ORIGIN OF THE FIRST SEVENTH-DAY BAPTIST CHURCH IN AMERICA.
THE readers of the Signs will be interested in the following narrative, showing how the first church in America which practiced the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath for the fourth commandment, came into existence. It was composed of seven members, five of whom withdrew from a church in Newport, R. I., which observed the first day of the week. The narrative is from the records of that first-day church, and hence cannot be considered as biased in favor of those who turned to the observance of the seventh day. We copy from the Seventh-day Baptist Memorial, Vol. 1, No. 1. The following narrative of the controversy in the First Baptist church in Newport, R. I., was taken from the records of that church, a short time since, by permission of Rev. S. Adlam, the present pastor. Though the records of that church previous to 1700, were lost, yet Mr. John Comer, who was their pastor about one hundred and thirty years ago, took great pains to collect and preserve all authentic information relating to the previous acts of the church; and they are indebted to him for the preservation of this article, which must form an interesting part of the early documentary history of the Seventh-day Baptists in America, as well as of that church on the records of which it is found. A brief and faithful relation of the difference between those of this church and those who withdrew their communion from it, with the causes and reasons of the same. The brethren and sisters were, William Hiscox, Roger Baster, Samuel Hubbard, Tacy Hubbard, Rachel Langworthy; each of whom left the church on the 7th day of December, 1671. Several of the church, viz., those above mentioned, having been in the practice of observing the seventh day as a Sabbath to the Lord for several years—Samuel Hubbard began the 1st of April, 1665; Roger Baster, the 15th April, 1666; Wm Hiscox, 28th April, 1666; Rachel Langworthy, 15th January, 1666; Tacy Hubbard, March 11th, 1665—but still kept their places in the church till four persons, two of the brethren and two of the sisters, viz., Nicholas Wild and his wife, and John Solmon and his wife, the two former of which embraced the seventh day in April, 1665, and the two latter, the 25th of October, 1666, who observed it till the 14th January, 1668, i. e., Nicholas Wild and his wife, and then left it; and John Solmon and his wife, who left it February 20, 1668; which occasioned a very great uneasiness in the other five, which remained steady in that principle; and yet because they both wrote and spoke against it, which grieved them that they could not sit down at the table of the Lord with them, nor with the church because of them; judging they had sinned grievously, since they took it up (as was thought) solidly, but had laid it down rashly; which put those five on many serious thoughts, to consider the ground of their practice, and also what was their duty to do towards them; but finding themselves not as a church, having no power to deal with them as of themselves, without the help of the church, found themselves barred as to proceeding with them, as being but private brethren. So they concluded not to bring the case to the church to judge of the fact, viz., in turning from the observation of the seventh day, being contrary minded as to that; therefore those five sent to England to a church in Bell Lane, July the 3d, 1669, though they had sent a letter before respecting themselves, dated the 6th October, 1665, which was the first they sent, to several churches in the observation of the seventh day, for advice; who, as soon as they could, sent it; but before it came it was a grief to the church to see them forbear sitting down at the table of the Lord, and it was a grief to those five also; which put them upon consideration further, that though these persons had done so evilly (as they conceived), whether that was sufficient ground to leave the church for their sakes that had offended them; the church having then given no offense, but only these four persons. Hereupon they came to that resolution not to leave the church, as well as by the persuasion of Mr. Thomas Gould (the pastor of the church in Boston), who was then here; so they resolved to go on in fellowship as formerly they had done, and therefore signified to the church their unwillingness to leave them, and also told the church, publicly, that they could not have comfortable communion with those four persons that had sinned (as they judged), as they could with the rest of the church. Nevertheless, though dissatisfied, yet they walked as comfortably as they could, though not so comfortably as they should, having still those persons before them which had given such offense to them. And thus, for several months, they walked, with little or no offense from the church; after which the leading or ministering brethren began to declare themselves concerning the ten precepts. As Mr. Tory, preaching from 2 Cor. 3, declared the law to be done away, and the law there intended was the ministration of death, and that only the ministration of the Spirit was now to be attended to, and that the Gentiles had never anything to do with it. After this, Mr. Luker and Mr. Clarke, undertaking to expound on the whole Epistle to the Galatians, made it their work to preach the non-observation of the law, (we conclude not the law moral, but the law ceremonial); and as to the seventh day Sabbaths, they asserted them beggarly elements and rudiments of the world; making little or no difference between ceremonial and moral; seemingly affirming that what was written on tables of stone was done away, as the old covenant with which the Gentiles had nothing to do, and that now we were to hearken to the law written in the fleshly tables of the heart, and not to talk so much of precepts written on a wall; and that the grace of God was sufficient without that, since now we were under the new covenant and the teachings thereof; and that we were undervaluing the Son to take precepts given from the servant. Thus, time after time, doctrines of this nature were delivered, to the great grief of those five, who still observed the seventh-day Sabbath. Hereupon sometimes they proposed, for their satisfaction, to discourse on those things which had been delivered, after the meeting was over. But this grieved many of the church that they should propose anything public; but they were desired to go privately to the elders, and so to have their answers, which they complied with. But the elders maintained what they had publicly asserted, and those persons declared their sentiments, showing that the ten precepts were still as holy, just, good, and spiritual as ever, and so a rule of life, (freely acknowledging, that and as the church, that do and live was taken away from them, though because we live still remained to them as their indispensable duty). And, as to the other duties, they frequently had, which answers were very hard to bear, as that they had left the Son and gone to the servant; this was the answer of some. Others said they were gone to Mount Sinai, among the briars and thorns there, and would bring in a yoke of bondage neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. Hereupon some said, by way of reply, "that they did not plead for any part of the ceremonial law, it being done away by Christ the substance, but for the moral law or ten precepts;" to which Mr. Tory answered, "that he had never read of any such law called the moral law in the Holy Scriptures, the word moral being no Scripture word, and not to be used;" and with some unplesant words said "that their tune was only the fourth precept." To which they answered, "that the whole ten precepts were of equal force with them, and that they did not plead for one without the other." And they, for several years, went on with the church in a half-ish kind of fellowship. Mr. Clark, in his exposition on the Galatians, ofttimes asserted the abolishing of the law, as the old covenant with which the Gentiles had nothing to do, as being only given to the seed of Israel, therefore ought to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ had made us free; yea, he earnestly stood upon this subject the whole of his discourse, preaching against the law and the observers of it as being such as did undervalue the Son in taking precepts from the servant; and by the whole tenor of what was delivered, discovered them to be guilty of retaining very corrupt principles, and bringing heresies into the church. And in the afternoon, Mr. Luker preached on the words given on the Mount—said "they were done away as the elements of the world." And when he ended, Mr. Samuel Hubbard desired to know of him, "whether all that was given on the mountain was done away as beggarly elements and rudiments of the world," saying, "that the ten precepts were there given." Mr. Luker replied, that "he had said no more than what the words had said, and that he knew no difference between it, but that all was alike there intended." Mr. Hiscox then alleged that "the ten words were of a moral nature, and were established by Christ and his apostles in the New Testament; and, being so, they were to be owned and obeyed as part of the law of Christ." To this Mr. Clarke answered, that "it is no new thing for the churches of Christ to have such among them as to bring in such things as these are;" and so in his sermons through the Epistle to the Galatians, he offered to consideration, as though these five had pleaded to bring in the whole law, without making suitable distinction between what was pleaded by them, and what by the Galatians, to get life, &c.; upon which several of the church were much grieved, and said, "if they were in Bro. Hiscox's stand, they must have concluded he had been the man intended in the sermon;" he only of that part being there at that time, it being the day on which the Lord's supper was administered. After it was over, Mr. Hiscox, with a grieved heart, and with tears, stood up and said (being no longer able to contain) that "he desired leave to speak;" which, being granted, he desired Bro. Clarke to "declare in faithfulness, if he or any of those five were such persons as he had been hinting, both as to the church, or to the world, in his sermons, that he would with plainness declare it, and not take such methods from day to day, in the audience of the whole assembly, causing people to imagine they pleaded for circumcision and the whole law." To which Mr. Clarke replied that "it came by course, and that he did not pitch on the subject on any such purpose as he conceived." Then said Mr. Hiscox, "So doth common prayer; must it therefore be read, right or wrong? 'The preacher sought out acceptable words.'" At this time, also, a sister uttered these words, with much concern, "that it is a sad thing, that in such a time as this, when the hand of God is stretched out over us by taking away many by death, that instead of calling sinners to repentance, the whole time, for many days together, was spent in preaching against one another, as if that were the great work of the day," with many more words of the same import. Many more of the church were grieved to see that, though they did not strive to propagate their judgment, but for peace' sake were quiet, yet that would not satisfy, but that the elders must be preaching down the whole law of God in general, and the seventh-day Sabbath in particular. Hereupon Mr. Hiscox desired some to beseech the elders to forbear such kind of preaching, or else they should be put upon that work which they were loth to travel in, viz., to leave the church, if they could not find quietness within. Hereupon, for a few weeks, there was a forbearance; so that they went on in church fellowship and communion with them at the table of the Lord, though many times some of the church would say to them, "that if they were of their minds as to the seventh-day Sabbath, they could not have communed with them that did oppose it;" to which seeming reflection they answered, "that they were loth to separate if they could be quiet." And thus for some years they walked. (To be Continued.)