Make that three Preachers-- Joseph Hull

Like the previoous two Preachers  - Joseph Hull was also educated at Oxford - was also a pastor in the Church of England  and left and formed his own congregation, He also brought his congregation with him to Americia in the 1630's--  He undoubtably knew Joohn Lonthrop as they both settled in Barnstable.
[Kelly's 10th Great Grandfather - JACOBS side]

Joseph Hull

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Rev. Joseph Hull (1595–1665) led a company of 106 which sailed from England to Massachusetts in 1635 and was known as the Hull Colony.^[1]
Hull was born in Crewkerne, Somerset and graduated from Oxford in 1614. He was ordained in 1619, and served as teacher, curate and minister of Colyton, Devonshire. He became disaffected from the Church of England, and was expelled from the church in 1635.^[2]
He led his congregation to what is now Weymouth, MA. Apparently his “liberal views” led to his dismissal from his parish, and he moved to Hingham, where he served as its representative in the General Court (Massachusetts legislature). He was the political and religious opponent of Gov. John Winthrop, with the “very contentious” Hull apparently siding more with the Anglicans than the Puritan governor. Winthrop eventually expelled Hull from the colony.^[3]
Hull moved to Plymouth Colony, and then to Barnstable. A memorial tablet was dedicated there in 1939 (the 300th anniversary of the town’s founding) marking the site of his home there, and the rock from which he preached still stands in the middle of the highway there.^[4] 
Hull came into disfavor in Plymouth Colony. He moved to Yarmouth, MA, and later to Accominticus (present-day York), Maine, becoming minister there. However, a Puritan minister was sent there to replace him, and he returned to England. He remained there for a decade, when he was ejected from the parish. He returned to America, settling at the Isle of Shoals in New Hampshire, where he preached until his death in 1665.^[5][

Tale of two preachers Part 2- Reverand Thomas Budd- Quaker- died in jail 1670

(coming) [Elaine's 9th great grand father - Standley side]

Tale of two preachers Part 1- Reverend John Lothrop (1584-1653) - Puritan reformer imprisoned 1632

[Kelly's 9th great grand father - JACOBS side]

Who were the Puritians? They were English reformers in both religion and politics. good source: http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans.htm

From: http://www.nwculaw.edu/john_lothrop.html "Where liberty is, there is my country."
These famous words spoken by Benjamin Franklin during the first years of independence of the United States of America reflect the founding principle upon which our country was established. Liberty is a right bestowed on every American, but not a right enjoyed by people everywhere in the world. Nor was liberty common in the centuries that led up to American independence. Freedoms of speech, of assembly, and of religion were denied to virtually all people before the 18th century, but a handful of English men and women known as Puritans followed the pathway of their consciences in the pursuit of these liberties. Their struggles and sacrifices made possible the guarantee of liberty in America.
Reverend John Lothrop lived during the dismal days of 17th century England, a time of severe religious persecution. During this time, it was a crime in England to worship outside of the established church, the Church of England (or Anglican Church), and non-conforming ministers could be subjected to cruel punishment, public humiliation, imprisonment, and torture.
Lothrop was born into a privileged English family and was educated at Oxford and then Cambridge University where he was likely exposed to the teachings of John Wycliffe, the English theologian and reformer who espoused the notion that "to restrain men to a prescribed form of prayer is contrary to the liberty which is granted to them by God." Upon his graduation, Lothrop was ordained a deacon in the Church of England and became curate of the Egerton Church in Kent. He held this position for eleven years during which time he married Hannah House, saw some of his children born, and lived an ostensibly peaceful existence. But during that time his views began to shift toward Protestant or "Puritan" beliefs and he found himself at odds with the King on the topic of religious freedom.
Lothrop's increasing misgivings about the Church of England, its rituals and its authoritarian character, led him to give up his post at the Egerton Church and in 1623 to become the minister of the First Independent Church of London, a church whose religion was not the same as the King's and thus was illegal. The congregation met in secret locations and private homes in order to escape the notice of English politicians who were authorized by King Charles I to persecute the Puritans. William Laud, Bishop of London and later Archbishop of Canterbury, is infamous for his cruelty and severity during this time. His deputies were ordered to arrest any gathering of more than five people worshipping outside the Church of England. On April 22, 1632, Reverend Lothrop and 42 of his followers were seized by deputies and were imprisoned in Newgate Prison. Some of them, including Reverend Lothrop, were transferred to "The Clink," a place of filth and wretchedness whose name has come down through time as a pseudonym for any prison.
Laud sought to make an example of Lothrop and his followers by prosecuting the trial against them himself in England's Court of Star Chamber. The trial centered on the court's demand that they swear an oath of loyalty to the Church of England. Lothrop refused. Within two years, all of Lothrop's followers were released from prison, but Lothrop himself was considered too great a threat to be released and remained in "The Clink." Lothrop's family suffered greatly during his imprisonment. His wife, Hannah House, became ill and died while Lothrop was in prison. Friends made a plea to the court to release Lothrop so that he might care for his seven children, and on April 23, 1634 he was released upon the condition that he remove himself, his family and his followers to the New World.
On August 1, 1634, Lothrop and his children, along with thirty followers, set sail for New England on board "the Griffin." They arrived in Boston on September 18, 1634. The group settled in Scituate, Massachusetts where they established homes, farms, and a new church. Lothrop married his second wife, a woman named Anna, with whom he eventually had five more children, in 1635. The years in Scituate were not without struggle, however. Disagreements with the existing population over matters involving religious right and doctrine, as well as the short supply of cultivable land led Lothrop and his followers to leave Scituate in 1639 and found a new town in what is now Barnstable, Massachusetts. The years that followed were peaceful and prosperous, and he is described in Governor John Winthrop's journal as "rejoicing in having found for himself and his followers 'a church without a Bishop... and a state without a King'." Reverend John Lothrop had endured great hardship during his life but in the years before his death in 1653 he attained what he most desired - liberty.
John Lothrop's influence in America is still felt today. His direct contribution to the establishment of religious freedom and liberty for all Americans is significant, but perhaps equally as great are the contributions made by his direct descendants to law, government, religion, culture, technological innovation, and education in America. (end quote)It seems to be a popular pass time to try to trace famous individuals who are decendents of John Lothrop. His many descendants include presidents (Ulysses S. Grant, Franklin D. Roosevelt,Milliared Fillmore and George Bush Sr. and Jr.); jurists (U.S. Supreme Court Justices Melville Weston Fuller and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.); governors (George W. Romney, Mitt Romney, and Thomas Dewey, Sarah Palin, John Huntsman); legislators (Adlai Stevenson);writers and poets (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., and Nathaniel Hawthorne), artists (Georgia O'Keeffe and Louis Comfort Tiffany), innovators (Eli Whitney), and educators (Dr. Benjamin Spock); And even Wild Bill Hickock, Benedict Arnold, Shirley Temple and Brook Shields). Of interest to the Mormon church are decendents :Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. and Orson Pratt, Joseph F. Smith, Wilford Woodruff, George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, Marion G. Romney, M. Russell Ballard)Other Puritan ancestors who followed Lanthrop to America,settling in Scituate then Barnstable Massachusetts (Perhaps some could have been with him in prison?): all on the Jacobs side

Kelly's 8th Great grand parents Robert Davis and Ann Kingman
Kelly's 9th great grand parents: Henry Cobb, Patience Hurst, Joanna Hull and Captain John Barsley,  George Lewis and Mary Sarah Jenkins
see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lothropp
http://ntgen.tripod.com/bw/lath_index.html

Salem Witch Trials of 1692

Our ancestors involved:

Thomas Farrar (or Farrar) aka “Old father Pharaoh”


Mary Clements (Osgood)

William Hannum and wife Honor Capen (1656)




Click on link below for background information:

:http://school.discoveryeducation.com/schooladventures/salemwitchtrials/story/story.htmlls%20of%201692



Thomas Farrar (or Farrar) aka “Old father Pharaoh”
Relationship : Kelly’s 9th Great Grandfather on the JACOBS side


Accused of witchcraft in the Salem trails of 1692. As the elder Thomas, he was familiarly called "old Pharoah." He was accused of witchcraft in 1692 and brought before the court in Salem on 18 May, despite fact that son Thomas was a selectmen of Lynn that year.
Because of his old age, presumably he was hard of hearing, he was allowed to sit in the pulpit to be able to hear the minister. Teenager Ann Putnam accused him of witchcraft because in her dreams she saw him pinching her. This happened in Salem 18 May 1692. He was sent to prison in Boston for a period of 5 to 7 months (sources differ on when he got out of prison).


Ann Putnam's deposition against him reads:"The Deposition of Ann Putnam, who testifieth and saith, that on the 8th day of May, 1692, there appeared to me the apparition of an old gray-head man, with a great nose, which tormented me, and urged me to write in his book; and I asked him what was his name, and from whence he came, for I would complain of his; and people used to call him old father Pharaoh, and he said he was my grandfather, for my father used to call him father. I told him I wouldnot call him grandfather, for he was a wizzard, and I would complain of him. And ever since he hath afflicted me by times, and beating me, and pinching me, and almost choaking me, and urging me continually to write in his book."[5,6]

"Mercy Lewis v. Phillip English, Mary English, Lydia Dustin, Elizabeth Johnson, and Thomas Farrer""1692/3Jan. 12. The Deposition of Mercy Lewis Aged [illegible] this Deponant Testifieth & saith that Last night Philip English & his Wife came to mee also Goodwife Dassten Eliz. Johnson & old pharoh of Linn: s'd Mrs English urged mee to set my hand to a Booke & told mee she would Afflict mee Dreadfully & kill mee if I did not, s'd also if I would but touch the Booke I should bee well, or else I should never, s'd Mrs English s'd she might bring the Book now she thought ever one of them would be Cleared & now at this present time before the Grandjury s'd Philip English, his Wife & old pharoah, come in the Roome or their shape & Stroke mee on the Brest: & almost Choaked mee & s'd they would strangle mee if they Could owned before the Grandjury upon the oath she had taken Jen'y 12th 1692/3" [4]
"The Indictment of Thomas Farrer

Mary Clements (Osgood)
[Relationship Kelly and Elaine’s M W Merrill line : [8th great grand aunt of Elaine ( 9th for Kelly) Mary CLEMENTS OSGOOD wife of Capt. John OSGOOD & daughter of 9th(10th) great grand parents Robert CLEMENTS and Lydia DRUMMER.]

Mary Clements is mentioned as "a remarkabley pious and good woman," and yet Mary was accused of witchcraft in 1692 when the girls from Salem were sent to Andover to determine who had “bewitched” the wife of Joseph Bullard. Blindfolded, the girls fell into fits whenever the hands of witch were laid upon them. Mary and many others were accused as a result of this.She was arrested in 1692, imprisoned, probably tortured, and confessed to being a witch. She was released after three months. Although her husband, ever the gentleman, testified in court that he could not tell when she was possessed and when she was not.


She was taken to Salem where she was examined on 8 Sept. 1692 before John Hawthorne. She confessed to being "dipt by Satan" (necessary in order to save her life) and claimed to have been a witch for 11 years. She was indicted in Jan 1693 even though on 16 Oct 1692 she had recanted her confession before Increase Mather, saying that she was frightened and browbeaten into confessing.After about 4 months in jail, she was released upon the petition of Mr. Dudley Bradstreet and other Andover residents.
Her indictment can be found in I Mass. Historical Collections VII, 241. Below is the Petition of her friends and neighbors that helped to release her:

(Petition for Mary Osgood, Eunice Fry, Deliverance Dane, Sarah Wilson, Sr., and Abigail Barker)To the honoured court of Assize held at Salem,The humble address of several of the inhabitants of Andover.May it please this honoured court,We being very sensible of the great sufferings our neighbours have been long under in prison, and charitably judging that many of them are clear of that great transgression which hath been laid to their charge, have thought it our duty to endeavor their vindication so far as our testimony for them will avail. The persons in whose behalf we are desired and concerned to speak something at present are Mrs. Mary Osgood, Eunice Frye, Deliverance Dane, Sarah Wilson and Abigail Barker, who are women of whom we can truly give this character and commendation, that they have not only lived among us so inoffensively as not to give the least occasion to any that know them to suspect them of witchcraft, but by their sober godly and exemplary conversation have obtained a good report in the place, where they have been well esteemed and approved in the church of which they are members.We were surprized to hear that persons of known integrity and piety were accused of so horrid a crime, not considering, then, that the most innocent were liable to be so misinterpreted and abused. When these women were accused by some afflicted persons of the neighbourhood, their relations and others, tho� they had so good grounds of charity that they should not have thought any evil of them, yet, through a misrepresentation of the truth of that evidence that was so much credited and improved against people, took great pains to persuade them to own what they were, by the afflicted, charged with, and, indeed, did unreasonably urge them to confess themselves guilty, as some of us who were then present can testify. But these good women did very much assert their innocency, yet some of them said they were not without fear least Satan had some way ensnared them, because there was that evidence against them which then was by many thought to be a certain indication and discovery of withccraft, yet they seriously professed they knew nothing by themselves of that nature: Nevertheless, by the unwearied sollicitations of those that privately discoursed them both at home and at Salem, they were at length persuaded publickly to own what they were charged with , and so submit to that guilt which we still hope and believe they are clear of. And, it is probable, the fear of what the event might be, and the encouragement that it is said was suggested to them, that confessing was the only way to obtain favour, might be too powerful a temptation for timorous women to withstand, in the hurry and distraction that we have heard they were then in. Had what they said against themselves proceeded from conviction of the fact, we should have had nothing to have said for them, but we are induced to think that it did not, because they did soon privately retract what they had said, as we are informed, and, while they were in prison, they declared to such as they had confidence to speak freely and plainly to, that they were not guilty of what they had owned, and that what they had said against themselves was the greatest grief and burden they laboured under; Now, though we cannot but judge it a thing very sinful for innocent persons to own a crime they are not guilty of, yet, considering the well ordered conversation of those women while they lived among us, and what they now seriously and constantly affirm in a more composed frame, we cannot but in charity judge them innocent of the great transgression that hath been imputed to them. As for the rest of our neighbours, who are under the like circumstances with these that have been named, we can truly say of them that while they lived among us, we have had no cause to judge them such persons as, of late, they have been represented and reported to be, nor do we know that any of their neighbours had any just grounds to suspect them of that evil that they are now charged with.Dudley Bradstreet John Abbot, sen. Elizabeth RiteFrancis Dane, sen. Samuel Blanchard Wm. PetersThomas Barnard Wm. Ballard Sam. PetersTho. Chandler, sen. Thomas Hooper Walter WrightJohn Barker John Hooper Hooker OsgoodHenry Ingolls, sen. Wm. Abbot Benj. StevensWm. Chandler, sen. James Russell Ann BradstreetSamuel Martin Oliver Holt Joanna DaneStephen Parker John Presson Eliza. StevensSamuel Ingolls Francis Dane, jun. Eliza. BarnardEphraim Stevens George Abbot Phebe RobinsonDaniel Poore Wm. Chandler, jun. Hannah ChandlerJohn Ingolls John Chandler Hannah DaneHenry Ingolls, jun. Joseph Robinson Bridget ChandlerJohn Frie, sen. Thomas Johnson Mary JohnsonJames Frie Tho. Johnson, jun. Robert RusselJohn Aslebee Andrew Peters Mary Russel.Samuel Holt Mary Peters

William Hannum and wife Honor Capen testified against “witch” (1656)
[Robyn’s 10th Great grand father – shopman/Rubottom side]

William Hannum and his wife testified against Mary Bliss in a trial where she successfully proofed accusations of witchcraft were slanderous. The loss of their cow was a major issue of testimony. Their apparent animus toward Parsons was denied by various other neighbors, and Hannum and his wife seem to have soon reversed their position.
The Slander Case (1656)
As Sarah Bridgman's gossip about Mary Parsons spread, Joseph Parsons decided to take decisive action to stop any further damage to the reputation of his wife and family. In 1656, during the month of August, testimony was presented before commissioners at Springfield in the case of Parsons v Bridgman, and in October the case was brought before the Magistrates' Court at Cambridge.
The testimony in the case involves various community members testifying on behalf of Mary Parsons that they had heard Sarah Bridgman abusing her character. On the other side of the case were the many individuals defending Sarah's accusations as not slander, but truth; these individuals cited various encounters with Mary that seemed to prove that she had caused them (or their property) harm.
It seems that Mary was believed to be the cause of a strange variety of problems for her neighbors. Chief among her offenses is the death of William Hannum's cow. Hannum testified that "Mary came to my house about the yarn that she missed and then we had a falling out about it and some discontented words passed on both sides: this was in an evening, and as I take it in March last and that evening all my Cattle were well for ought I could see by them, the next morning One cow lay in my yard, ready to die as I thought: which when I had considered I endeavored to get her up and at length got her to stand: but she languished away and died about a fortnight after, though I took great care night and day to save her, giving her wholesome drinks eggs etc. and this Cow being young was hefty before this very time." Such accusations, indicating that Mary was responsible for damage to livestock and property, appear frequently in the record, and were intended to "prove" that Mary was involved in witchcraft.
The focus of the case, however, was not Mary's guilt, but Sarah's. Sarah Bridgman's own testimony is perhaps the most damaging, accusing Mary of causing harm, not to her animals, but to her own child. Sarah testified that "having my child in my lap, there was something that gave a great blow on the door, and at very instant as I apprehended my child changed : and I thought with myself and told my girl I was afraid my child would die. And I sent out the girl to look who it was at the door, but she could see nobody about the house : Presently after the girl came in, I looking towards the door thorough a hole by the door, I saw to my apprehension two women pass by the door with white clothes on their heads, then I concluded my child would die indeed : and I sent out the girl to see who they were but she could see nobody : they made me think there is wickedness in the place."
As the case unfolded however, the many alliances within the community were uncovered, and it seems that some individuals who had first testified on Sarah's behalf later changed their stories. For instance, we learn that soon after testifying about Mary's curious behavior, John Matthews recanted, claiming that he "hath at present no grounds of jealousy for himself, of Mary Parsons the wife of Joseph Parsons, to be a witch, and that what he testified yesterday on oath was upon the earnest Importunity of James Bridgman and his Brother."
While the strange coincidences and incidents with livestock might be ignored by us today, members of her community, and perhaps even her own family firmly believed that Mary had supernatural powers. Curious stories of Mary had been circulating in the area for some time. For instance, "William Branch of Springfield testified on oath that when I lived at the long meadow and Joseph Parsons lived there, a certain time Joseph Parsons told me that wherever he lay the key his wife could find it : and would go out in the night and that when she went out a woman went out with her and came in with her but says Joseph Parsons God preserves his with his Angels: and further the said William Branch sayth that while they lived together in the Long Meddow; George Cotton told me that he following Mary Parsons in her fit, he followed her thorough the water where he was up to the knees and she was not wet : this thing I told to William Pynchon when he was here : who wondered at it but said he could not tell what to say to it."
But ultimately, what had to be proven was that Sarah had been spreading rumors maliciously. To this end, Mary's own mother, Margaret Bliss, "testifieth that Sarah Bridgman told her that she did hear that her daughter Parsons was suspected to be a witch." Hearing the recanting of some testimony, and finding other stories perhaps inexplicable or too wild it seemed clear that Sarah was guilty of slander.
The magistrates issued their decision in favor of the Parsonses, and ordered Sarah Bridgman to make public apology for her slander in both Northampton and Springfield, or to pay a fine. It appears that despite the financial hardship, Sarah chose to pay the fine rather than submit to the public humiliation.






--------------------
Note: I remember another “aunt” hung for witchcraft on Robyn’s side – but I lost her—will add her when I find her. I am lead to believe she was somewhere other than Salem