The disposition of Mr. Parris to make use of his office, as the head of the church, to multiply occasions for the exercise of his influence, and to gain control over the minds of the brethren, is apparent throughout his records. He raised objections in order to show how he could remove them, and started difficulties about matters which had not before been brought into question. In the beginning of his ministry, he manifested this propensity. At a church meeting at John Putnam's house, Feb. 20, 1690, less than three months after his ordination, he threw open the whole question of baptism for discussion among the brethren. There is no reason to suppose that their attention had been drawn to it before. He propounded the question to the plain, practical husbandmen, "Who are the proper subjects of baptism?" He laid down the true[i.308] doctrine, as he regarded it, in this answer, "Covenant-professing believers and their infant seed." He put the answer to vote, and none voted against it. He then proceeded with another question, "How far may we account such seed infant seed, and so to be baptized?" Here he had got beyond their depth, and, as some of them thought, his own too; for there was only a "major vote" in favor of his answer: "two or three, I think not four, dissented." There was some danger of getting into divisions by introducing such questions; but he managed to avoid it, so far as his church was concerned. He worked them up to the highest confidence in his learning and wisdom, and gained complete ascendency over them. He aggrandized their sense of importance, and accomplished his object in securing their support in his controversies with his congregation. The brethren, after a while, became his devoted body-guard, and the church a fortress of defence and assault. There is reason, however, to believe, that the points he raised on the subject of baptism led to perplexities, in some minds, which long continued to disturb them. While showing off his learning, and displaying his capacity to dispose of the deep questions of theology, he let fall seeds of division and doubt that ripened into contention in subsequent generations. The only ripple on the surface of the Village Church during its long record of peace, since the close of his disastrous ministry, was occasioned by differing opinions on this subject. It required all the wisdom of his successors to quiet them. From time to time, formulas had[i.309] to be constructed, half-way covenants of varying expressions to be framed, to meet and dispose of the difficulties thus gratuitously raised by him. The following passages from his record-book show how he made much of a matter which any other pastor would have quietly arranged without calling for the intervention of church or congregation: they are also interesting as a picture of the times:—