and his blameless life notwithstanding, a member's child is to be examined concerning the other qualifications. Qu. 20. Whether if a church member barely say, it repents me, though seventy times seven times following, he relapses into the same gross evils, as lying, slander, oppression, &c., he be to be forgiven, and not censured? Ans. Notwithstanding a brother offends seventy times seven times, i. e. many times, a definite number being put for an indefinite, yet whilst God enables him to repent, it is our duty to forgive. But to say in words, I repent, and to gainsay it in deeds, is, according to Scripture, not to repent; yet an ingenuous and solemn profession of repentance, nothing appearing to the contrary, is to be accepted as true repentance in the judgment of charity. 1 Cor. xiii. 7. Qu. 21. Whether a member under offence, and not censured, or not with the highest censure, can authoritatively be denied the Lord's Supper, or other church privileges? Ans. None but the church can authoritatively deny to the member his access unto the Lord's Supper, because the power thereof is only delegated to that subject. Mat. xviii. 17. Neither can the church deny unto a member his access to the Lord's Supper, until she hath regularly judged him to be an offender; and the first act whereby he is judicially declared so to be, is admonition, whereby he is made judicially unclean, Levit. xxii. 3, 4, 5, 6, and is thereby authoritatively denied to come unto the Lord's Supper. All which notwithstanding, there are cases wherein a brother, apparently discerned to be in a condition rendering him an unworthy communicant, should he proceed to the Lord's Supper, may and ought regularly to be advised to forbear, and it is his duty to hearken thereunto; yet none should forbear to come worthily, which is their duty, because, to their private apprehension, another is supposed (at least) to come unworthily, which is his sin. The answer to these questions was drawn up at Boston, June 19, 1657, and presented according as is mentioned before, and was generally accepted by all those that rested satisfied in the determination of the following Synod about the question concerning the subject of Baptism, although the practice thereof was but gradually introduced into the churches of New England. And it is well known that some of the ablest ministers of the country, that were most forward and ready to promote these resolves, never durst adventure upon the practice thereof, for fear of making a breach in their respective churches. And some that were at that time otherwise persuaded, have, since then, altered their minds upon mature consideration, and have also strongly engaged on the other hand, and written judiciously in the defence thereof, and cleared it up to all, that it is no other than1 what was consonant not only to Scripture, reason and antiquity, but to the apprehension and judgment of the first fathers of the churches of New England, as may be seen in Mr. Increase Mather's learned treatise on that subject, published not long since. And as this disputation had its first rise in the Colony of Connecticut, so was there much difference and contention raised at Hartford, where was the principal church of the jurisdiction, between Mr. Samuel Stone, their teacher, and the rest of the church, occasioned at the first on some such account; insomuch that sundry members of that church, having rent themselves off from that church, removed themselves to another place' higher up that river, where they seated themselves and gathered into a distinct church in way of schism, as the rest of the church accounted. So that it came at the last to an open breach, which could not be healed or made up amongst themselves, which put them upon a necessity of calling a convention of the messengers of sundry churches in the Massachusetts, who met together at Boston, in the year 1659; and upon a full hearing of all the matters in controversy therein, they made a reconciliation between them, and those that irregularly departed away in that manner, being convinced of their mistake, freely acknowledged it, which made the closure of that breach the more cordial and real; many paroxysms of contention That in the MS.-H. Hadley. See page 316; Holmes, i. 316.—H. 3 At Hartford, June 3d, and Aug. 19th, says Trumbull, i. 307.-H. in those churches having had the like comfortable issue, by the blessed influences of the Prince of Peace upon the use of the same means. CHAP. LXV. The Plantations of New England troubled with the Quakers-Laws made against them by the General Court of the Massachusetts within the space of this lustre, from 1655 to 1660. ABOUT this time the people called Quakers had sent their emissaries to preach the Gospel (doubtless not the everlasting Gospel which the Apostle was sent to preach,) amongst the Colonies of New England. Those of the Massachusetts considering what the Apostle Paul speaking,* of holding him accursed that preacheth any other Gospel, made very sharp laws against them, if it might have been to have prevented their troubling of the place with their strange and perverse doctrines. But the event succeeded not according to expectation, for divers of that sort repaired thither, as if they intended to have braved authority, which occasioned the apprehending of several of them, who were prosecuted according to the laws lately enacted; which, after such and such steps and degrees mentioned therein, doth proscribe them, upon pain of death. June the 1st, in the year 1660, Mary Dyer, rebelliously returning after that sentence passed upon her, was sentenced to suffer death at the place of execution, yet had liberty to pass for England at the next session of the Court; the which she (as was hoped and desired,) attended not, as Joseph Nicholson and Jane his wife did, that by returning after the like sentence passed upon them had brought themselves into the same premunire, which some that wished them well persuaded unto, or to remove elsewhere; by which means the execution of that fatal sentence was prevented on them. But Mary Dyer wilfully returning, the authority of the place knew not how to deliver her from the severity of the law, which was the portion of two others of that sort of people, much about that time, viz. William Robinson and Marmaduke Steven * Speaketh. ED. 'LXIV in the MS.-н. son, and soon after there was set out a declaration of the General Court, justifying their proceedings. A Declaration of the General Court of the Massachusetts, holden at Boston, October 18, 1659, and printed by their order. Edward Rawson, Secretary. Although the justice of our proceedings against William Robinson, Marmaduke Stevenson, and Mary Dyer, supported by the authority of this Court, the laws of the country, and the Law of God, may rather persuade us to expect encouragement and commendation from all prudent and pious men, than convince us of any necessity to apologize for the same, yet forasmuch as men of weaker parts, out of pity and commiseration, (a commendable and Christian virtue, yet easily abused, and susceptible of sinister and dangerous impressions,) for want of full information, may be less satisfied, and men of perverser principles may take occasion hereby to calumniate us and render us as bloody persecutors-to satisfy the one and stop the mouths of the other, we thought it requisite to declare :-That about three years since, divers1 persons, professing themselves Quakers, (of whose pernicious opinions and practices we had received intelligence from good hands, both from Barbados and England,) arrived at Boston, whose persons were only secured to be sent away by the first opportunity, without censure or punishment, although their professed tenets, turbulent and contemptuous behavior to authority, would have justified a severer animadversion, yet the prudence of this Court was exercised only in making provision to secure the peace and order here established against their attempts, whose design (we were well assured of by our own experience, as well as by the example of their predecessors in Munster,) was to undermine and ruin the same. And accordingly a law was made and published, prohibiting all masters of ships to bring any Quakers into this jurisdiction, and themselves from coming in, on penalty of the house of correction till they could be sent away. Notwithstanding which, by a back door, they found entrance, and the penalty inflicted upon themselves 1 In July, 1656, two arrived from Barbadoes, and a few weeks after ten more made their appearance. See Hutchinson, i. 180-1; Hazard, ii. 347.-H. 2 Passed Oct. 14, 1656. See it in Hazard, i. 630-2; Mass. Laws, (ed. 1672,) p. 60.—н. proving insufficient to restrain their impudent and insolent obtrusions, was increased' by the loss of the ears of those that offended the second time; which also being too weak a defence against their impetuous [and] fanatic fury, necessitated us to endeavor our security, and upon serious consideration, after the former experiment, by their incessant assaults, a law was made,2 that such persons should be banished on pain of death, according to the example of England in their provision against Jesuits; which sentence being regularly pronounced at the last Court of Assistants against the parties above named, and they either returning or continuing presumptuously in this jurisdiction after the time limited, were apprehended,3 and owning themselves to be the persons banished, were sentenced by the Court to death, according to the law aforesaid, which hath been executed upon two of them. Mary Dyer, upon the petition of her son,5 and the mercy and clemency of this Court, had liberty to depart within two days, which she hath accepted of. The consideration of our gradual proceedings will vindicate us from the clamorous accusations of severity, our own just and necessary defence calling upon us (other means failing,) to offer the point which these persons have violently and wilfully rushed upon, and thereby [are] become felons de se, which might it have been prevented, and the sovereign law, salus populi, been preserved, our former proceedings, (as well as the sparing of Mary Dyer upon an inconsiderable intercession,) will manifestly evince we desired their lives, absent, rather than their death, present.7 The executing of the said sentence was and is accounted by sundry that heard thereof very harsh. All that can be said in the defence thereof amounts to thus much: That the inhabitants of the place having purchased the country for themselves, they accounted it an unreasonable injury for any to come presumptuously, without license or allowance, to live amongst them, and to sow the seeds of their dangerous and perverse principles amongst the inhabitants, tending to the subversion of all that was good, whether sacred or civil; and therefore thought themselves bound to By an order passed Oct. 14, 1657. See it in Hazard, ii. 554.-H. 2 In 1658. Ibid. 399-400, 562; Mass. Laws, pp. 61-2.-H. In October, 1659. Hazard, ii. 565.—H. William Dyer.-H. Oct. 27th. Ibid. 566.-X. 6 Desire in the MS.-H. 7 See Hazard, ii. 567-72.-H. |