“Thomas Putnam, Sr., Nathaniel Putnam, Sr., Thomas Fuller, Sr., John Putnam, Sr., and Joseph Hutchinson, Sr.  Deed of gift to Mr. James Bayley.  Whereas, Mr. James Bayley, minister of the gospel, now resident of Salem Village, hath been in the exercise of his gifts by preaching amongst us several years, having had a call thereunto by the inhabitants of the place; and at the said Mr. Bayley’s first coming amongst us, we above-named put the said Bayley in possession of a suitable accommodation of land and meadow, for his more comfortable subsistence amongst us.  But the providence of God having so ordered it, that the said Mr. Bayley doth not continue amongst us in the work of the ministry, yet, considering the premises, and as a testimony of our good affection to the said Mr. Bayley, and as full satisfaction of all demands of us or any of us, of land relating to the premises, do by these presents fully grant, &c., to said Bayley” twenty-eight acres of upland, and thirteen acres of meadow in all.  The several lots are described in the deed, and constitute a very valuable property.  The instrument bears date May 6, 1680.  Mr. Bayley’s residence is indicated on the map.  The land on which it stood belonged to the part contributed by Nathaniel Putnam, with some acres in front of it contributed by Joseph Hutchinson.  He continued to own and occasionally occupy his property in the village for some years after the witchcraft transactions.  He left the ministry, and prepared himself for the profession of medicine, which he practised in Roxbury.  He died on the 17th of January, 1707.

It is not very easy to ascertain from the parish records, or from the mass of papers in the State-house files, the precise grounds of the obstinate controversy in reference to him.  It is evident that it began in consequence of some alleged irregularity in the proceedings that led to his first engagement to preach at the village.  There are intimations, that, in the tone and style of his preaching, he did not quite come up to the mark required by some.  The objection does not seem to have been against his talents or learning, but, rather, that he did not take hold with sufficient vehemence, or handle with sufficient zeal and warmth, points then engrossing attention.  One or two expressions in the papers which proceeded from his opponents seem to hint that he had not the degree of strictness or severity in his aspect or ways thought necessary in a minister.  Papers in the files of the County Court bring to light, perhaps, precisely the shape in which the charges against him had currency.  On the 4th of April, 1679, complaint was made by Thomas and John Putnam, Srs., Daniel Andrew, and Nathaniel Ingersoll, against Henry Kenny “for slandering our minister, Mr. Bayley, by reporting that he doth not perform family duties in his family.”  This was an expression then in use for “family prayers.”  One young woman testified as follows:  “Being at Mr. Bayley’s house three weeks together, I never heard Mr. Bayley read