. Parris, and said, 'Sir, then there is only proposals on both sides, and no agreement between you and the people.' And Mr. Parris answered and said, 'No more, there is not; for I am free from the people, and the people free from me:' and so the meeting broke up. And we further testify, that there hath not been any agreement made with Mr. Parris, that we knew of or ever heard of,—never since.

"Joseph Porter. Daniel Andrew. Joseph Putnam.

"Sworn in Court, at Ipswich, April 13, 1697, by all three.

Attest, Stephen Sewall, _Clerk_."

The answer which Mr. Parris made to Nathaniel Putnam's inquiry probably settled the question in the suit then pending, and led to the final release of the parish from him. It is hard to find any point of difference between his own account of the conditions he himself made, and the record of the parish-book, of sufficient importance to account for the storm of passion[i.297] into which the reading of the latter drove him, except in the language which I have suggested as the probable occasion of his wrath. Unfortunately for him, there is evidence quite corroborative of this suggestion.

The parish-book has the following record:—

"At a general meeting of the inhabitants of Salem Village, Oct. 10, 1689, it was agreed and voted, that the vote, in our book of record of 1681, that lays, as some say, an entailment upon our ministry house and land, is hereby made void and of no effect; one man only dissenting.

"It was voted and agreed by a general concurrence, that we will give to Mr. Parris our ministry house and barn, and two acres of land next adjoining to the house; and that Mr. Parris take office amongst us, and live and die in the work of the ministry among us; and, if Mr. Parris or his heirs do sell the house and land, that the people may have the first refusal of it, by giving as much as other men will. A committee was chosen to lay out the land, and make a conveyance of the house and land, and to make the conveyance in the name and in the behalf of the inhabitants unto Mr. Parris and his heirs."

The record of these votes is not signed by the clerk, and there is no evidence that the meeting was legally warned. It does not appear in whose custody the book then was. But, however the entry got in, it proves that Parris's friends were determined to gratify his all but insane purpose to get possession of what he ought to have known it was impossible for the parish to give, or for him or his heirs to hold. It was indeed a miserable commencement of his ministry, to introduce such[i.298] a strife with a people who really seem to have had an earnest desire to receive him with united hearts, and make his settlement and ministry the harbinger of a better day. But he alienated many of them, at the very start, by his sharp practice in negotiating about the pecuniary details of his agreement with the parish. When, after all their care to prevent it, it became known that somehow or other a vote had got upon the records, conveying to him outright their ministerial property, there was great indignation; and a determined effort was made to recover what they declared to be "a fraudulent conveying-away" of the property of the society.

A more violent conflict than any before was let loose upon that devoted people. The old passions were rekindled. Men ranged themselves as the friends and opponents of Mr. Parris in bitter antagonism. Rates were not collected; the meeting-house went into dilapidation; complaints were made to the County Court; orders were issued to collect rates, but they were disregarded; and all was confusion, disorder, and contention.

A church was organized in connection with the village parish, and Mr. Parris ordained on Monday, Nov. 19, 1689. The covenant adopted was the "confession of faith owned and consented unto by the elders and messengers of the churches assembled at Boston, New England, May 12, 1680." In the library of the Connecticut Historical Society, there is a manuscript volume of sermons and abstracts of sermons preached[i.299] by Mr. Parris between November, 1689, and May, 1694. It begins with his ordination sermon, which has this prefix: "My poor and weak ordination sermon, at the embodying of a church at Salem Village on the 19th of the ninth month, 1689, the Rev. Mr. Nicholas Noyes embodying of us; who also ordained my most unworthy self pastor, and, together with the Rev. Mr. Samuel Phillips and the Rev. Mr. John Hale, imposed hands,—the same Mr. Phillips giving me the right hand of fellowship with beautiful loveliness and humility." The text is from Josh. v. 9: "And the Lord said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from off you."

The first entry in the church-records, after the covenant and the names of the members, is the following: "Nov. 24, 1689.—Sab: day. Brother Nathaniel Ingersoll chosen, by a general vote of the brethren, to officiate in the place of a deacon for a time."

Mr. Parris commenced his administration by showing that he meant to exercise the disciplinary powers intrusted to him, as pastor of a church, with a high hand, and without much regard to persons or circumstances. Ezekiel Cheever had been a member of the mother-church in Salem twenty years before, was one of the founders of the parish church, and appears to have been a worthy and amiable person, occupying and owning the farm of his uncle, Captain Lothrop. On the sudden illness of a member of his family, being "in distress for a horse," none of his own being[i.300] available at the time, he rushed, in his hurry and alarm, to the stable of a neighbor, took one of his horses, "without leave or asking of it," and rode, post haste, for a doctor. One would have thought that an affair of this sort, in such an exigency, might have been left to neighborly explanation or adjustment. But Mr. Parris regarded it as giving a good opportunity for an exercise of power that would strike the terrors of discipline home upon the whole community. About five or six weeks after the occurrence, Cheever was dealt with in the manner thus described by Mr. Parris, in his church-record, dated "Sab: 30 March, 1690." He was "called forth to give satisfaction to the offended church, as also the last sabbath he was called forth for the same purpose; but then he failed in giving satisfaction, by reason of somewhat mincing in the latter part of his confession, which, in the former, he had more ingenuously acknowledged: but this day, the church received satisfaction, as was testified by their holding-up of their hands; and, after the whole, a word of caution by the pastor was dropped upon the offender in particular, and upon us all in general."

Mr. Parris was evidently inclined to magnify the importance of the church, and to get it into such a state of subserviency to his authority, that he could wield it effectually as a weapon in his fight with the congregation. With this view, he endeavored to render the action of the church as dignified and imposing as possible; to enlarge and expand its ceremonial proceedings, and make it the theatre for the exercise of[i.301] his authority as its head and ruler. This feature of his policy was so strikingly illustrated in the course he took in reference to the deacons, that I must present it as recorded by him in the church-book. It is worth preserving as a curiosity in ecclesiastical administration.

Nathaniel Ingersoll had been a professor of religion almost as long as Mr. Parris had lived. He was eminently a Christian man, of acknowledged piety, and beloved and revered by all. He had been the patron, benefactor, and guardian of the parish and all its interests from its formation. He had long held the title of deacon, and exercised the functions of that office so far as they could be exercised previous to the organization of a church. He had been the almoner of the charities of the people, and their adviser and religious friend in all things. He was approaching the boundaries of advanced years, and already recognized among the fathers of the community. It would have seemed no more than what all might have expected, to have had him recognized as a deacon of the church, in full standing, at the first. It was, no doubt, what all did expect. But no: he must be put upon probation. He was chosen deacon "for the present" in November, 1689. Mr. Parris kept the matter of confirmation hanging in his own hands for a year and a half. The appointment of the other deacon was kept suspended for a full year. On the 30th of November, 1690, there is the following entry:[i.302]—

"This evening, after the public service was over, the church was, by the pastor, desired to stay, and then by him Brother Edward Putnam was propounded as a meet person for to be chosen as another deacon. The issue whereof was, that, it being now an excessive cold day, some did propose that another season might be pitched upon for discourse thereof. Whereupon the pastor mentioned the next fourth day, at two of the clock, at the pastor's house, for further discourse thereof; to which the church agreed by not dissenting."

The record of the proceedings on the "next fourth day" is as follows:—

"3 December, 1690.—This afternoon, at a church meeting appointed the last sabbath, Brother Edward Putnam was again propounded to the church for choice to office in the place of a deacon to join with, and be assistant to, Brother Ingersoll in the service, and in order to said Putnam's ordination in the office, upon his well approving himself therein. Some proposed that two might be nominated to the church, out of which the church to choose one. But arguments satisfactory were produced against that way. Some also moved for a choice by papers; but that way also was disapproved by the arguments of the pastor and some others. In fine, the pastor put it to vote (there appearing not the least exception from any, unless a modest and humble exception of the person himself, once and again), and it was carried in the affirmative by a universal vote, _nemine non suffragante_.

"Afterwards, the pastor addressed himself to the elected brother, and, in the name of the church, desired his answer, who replied to this purpose:[i.303]—

'Seeing, sir, you say the voice of God's people is the voice of God, desiring your prayers and the prayers of the church for divine assistance therein, I do accept of the call.'"

When we consider that Edward Putnam was, at Mr. Parris's ordination more than a year before, and had been for some time previous to that event, Ingersoll's associate deacon, and that there probably never was any other person spoken or thought of than these two for deacons, it is evident that it was Mr. Parris's policy to make a great matter of the affair, and produce a general feeling of the weighty importance of church action in the premises. But this was only the beginning of the long-drawn ceremonial solemnities by which the occasion was magnified.

"Sab: day, 7 December, 1690.—After the evening public service was over, several things needful were transacted; viz.:—

"1. The pastor acquainted those of the church that were ignorant of it, that Brother Edward Putnam was chosen deacon the last church meeting.

"2. He also generally admonished those of the brethren that were absent at that time, of their disorderliness therein, telling them that such, the apostle bids, should be noted or marked (2 Thess. iii. 6-16); that is, with a church mark,—a mark in a disciplinary way; and therefore begged amendment for the future in that point and to that purpose.

"3. He propounded whether they so far were satisfied in Brother Ingersoll's service as to call him to settlement in[i.304] the deaconship by ordination, or had aught against it. But no brother made personal exception. Therefore, it being put to vote, it was carried in the affirmative by a plurality, if not universality.