Philip Read at a later date, he found that the free expression of opinion on certain subjects was an expensive luxury. Martin's case, which arose in 1639, and attracted much attention, well illustrates the sternness (to use no harsher term) of the colonial government; but some good came of the severity in this case, for it produced a most valuable document written by Mr. Bulkeley and signed by him and his associate and thirteen members of the church.

Martin's offence was that, in argument, he applied an unsavory epithet to the church covenant, styled it "a humane invention," and said that "hee wondered at God's patience, feared it would end in the sharpe," and that "the ministers did dethrone Christ and set up themselves." He was sentenced to pay a fine of £10, and, what was probably quite as unpalatable, advised "to go to Mr. Mather to bee instructed by him." Upon the delinquent's refusal to comply

1 The matter is alluded to by Winthrop and by Lechford, both of whom give Martin the title of "Mr." or "Master," which was not generally applied, as with us, but was restricted to those who by reason of wealth, social position or public service were ranked as gentlemen.

"Now and then a baronet made his home for a time in Boston, but otherwise the highest title was Mr. or Mrs., and this title was applied only to a few persons of unquestioned eminence. All ministers and their wives took the title, and the higher magistrates; but it was not given to deputies to the General Court as such. The great body of respectable citizens were dubbed Goodman and Goodwife, but officers of the church and of the militia were almost invariably called by the title of their rank or office. Below the grade of goodman and goodwife were still the servants, who had no prefix to their plain names.' H. E. Scudder, in Mem. Hist. of Boston, vol. i. p. 487.

with these orders, his cow was taken and sold, and subsequently a levy was made upon his house and land.'

The petition of the church above referred to was presented upon his refusal to accept the portion of the property remaining after the legal demands were satisfied. The original is preserved among the Shattuck papers, and is in Mr. Bulkeley's handwriting.

"To the Honoured Court.

"The Petition of the church of Concord in behalfe of our brother Mr. Ambrose Martin.

"Your humble Petitioners doe intreate, that whereas some yeares agoe, our sayd brother Mr. Martin, was fined by the Court for some unadvised speeches uttered against the church covent, for wch he was fined ten pounds, and had to the value of £20 by distresse taken from him, of which £20, there is one halfe remayning in the hands of the Countrey to this day, wch ten pounds he cannot be p'swaded to accept of, unlesse he may have the whole restored unto him, (wch we doe impute unto his infirmitye and weakness) We now considering the greate decay of his estate, and the necessityes (if not extremityes) wch the familye is come unto, we intreate (as was sayd) that this honoured Court would please to pitye his necessitous condition, and to remitt unto him the whole fine wch was layd upon him, without wch, he cannot be p❜swaded to receave the prt wch is due unto him. Wherein if this honoured Court shall please to grant this our petition, we shall be bound to prayse God for your tender compassion toward this our poore brother "

1 Mass. Records, i. 252. And see Winthrop and Lechford.

Such a petition was entitled to be considered in the spirit that dictated it, but the application found no pity in the breast of that iron man, John Endicott. The same hand that tore the cross from the English flag wrote these words on the face of the petition:

"The case appeares to the Magistrates to be now past helpe through his own obstinacye; but for the over plus upon sale of the distresse, he or his wife may have it, when they will call for it."

Jo: ENDECOTT Govr"

Indorsements: "The 5t of the 4th moneth - 1644 "The petit" of Ambrose Martyn of Concord.

Ordered by the q't cort."

The records of the County Court assure us that the "overplus" was never called for.1

Compared with other writings of the time, the letter of the church is remarkably clear, almost elegant, in style, and in its tone well calculated to accomplish its purpose. More than this, it is in perfect accord with the more enlightened humanity of the present time, and shows conclusively that, at that early day, the virtues of a tolerant spirit and a forgiving charity were highly esteemed by the

1 "Whereas it hath been declared to this court that there was in house and land at Concord to the vallue of twelve pounds left in the handes of Moses Wheat & Thomas ffox by Ambros Martin deceased, which hath remained in their handes about nine or ten yeares, It is ordered by this court that it shall be divided in mannr following, viz: in an equall division between the wife of Sam Rainr & Jno Rogers to be payd by the above named parties with addition of foure pounds for the forbearance." Records, June 20, 1654.

people of this town, whose "religion was sweetness and peace amidst toil and tears.”1

The prosecutions of Mr. John Hoar and Dr. Philip Read occurred about thirty years after the trouble with Martin, at a time when the less amiable characteristics of Puritanism were more marked here as well as elsewhere. The cases are worthy of mention because these men were, respectively, the earliest representatives in Concord of the legal and medical professions, and because their experiences serve to show us the high consideration in which the persons and office of the ministers were generally held. That the proceedings against these citizens, based in one instance upon mere idle words, and in the other upon an opinion expressed in the practice of his profession of healing, were calculated to give permanent strength to any class of men in a thoughtful community, may well be doubted; but the sincerity of the prosecutors cannot be questioned. They honestly believed that adverse criticism of men whom they looked upon as set apart in a peculiar manner for the performance of duties especially sacred, was, in effect, an attack upon religion itself, which was the corner-stone of the commonwealth. The fault was in their logic, not in their hearts.

Hoar was an eccentric lawyer, well known, and

1 Emerson's Historical Discourse.

William Buss and Jonathan Prescott were described by the addition "chirurgeon," the exact signification of which, as applied to them, is not known.

correspondingly disliked, by the authorities, as a man of independent thought and a facile tongue, which was continually making trouble for him. Whether he held any peculiar theological or doctrinal views, which in our day would be considered entitled to respectful consideration, or merely gave vent to feelings of irritation against those who were unfriendly to him, is uncertain; but his courage and kindness of heart were unquestionable, and, as will appear, he was preeminent among his fellows in public spirit.1

About 1667, Philip Read, who wrote himself "Physitian," married the daughter of Richard Rice, settled near his father-in-law at the easterly end of the town, and practised his profession in Concord, Cambridge, Watertown, and Sudbury. A flood of litigation descended upon him in 1670, because he expressed an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Edward Bulkeley's powers as a preacher, in comparison with Mr. Estabrook, and for saying when called to attend

1 For uttering complaints that justice was denied him in the courts, he was compelled, in 1665, to give a bond for his good behavior, and was "disabled to plead any cases but his oune in this jurisdiction." Mass. Records, iv. pt. ii. 292. In 1668, he was fined £10 for saying "at Ensigne Willm Busse his house that the Blessing which his Master Bulkely pronounced in dismissing the publique Assembly in the Meeting-house was no better than vane babling." Subsequently, on two occasions at least, he was summoned into court to answer "for neglecting the public worship of God on the Lord's days." County Court Files, 1668, 1675.

2 He said that he could preach as well as Mr. Bulkeley, who was called by none but a company of blockheads who followed the plowtail, and was not worthy to carry Mr. Estabrook's books after him. It is amusing to see what trifles were thought to endanger the welfare of church and state.