CONFERENCE OF THE ELDERS OF MASSACHUSETTS WITH THE REV. ROBERT LENTHAL, OF WEYMOUTH, HELD AT DORCHESTER, FEB. 10, 1639.

Of

WESSAGUSCUS, afterwards named Weymouth, was made a plantation by the General Court in July, 1635, and “Mr. [Benjamin] Hull, a minister in England, and twenty-one families with him, allowed to sit down there."1 Of Mr. Hull "less is known than of almost any minister, because," suggests Mr. Savage," he seemed to be in the Episcopal interest." his ministry at Weymouth we have scarcely any record save the brief entry in Peter Hobart's diary, that he "gave his farewell sermon," May 5, 1639. More than a year before that, "divers of the elders" had been called to Weymouth "to reconcile the differences between the people" and another minister, the Rev. Thomas Jenner, "whom they had called thither with intent to have him their pastor." 3 From remarks addressed to the delegates from Weymouth at this Dorchester conference, by Mr. Cotton and Capt. Stoughton, it appears that, although Mr. Jenner-"a godly, faithful man"— had been "called with great earnestness" and had "labored much" amongst the people there, they had neglected his ministry and refused to make adequate provision for his support, so that he was compelled to appeal to the magistrates. An attempt had been made probably under the ministry of Mr. Hull - to gather a church, but "it is observable," says Winthrop (I, 287), "this church, and so that of Lynn, could not hold together, nor could have any elders join or hold with them. The reason appeared to be, because they did not begin according to the rule of the gospel."

The people of Weymouth, or a considerable part of them, seem to have preferred the "parish way" to that of "mutual stipulation" by the adoption of a church covenant, and measures which were taken for gathering a new church there, with the approbation of the magistrates and elders," encountered much opposition. In the winter of 1638-39, or earlier, those who

1 Mass. Records, I, 149; Winthrop, I, 163. 2 Geneal. Dictionary, II, 492. 8 Winthrop, I, 250, 251.

were dissatisfied with the ministry of Mr. Jenner "had invited one Mr. [Robert] Lenthal to come to them, with intention to call him to be their minister." Some of the Weymouth people had been members of Mr. Lenthal's congregation in England, where, says Winthrop, he was "of good report." Of his life before his emigration little is known. In his defence, at the Conference, he says, "I was, for witnessing to the truth, unjustly cast out of my place to which I was called by the people with whom we sweetly agreed. Now some of my people came over to New England before me and more I do expect - and these I take for my people; and here we desire to reform ourselves, and to go on according to the custom of the churches here. But," he queries, "whether there be a nullity of my first ordination?" After his arrival in Massachusetts, he "was found to have drunk in some of Mrs. Hutchinson's opinions, as of justification before faith, etc., and opposed the gathering of our churches in such a way of mutual stipulation as was practised among us. From the former he was soon taken off, upon conference with Mr. Cotton; but he stuck close to the other, that only baptism was the door of entrance into the church, etc., so as the common sort of people did eagerly embrace his opinions, and some labored to get such a church on foot as all baptized ones might communicate in without any further trial of them, etc." (Winthrop, 1. c.) A call to Mr. Lenthal to become their minister was subscribed by many at Weymouth, and "he likewise was very forward" to accept the call," in such a way, and did openly maintain the cause. But the magistrates, hearing of this disturbance and combination, thought it needful to stop it betimes, and ergo they called Mr. Lenthal and some of the chief of the faction, to the next General Court in the first month [March, 1639], where, Mr. Lenthal, having before conferred with some of the magistrates and elders, and being convinced of his error in judgment, and of his sin in practice to the disturbance of our peace, etc., did openly and freely retract, with expression of much grief of heart for his offence, and did deliver his retractation in writing, under his hand, in the open court; whereupon he was enjoined to appear at the next court, and in the mean time to make and deliver the like recantation in some public assembly at Weymouth. So the court stopped short for

any further censure by fine or, etc., though it was much urged by some." (Winthrop.) The order of the General Court, directing the governor and magistrates to "call before them. such parties [of Weymouth] as they shall think fit, and take such course for the peace of the town and the well ordering of all affairs there, as to their wisdom shall seem most expedient," was made at the November session, 1637. (Mass. Rec., I, 217.) The acknowledgment of error, by Mr. Lenthal, was presented to the Court, March 13, 1638-9, a few weeks after the Dorchester conference. (Ibid., 254.) At the same session, John Smith, "for disturbing the public peace by combining with others to hinder the orderly gathering of a church at Weymouth, and to set up another there, and for undue procuring the hands of many to a blank for that purpose," was fined £20 and committed during the pleasure of the Court; Richard Silvester, " for going with Smith to get hands to a blank," was fined £2 and disfranchised; Mr. Ambrose Martin, "for calling the church covenant a stinking carrion and a human invention," etc., was fined £10, "and counselled to go to Mr. Mather, to be instructed by him"; Mr. Thomas Makepeace, who probably belonged to the Lenthal or anti-covenanting party," because of his novile disposition, was informed we were weary of him, unless he reform"; and James Britton, "for his not appearing, was committed, and for his gross lying, dissimulation, and contempt of ministers, churches, and covenant, was censured to be whipped." (Mass. Rec., I, 252, 254) Britton, who, as Winthrop states, "had spoken disrespectfully of the answer which was sent to Mr. Bernard's book against our church covenant, and of some of our elders, and had sided with Mr. Lenthal, etc., was openly whipped, because he had no estate to answer." (Winthrop, I, 289) Lechford, who found Mr. Lenthal at Newport,-"out of office and employment, and living very poorly," - says of his troubles in Massachusetts: "He stood upon his ministry, as of the church of England, and arguing against their covenant, and being elected of some in Weymouth to be their minister, was compelled to recant some words"; and that Britton, " for saying one of the ministers of the Bay was a Brownist, or had a Brownistical head, and for a

supposed lie, was whipt, and had eleven stripes."1 Mr. Lenthal removed to Rhode Island before August 6, 1640, at which time he was admitted a freeman at Newport and employed by the town to teach a public school. He returned to England, it is said, in 1641 or 1642.2

The following notes of Mr. Lenthal's conference with the elders, at Dorchester, were taken by Capt. Robert Keayne, of Boston, the brother-in-law of Rev. John Wilson, and were copied from his manuscript by President Stiles. Though they present but a meagre report of a discussion which occupied two days, they are not without value as a contribution to the history of Congregationalism in New England. The principal topics discussed were the necessity of a covenant, for giving "essential being" to a church; the distinction between church and congregation; the antecedence of election to ordination of church officers, and the obligation to re-ordination after a new election; and the doctrine of justification, as it was held by the churches of Massachusetts, against the construction given it by Mrs. Hutchinson and her adherents. Mr. Lenthal's reply to the test question, whether justification can precede faith, seems to have been more satisfactory to Mr. Cotton than to Thomas Welde, who- remembering that Mr. Cotton's views had barely been made acceptable to the Synod of 1637, and that he had not escaped the suspicion of a taint of Hutchinsonianism expressed himself "no way satisfied in the point of justification," till Mr. Lenthal "would a little more clear himself therein."

Of the elders and others present and taking part in this conference, Capt. Keayne's notes give the names of the following: Rev. John Wilson, pastor, and Rev. John Cotton, teacher, of the church at Boston; Rev. Zechariah Symmes, teacher of the church at Charlestown; Rev. Thomas Welde, pastor, and Rev. John Eliot, teacher, of Roxbury; Rev. Samuel Newman, of Dorchester (who soon afterwards became the successor of Mr. Jenner, at Weymouth); Rev. Thomas Jenner, of Weymouth; Mr. Edward Bates and Mr. Stephen French, of Weymouth (where the latter became a ruling elder of the church that was

1 Plain Dealing (ed. 1867), pp. 58 and 94 (note 144).

2 Callender's Hist. Discourse, 62; Arnold's Hist. of R. I., I, 145, 146. SECOND SERIES.- VOL. IX. NO. 2.

2

gathered soon after the conference); "a private man," -perhaps Capt. Robert Keayne himself; and Capt. Israel Stoughton, one of the magistrates of the Colony, and a prominent member of the church at Dorchester.

A DISPUTATION HELD AT DORCHESTER

AT CAPTAIN STAUGHTON'S BETWEEN MR. LINTALL AND THE REST OF THE ELDERS OF THE BAY, ABOUT SOME TENETS THAT MR. LINTALL HELD. MONTH 11, 10th, 1638. The thing first disputed of was that the Covenant gives not essential Being to a Church.

Mr. Lintall. You now go to a point of Reformation and Jurisdiction.

Mr. Cotton. We decline not the quest. From the constitution doth flow Jurisdiction. For in all relations, a Covenant is the foundation. I have no power over my wife, nor servant, but by covenant. The magistrate hath no power over me, but by my consent. So in the Church, the Covenant is the foundation of that relation and power we have over one another which you deny.

and the Covenant of Grace, which give the first Being. Cotton. You conclude that you may have two Churches in the verge of each Town?1

Lintall. It is true. But [only when] the inconvenience of meeting all together [makes such a division necessary? 2] Mr. Cotton. It is not the Covenant of Grace, nor Cohabitation, nor the Covenant of the Sacrament, nor meeting on the Lord's days, that gives an essential distinction between particular churches, but their covenants.3 For that which doth not

1 Something must be supplied here to make the justice of Mr. Cotton's inference apparent: "If you believe that baptism and the covenant of grace give being to a church, and that every congregation of baptized believers, without any explicit covenant, is a church, then you conclude," etc.

2 There is an omission here, which is conjecturally supplied by the words in brackets.

841 This form being by mutual Covenant, it followeth, it is not Faith in the Heart, nor the Profession of that Faith, nor Cohabitation, nor Baptism." - Cambridge Platform, Ch. IV, §§ 3, 5.