some acerbity in his manners, but such a supposition is not in harmony with what little is known of him from other sources; and John Putnam’s conduct at the meeting described proves that his mind was fully perverted, and bereft as it were of all moral rectitude of judgment, in reference to Mr. Burroughs.  We must part with Mr. Burroughs for the present.  We shall meet him again, where the powers of malignity will be more shamelessly let loose upon him, and prevail to his destruction.

He was succeeded in the ministry at Salem Village by a character of a totally different class.  Deodat Lawson is first heard of in this country, according to Mr. Savage, at Martha’s Vineyard in 1671.  He took the freeman’s oath at Boston in 1680, and continued to have his residence there.  It was not until after much negotiation and considerable importunity, that he was prevailed upon to enter into an engagement to preach at the Village.  He began his ministry early in 1684, as appears by the parish record of a meeting Feb. 22, 1684:  “Voted that Joseph Herrick, Jonathan Putnam, and Goodman Cloyse are desired to take care for to get a boat for the removing of Mr. Lawson’s goods.”  Votes, about this time, were passed to repair the parsonage, and the fences around the ministry land; thus putting things in readiness to receive him.  It does not appear that he became particularly entangled in the conflicts which had so long disturbed the Village, although, while the mother-church signified its readiness to approve of his ordination, and some movement was made in the Village to that end, it was found impossible to bring the hostile parties sufficiently into co-operation to allow of any thing being definitely accomplished.  Fortunately for Mr. Lawson, the spirit of strife found other objects upon which to expend its energies for the time being.  Some persons brought forward complaints, that the records of the parish had not been correctly kept (this was before Sergeant Thomas Putnam had been charged with that trust); that votes which had passed in “Mr. Bayley’s days” and in “Mr. Burroughs’s days” had not been truly recorded, or recorded at all; and that what had never been passed had been entered as votes.  A great agitation arose on this subject, and many meetings were held.  Some demanded that the spurious votes should be expunged; others, that the omitted votes should be inserted.  Then there was an excited disputation about the ministry lands, and the validity or sufficiency of their title to them.  Joseph Houlton had given them; but he had nothing to do with raising the question, and did all he could to suppress it.  Some person had discovered that William Haynes, to whom Houlton had succeeded by the right of his wife, had omitted to get his deed of purchase recorded, and the original could not be found.  Disputes also arose about the use of the grounds around the meeting-house.  These, added to the conflicts with the “Topsfield men,” and matters not fully adjusted with the town of Salem, created and kept up a violent fermentation, in which all were miscellaneously involved.  In the midst of this confusion, the matter of ordaining Mr. Lawson was put into the warrant for a meeting to be held on the 10th of December, 1686.  But it was found impossible to recall the people from their divisions, and no favorable action could be had.