Be it therefore enacted . . . that whatsoever persons shall presume on the Lord's day to neglect the public worship of God in some lawful congregation and form themselves into separate companies in private houses, being convicted thereof before any assistant or Justice of the peace, shall each of them, for every such offence, forfeit the sum of twenty shillings.

And it is further enacted... that whatsoever person, not being a lawfully allowed minister of the Gospel, shall presume to profane the holy sacraments by administering or making a show of administering them to any person or persons whatsoever, and being thereof convicted before the County Court in such county where such offence shall be committed, shall incur the penalty of ten pounds for every such offence and suffer corporal punishment, by whipping, not exceeding thirty stripes for each offence.

And at a still later date, in 1742, it was enacted that

If any ordained or any other person licensed as aforesaid to preach, shall enter into any parish not immediately under his charge, and shall there preach and exhort the people, he shall be denied and excluded the benefit of any law of this colony, made for the support and encouragement of the gospel ministry, except such ordained or licensed person shall be expressly invited and desired to enter into such parish and there to preach and exhort the people by the settled minister and the major part of the church and society within such parish.

And be it further enacted, that if any person whatsoever that is not a settled or ordained minister, shall go into any parish without the express desire and invitation of the settled minister of such parish, if any there be, and the major part of the church and congregation within such parish, and publicly teach and exhort the people, (he) shall, for every such offence, upon complaint thereof to any assistant or justice of the peace, be bound to his peaceable and good behaviour until the next County Court in that county where the offence shall be committed, by said assistant or justice of the peace, in the penal sum of one hundred pounds lawful money, that he or they will not offend again in the like kind.

And it is further enacted, that if any foreigner or stranger [like George Whitefield] that is not an inhabitant of this colony, in

cluding as well such persons as have no ecclesiastical character or license to preach, or such as have received ordination or license to preach, by any association or presbytery, shall presume to preach, teach, or publicly exhort in any town or society within this colony, without the desire and license of the settled minister and the major part of the church and inhabitants of such town or society (provided that it so happen that there be no settled minister there), that every such preacher, teacher, or exhorter, shall be sent as a vagrant person by warrant from any assistant or justice of the peace, from constable to constable out of the bounds of this colony.

The Assembly in October, 1743, not deeming the last law severe enough, enacted that

If any such foreigner or stranger, after having been transported out of the bounds of the colony, should return again to preach or exhort, he should "be bound in the penal sum of one hundred pounds, lawful money, to his peaceable and good behaviour, and that he will not offend again in like manner; and that he shall pay down the cost of his transportation.'

Under one of the foregoing laws, Mr. Samuel Finley (afterward president of the College of New Jersey), who had been preaching to a seceding church in Milford, was ordered by the governor "to be carried from constable to constable, and from one town to another, until he should be conveyed out of the colony."

It is not to be wondered at that about this time (1745) Mr. Stephen Winthrop wrote from London to his brother, Governor John Winthrop, of Connecticut, that "Heere is great complaint against vs for our severetye against Anabaptists. It doth discourag any people from coming to vs for fear they should be banished if they dissent from vs in opinion."2

'Trumbull's "History of Connecticut," Vol. II., 37, 163, 174.

2 We are much pleased to record in this connection, the testimony of

Perhaps no single occurrence better illustrates the oppressive principles and spirit of the Connecticut authorities in early times than does the expulsion from Yale College of the two Cleveland brothers, merely for their attending and taking part in Separatists' meetings.

Sadly interesting too, in this connection, is the story of the trials which befell Philemon Robbins, of Branford, principally for preaching on one occasion, January 6, 1742, to the Baptist Society in Wallingford, an account of which trials occupies pp. 196–232 in Vol. II. of Trumbull's " History."

The Separatists, we may remark, suffered for a time more than did the Quakers, or Baptists, or Episcopalians; for while these were favored with certain exemption laws, the Separatists had no escape from fines and imprisonments. Dr. Trumbull, in Vol. II., p. 233, gives a petition to the Assembly of 1748, signed by three hundred and thirty persons who were Separatists, belonging principally to the counties of New London and Windham. The legislature, however, "rejected their petition and granted them no relief." "Why these people," adds Dr. Trumbull, "should be treated worse than Quakers and Baptists, while they were loyal subjects, devoutly and zealously worshiped God in their own way, and, except in their peculiarities, were many of them strict in morals, peaceable and good inhabitants, I know not."

In regard to Vermont, Elder Backus felt himself

the Quaker historian, Sewel, that the above-named "Gov. Winthrop earnestly dissuaded the shedding of blood." It is not strange that Roger Williams, in writing to this governor, should say that he "ever honored and loved and ever shall the root and branches of youre deare name."

obliged to speak of "the ministerial tyranny which has been carried into that wilderness from the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts." The oppressive rule of the "Standing Order" is, we think, fairly well illustrated in the following extract of a letter written by Elder Elisha Ransom to Elder Backus, March, 1795:

A brother living in Hartford, in Vermont, belonging to Elder Drew's church, has suffered much about rates from another denomination. He was first carried to gaol, and then came out by paying the money, and prosecuted them in vain, for he was beat three times. I cannot ascertain the costs, for his last trial was the last day of February past, but it is supposed that his costs will be above fifty pounds. Five petitions were carried into the Vermont Assembly last fall, with more than two hundred signatures, against the certificate law, and I went to speak for them; and after my averment that the certificate law was contrary to the rights of man, of conscience, the first, third, fourth, and seventh articles of our constitution, and to itself, for it took away our rights and then offered to sell them back to us for a certificate, some stretched their mouths; and though no man contradicted me in one argument, yet they would shut their eyes and say they could not see it SO. I had many great friends in the house, but not a majority. They sent out a committee who altered the law much for the better, if any law could be good of that kind, which was that every man might assert his own sentiments to the town clerk, and that should answer; but because it would still be a bad law, and I would not thank them for it, and none of our friends would acknowledge it as a favor, it fell back to where it was before. Only we have this to comfort us: the Lord reigneth, and their power is limited, and we shall have no more affliction than is needful for us.

In 1787 Dr. (M. D.) Asaph Fletcher left Massachusetts for Vermont, where, as in the former State, he labored earnestly for constitutional freedom. In 1789 he was followed by Rev. Aaron Leland, from Bellingham,

who also did noble service for religious liberty. Another Baptist minister, Ezra Butler, was a strong champion for equal rights. In 1807, when religious liberty was secured to the people by the repealing of all oppressive statutes, Mr. Leland was speaker of the House, and Mr. Butler was a member of the Senate. Subsequently the latter served for two years (1826-28) as governor, and the former at the same time and for a still longer period, served as lieutenant-governor.1

By way of contrast, note the smallest of the New England States, Rhode Island, at this time. The three adjoining colonies, Plymouth, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, while not esteeming its people or its principles very highly, yet eagerly and persistently sought to secure a large slice, or even the whole thereof." These colonies were ever inimical to its welfare, and Massachusetts, in fact, sought to starve it out of existence. The royal commissioners were not far from right when they wrote to his Majesty that "this colony which admits of all religions, even Quakers and Gennerallists, was begun by such as the Massachusetts would not suffer to live among them, and is generally hated by the other colonyes who endeavoured severall wayes to suppresse them." The Indians, as Roger Williams complained, could obtain an

1 In regard to these Vermont champions of freedom, see more fully in Dr. Armitage's "History of the Baptists," p. 809; and for a brief memoir of Dr. Fletcher, by his son, Hon. Richard Fletcher, see Benedict's "History of the Baptists," p. 488. An interesting account of Leland and of Butler is given in Vol. VI. of Sprague's "Annals of the American Pulpit."

P. 118.

2 S. G. Arnold's "History of Rhode Island," Vol. I., 3 The same, Vol. I., p. 268; and Backus' " History," Vol. I., pp. 240, See also at the close of Section VII., what Backus says of the power and disposition of the beast.

252.