Chapter XXXII: Appendix: NOTE A. p. 23 (4)

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 91.

Footnote 45:

The moral law was considered as divided into two tables, the first
table containing the first four commandments, which relate to our
duties towards God; and the second table, containing the other six
commandments, which prescribe certain duties towards men.

Footnote 46:

The note of Mr. Savage, in his edition of Winthrop, vol. i. p. 53,
deserves to be quoted:

“All, who are inclined to separate that connection of secular concerns
with the duties of religion, to which most governments, in all
countries, have been too much disposed, will think this opinion of
Roger Williams redounds to his praise. The laws of the first table, or
the four commandments of the decalogue first in order, should be
rather impressed by early education than by penal enactments of the
legislature; and the experience of Rhode Island and other States of
our Union is perhaps favorable to the sentiment of this earliest
American reformer. Too much regulation was the error of our fathers,
who were perpetually arguing from analogies in the Levitical
institutions, and encumbering themselves with the yoke of Jewish
customs.”

Footnote 47:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 246.

Footnote 48:

Prince, p. 355. Mr. Williams’ name is found in a list of persons,
“desiring to be made freemen,” at the last Court, which met October
19, 1630, nearly four months before his arrival in America. Prince, p.
331. This author explains the difficulty, by saying (p. 377,) that the
October list “comprehends all those who entered their desires between
that time and May 18, 1631.” It appears, therefore, that Mr. Williams,
with characteristic decision, entered his name on the list very soon
after his arrival.

Footnote 49:

1 His. Col. vi. pp. 24, 56.

Footnote 50:

Ibid.

Footnote 51:

Mr. Baylies, in his Memoir of Plymouth, vol. i. p. 266, says, that Mr.
Williams left Salem, because he had “become discontented in
consequence of some difference of opinion between him and Mr. Skelton,
the pastor.” This appears to be a mistake. Mr. Upham, in his Second
Century Lecture, p. 12, calls Mr. Skelton, “the faithful defender of
Roger Williams.”

Footnote 52:

“He was freely entertained among us, according to our poor ability,
exercised his gifts among us, and after some time was admitted a
member of the church, and his teaching well approved; for the benefit
whereof I shall bless God, and am thankful to him ever for his
sharpest admonitions and reproofs, so far as they agreed with truth.”
Prince, p. 377.

Footnote 53:

Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 54:

Cotton Mather, in his Magnalia, b. ii. ch. iv. relates the following
incident, as having occurred during this visit. Though the extract
shows his strong prejudices, it may be worth an insertion as an
illustration of the temper and manner of those times. “There were at
this time in Plymouth two ministers, leavened so far with the humors
of the rigid separation, that they insisted vehemently upon the
unlawfulness of calling any unregenerate man by the name of _good-man
such a one_, until by their indiscreet urging of this whimsey, the
place began to be disquieted. The wiser people being troubled at these
trifles, they took the opportunity of Governor Winthrop’s being there,
to have the thing publicly propounded in the congregation; who, in
answer thereunto, distinguished between a theological and a moral
goodness: adding, that when juries were first used in England, it was
usual for the crier, after the names of persons fit for that service
were called over, to bid them all, _Attend, good men and true_; whence
it grew to be a civil custom in the English nation for neighbors
living by one another to call one another good-man such a one, and it
was pity now to make a stir about a civil custom, so innocently
introduced. And that speech of Mr. Winthrop’s put a lasting stop to
the little, idle, whimsical conceits, then beginning to grow
obstreperous.”

If the preceding statement is true, it may be charitably viewed as an
indication of the scrupulous conscientiousness of Mr. Williams, who
thought, perhaps, that _names_ are sometimes _things_, and was
unwilling that the term _good man_ should be indiscriminately applied
to all men. If he yielded to Gov. Winthrop’s explanation, it proves,
that he was not so obstinate in trifles, as he has been represented.

Footnote 55:

Weymouth.

Footnote 56:

Backus, vol. i. p. 56. Some writers insinuate, that he went back
without an invitation.

Footnote 57:

Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 58:

Memorial, p. 151. Mr. Smith was an English minister, who separated
from the Church of England, and went to Holland, where he embraced the
sentiments of the Baptists. He is said to have baptized himself, for
want of a suitable administrator, and hence was called a Se-Baptist.
Dr. Toulmin remarks, on this assertion, “This is said on the authority
of his opponents only, who, from the acrimony with which they wrote
against him, it may be reasonably concluded, might be ready to take up
a report against him upon slender evidence.” Neal’s History of the
Puritans, vol. ii. p. 72, note. Mr. Neal says, that “he was a learned
man, of good abilities, but of an unsettled head.” His adoption of
Baptist principles explains this reproach.

Footnote 59:

The Rev. John Foster, in his essay on the epithet Romantic.

Footnote 60:

See Appendix B. for some remarks on the Anabaptists.

Footnote 61:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 57, 516. Dr. Bentley, 1 His. Col. vi. p. 247,
says, that the child was born in Salem, but Mr. Backus’ statement is
more probable, and he quotes the Providence Records as authority.

Footnote 62:

There is a strange confusion in the statements of different writers
respecting the duration of Mr. Williams’ stay at Plymouth, and the
date of his removal. Morton says, that he preached at Plymouth about
three years, and was dismissed in 1634. Baylies repeats this
statement. Hutchinson says, that he remained at Plymouth three or four
years; Cotton Mather says two years, and Dr. Bentley states, that he
returned to Salem before the end of the year 1632. But Mr. Backus
supposes the time of his removal from Plymouth to have been in August,
1633. “His first child was born there the first week in August, 1633,
(Providence Records) and Mr. Cotton, who arrived at Boston the fourth
of September following, says, he had removed into the Bay before his
arrival.” (Tenet Washed, part 2, p. 4.) It is certain, from Winthrop’s
Journal, vol. i. p. 117, that Mr. Williams had returned to Salem
previously to November, 1633, for under that date Winthrop says, that
he “was removed from Plymouth thither, (but not in any office, though
he exercised by way of prophecy).” The expression implies, that he had
_recently_ removed, and this agrees with the supposition that he
returned to Salem in August.

Footnote 63:

Mr. Skelton’s name is first mentioned by Winthrop, and Dr. Bentley (1
His. Col. vi. p. 248) attributes to Mr. Skelton the open opposition.

Footnote 64:

“Perhaps,” says Mr. Savage, “the same expressions from another would
have given less offence. From Williams they were not at first received
in the mildest, or even the most natural sense; though further
reflection satisfied the magistrates that his were not dangerous. The
passages from the Apocalypse were probably not _applied_ to the honor
of the King; and I regret, therefore, that Winthrop did not preserve
them.”

Footnote 65:

It was probably this book, to which Mr. Coddington alluded, in his
bitter letter against Mr. Williams, inserted at the close of Fox’s
Reply. Mr. W. is there charged with having “written a quarto against
the King’s patent and authority.”

Footnote 66:

A writer in the North American Review, for October, 1830, p. 404,
says: “The Kings of Europe did, in some instances, assert the right to
subdue the natives by force, and to appropriate their territory,
without their consent, to the uses of the colonists. The King of Spain
founded this right solely on the grant of the Pope, as the vicegerent
of Christ upon earth. The Kings of England, in the sixteenth century,
placed it on the superior claims, which Christians possessed over
infidels.”

Footnote 67:

Reply to Cotton on the Bloody Tenet, pp. 276, 277.

Footnote 68:

Magnalia, book i. c. v. § 5.

Footnote 69:

Travels, vol. i. p. 167.

Footnote 70:

Mr. Endicott’s zeal on this point may be learned from the following
incident, related by Winthrop: “March 7, 1633. At the lecture at
Boston a question was propounded about veils. Mr. Cotton concluded,
that where (by the custom of the place) they were not a sign of the
woman’s subjection, they were not commanded by the apostle. Mr.
Endicott opposed, and did maintain it by the general arguments brought
by the apostle. After some debate, the Governor, perceiving it to grow
to some earnestness, interposed, and so it brake off.” Vol. i. p. 125.

Hutchinson (vol. i. p. 379) says, on the authority of Hubbard, that
“Mr. Cotton, of Boston, happening to preach at Salem, soon after this
custom began, he convinced his hearers that it had no sufficient
foundation in the Scriptures. His sermon had so good an effect, that
they were all ashamed of their veils, and never appeared covered with
them afterwards.”

Footnote 71:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 142.

Footnote 72:

Neal’s Hist. Puritans, vol. i. p. 184.

Footnote 73:

The question about the lawfulness of the cross caused much agitation
and controversy. “Some of our chief worthies,” says Cotton Mather,
(Magnalia, b. vii. c. ii. § 9) “maintained their different
persuasions, with weapons indeed no more dangerous than easy pens, and
effects no worse than a little harmless and learned inkshed.” Mr.
Hooker wrote a tract of nearly thirteen pages, in defence of the
cross. Winthrop says, that the Court were “doubtful of the lawful use
of the cross in an ensign.” The militia refused to march with the
mutilated banners. The matter was finally settled, by leaving out the
cross in the colors for the trained bands, and retaining it in the
banners of the castle and of vessels.

Footnote 74:

His. Col. vi. p. 246.

Footnote 75:

That is, April 30. Winthrop adopted, a few months before, this mode of
denoting time. It seems to have arisen from a desire to avoid the
Roman nomenclature, as heathenish. Perhaps an aversion to the Romish
church had a share in producing the change. The custom continued for
more than fifty years, when it was gradually abandoned, except by the
Friends, or Quakers, and Hutchinson thinks, that the popular prejudice
against them hastened the decline of the custom. The months were
called 1st, 2d, &c. beginning with March, and the days of the week
were designated in the same way.

Footnote 76:

Since these remarks were written, the author has found in Mr.
Williams’ “Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s,” an “Appendix as
touching oaths, a query.” This Appendix is as follows: “Although it be
lawful (in case) for Christians to invocate the name of the Most High
in swearing; yet since it is a part of his holy worship, and therefore
proper unto such as are his true worshippers in spirit and in truth;
and persons may as well be forced unto any part of the worship of God
as unto this, since it ought not to be used but most solemnly, and in
solemn and weighty cases, and (ordinarily) in such as are not
otherwise determinable; since it is the voice of the two great
lawgivers from God, Moses and Christ Jesus, that in the mouth of two
or three witnesses (not swearing) every word shall stand: Whether the
enforcing of oaths and spiritual covenants upon a nation,
promiscuously, and the constant enforcing of all persons to practise
the worship in the most trivial and common cases in all courts
(together with the ceremonies of book and holding up the hand, &c.) be
not a prostituting of the holy name of the Most High to every unclean
lip, and that on slight occasions, and a taking of it by millions, and
so many millions of times in vain, and whether it be not a provoking
of the eyes of his jealousy who hath said, that he will not hold him
(what him or them soever) guiltless, that taketh his name in vain.” It
seems, from this paragraph, that he considered taking an oath to be an
act of worship; that a _Christian_ might take one on proper occasions,
though not for trivial causes; that an irreligious man could not
sincerely perform this act of worship; and that no man ought to be
_forced_ to perform this act, any more than any other act of worship.
His own practice was agreeable to his theory. He says, in his George
Fox digged out of his Burrowes, (Appendix, pp. 59, 60) “cases have
befallen myself in the Chancery in England, &c. of the loss of great
sums, which I chose to bear, through the Lord’s help, rather than
yield to the _formality_ (then and still in use) in God’s worship,
[alluding, perhaps, to the use of a book, holding up the hand, &c.]
though I offered to swear, in weighty cases, by the name of God, as in
the presence of God, and to attest or call God to witness; and the
judges told me they would rest in my testimony and way of swearing,
but they could not dispense with me without an act of Parliament.”

Footnote 77:

Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.

Footnote 78:

Backus, vol. i, p. 62.

Footnote 79:

In his “Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s,” he says, on this subject,
“we may hinder and harden poor souls against repentance, when, by
fellowship in prayer with them as with saints, we persuade them of
their [already] blessed state of Christianity, and that they are new
born, the sons and daughters of the living God.” p. 22. This argument
is unsound, because we do not “hold fellowship” with the impenitent,
by praying in their presence; but the argument shows Mr. Williams’
conscientious regard for the welfare of men.

It is worthy of remark, here, that while Winthrop states this charge
as a general proposition, Hubbard (207) and Morton (153) assert, that
Mr. Williams refused to “pray or give thanks at meals with his own
wife or any of his family.” This was probably an inference from Mr.
Williams’ abstract doctrine. Several of the charges against him might
be thus traced to the disposition to draw inferences. A curious
instance is given by Cotton Mather, (Magnalia, b. vii. ch. ii. § 6.)
Mr. Williams, he says, “complained in open Court, that he was wronged
by a slanderous report, as if he held it unlawful for a father to call
upon his child to eat his meat.” Mr. Hooker, then present, being moved
hereupon to speak something, replied, “Why, you will say as much
again, if you stand to your own principles, or be driven to say
nothing at all.” Mr. Williams expressing his confidence that he should
never say it, Mr. Hooker proceeded: “If it be unlawful to call an
unregenerate person to pray, since it is an action of God’s worship,
then it is unlawful for your unregenerate child to pray for a blessing
upon his own meat. If it be unlawful for him to pray for a blessing
upon his meat, it is unlawful for him to eat it, for it is sanctified
by prayer, and without prayer unsanctified. (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.) If it
be unlawful for him to eat it, it is unlawful for you to call upon him
to eat it, for it is unlawful for you to call upon him to sin.” Our
fathers were adepts in logic. Mr. Hooker’s syllogisms do not now seem
very convincing, but they must have puzzled Mr. Williams, if he held
the notions ascribed to him. Accordingly, Cotton Mather adds, that
“Mr. Williams chose to hold his peace, rather than to make any
answer.” We may wonder, nevertheless, that Mr. Williams has not been
accused of starving his children, to the horror of succeeding
generations!

Footnote 80:

The Court, in March, 1634–5, passed an act, “entreating of the
brethren and elders of every church within their jurisdiction, that
they will consult and advise of one _uniform_ order of discipline in
the churches, agreeable to the Scriptures, and then to consider how
far the magistrates are bound to interpose for the preservation of
that uniformity and the peace of the churches.”

Footnote 81:

Ecclesiastes, vii. 7.

Footnote 82:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 167, note.

Footnote 83:

Winthrop places the banishment under the date of October, but the
Colonial Records, (I. 163) state, that it took place, November 3,
1635.

Footnote 84:

See Appendix C.

Footnote 85:

Backus, vol. i. p. 516. He called this daughter Freeborn. This was in
the taste of the times. The first three children christened in Boston
church were named Joy, Recompense and Pity. It is worthy of remark,
that the name Freeborn was given, while the father was the object of
what he doubtless thought oppression. It shows his indomitable spirit.

Footnote 86:

MSS. Letter.

Footnote 87:

This is the ground on which Mr. Cotton himself justified the
punishment of heretics. See the “Bloody Tenet.”

Footnote 88:

About the same time that Bossuet, the most illustrious champion of the
Church of Rome, was engaged in maintaining, with all the force of his
overwhelming eloquence, and inexhaustible ingenuity, that the
sovereign was bound to use his authority in extirpating false
religions from the state, the Scotch Commissioners in London were
remonstrating, in the name of their national Church, against the
introduction of a ‘sinful and ungodly toleration in matters of
religion;’ whilst the whole body of the English Presbyterian Clergy,
in their official papers, protested against the schemes of Cromwell’s
party, and solemnly declared, ‘that they detested and abhorred
toleration.’ ‘My judgment,’ said Baxter, a man noted in his day for
moderation, ‘I have always freely made known. I abhor unlimited
liberty or toleration of all.’—‘Toleration,’ said Edwards, another
distinguished divine, ‘will make the kingdom a chaos, a Babel, another
Amsterdam, a Sodom, an Egypt, a Babylon. Toleration is the grand work
of the Devil, his master-piece, and chief engine to uphold his
tottering kingdom. It is the most compendious, ready, sure way to
destroy all religion, lay all waste and bring in all evil. It is a
most transcendent, catholic and fundamental evil. As original sin is
the fundamental sin, having the seed and spawn of all sins in it, so
toleration hath all errors in it, and all evils.’ _Verplank’s
Discourses_, pp. 23, 24. Similar language was used in this country.
The Rev. Mr. Ward, in his Simple Cobler of Agawam, written in 1647,
utters his detestation of toleration, and says: “He that is willing to
tolerate any religion, or decrepit way of religion, besides his own,
unless it be in matters merely indifferent, either doubts of his own,
or is not sincere in it.”

Footnote 89:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 248.

Footnote 90:

Mr. Haynes was preceded by Mr. Dudley, who was a stern man, and
particularly opposed to toleration. He died soon after, with a copy of
verses in his pocket, written with his own hand. The two following
lines made a part of it:

“Let men of God in court and churches watch
“O’er such as do a toleration hatch.”

Mr. Haynes also accused Governor Winthrop as too mild. Winthrop, vol.
i. p. 178.

Footnote 91:

Mr. Cotton denied, in his Reply to the Bloody Tenet, that he had any
agency in the banishment of Mr. Williams, but avowed that he approved
of it. Mr. Williams asserts, “Some gentlemen who consented to the
sentence against me, solemnly testified with tears, that they did it
by the advice and counsel of Mr. Cotton.” These two assertions may be
reconciled, perhaps, by the remark of Mr. Cotton, that “if he did
counsel one or two, it would not argue the act of the government.”

Footnote 92:

In the Bloody Tenet such phrases as these are repeatedly applied to
Mr. Cotton: “I speak with honorable respect for the answerer”—“the
worthy answerer”—“a man incomparably too worthy for such a service.”

Footnote 93:

Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. chap. 4.

Footnote 94:

2 His. Col. vol. ix. pp. 235, 236.

Footnote 95:

Key, Introduction.

Footnote 96:

Key, ch. 21.

Footnote 97:

The remark of Tacitus, respecting the German tribes, is true of the
Indians: “Reges̄ ex nobilitate, Duces ex virtute sumunt. Nec Regibus
infinita aut libera potestas, et Duces exemplo potius quam imperio; si
prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant, admiratione præsunt.” De
Mor. Ger. c. vii.

Footnote 98:

Key, ch. 22.

Footnote 99:

Encyclopædia Americana, art. Indians.

Footnote 100:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 411.

Footnote 101:

Roger Williams says, “I have known many of them run between fourscore
or an hundred miles in a summer’s day, and back in two days.” Key, ch.
11.

Footnote 102:

Key, ch. 2.

Footnote 103:

When boiled whole it was called msickquatash, and it is still eaten in
New-England, under the name of suckatash. The ground corn, when
boiled, was called Nasaump. “From this,” says Roger Williams, “the
English call their _samp_, which is the Indian corn, beaten and
boiled, and eaten hot or cold with milk or butter, which are mercies
beyond the natives’ plain water, and which is a dish exceeding
wholesome for the English bodies.” Key, ch. 2.

Footnote 104:

This shell fish is now called quahawg. The blue part of the shell
seems to have been broken off, drilled, ground to a round, smooth
surface, and polished. It appears that the white parts of the quahawg
shell were in like manner made into wampum. Morton’s Memorial,
Appendix, p. 388.

Footnote 105:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 406.

Footnote 106:

The remark of Lord Bacon is applicable to the native tribes of our
land. “It is certain, that sedentary and within door arts, and
delicate manufactures (that require rather the finger than the arm)
have in their nature a contrariety to a warlike disposition; and
generally all warlike people are a little idle, and love danger better
than travail.” Essay 29.

Footnote 107:

They supposed that their elysium was situated in the southwest,
because the wind from that quarter is always the attendant or
precursor of fine weather. It was not unnatural for an ignorant savage
to imagine, that the balmy and delightful breezes from the southwest
were “airs from heaven.”

Footnote 108:

Key, ch. 21.

Footnote 109:

The Rev. John Eliot, called the Indian apostle, was settled as the
teacher of the church in Roxbury, in 1632. He learned the Indian
language, and commenced preaching to the natives. In 1651, an Indian
town was built, on a pleasant spot on Charles river, about 16 miles
from Boston, and called Natick. A house of worship was erected, and a
church of converted Indians was formed, in 1660. In 1661, he published
the New Testament, in the Indian language, and in a few years after,
the whole Bible, and several other books. His labors for the welfare
of the natives were very great, and his success was gratifying. In
1670, there were between 60 and 70 praying communicants. The example
of Eliot was followed by others, especially by the Mayhews, who
labored among the Indians on Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard. Many
churches were formed in various places besides Natick, schools
established, books printed, and other efforts made for the welfare of
the natives. The aggregate number of praying Indians, in 1674, has
been estimated as follows:

In Massachusetts, principally under Mr. Eliot’s care, 1100
In Plymouth, under Mr. Bourne, 530
In Plymouth, under Mr. Cotton, 170
On the island of Nantucket, 300
On Martha’s Vineyard and Chappequiddick, under the Mayhews, 1500
————
3600

See Morton’s Memorial, note U, p. 407, and Qu. Register of the Am. Ed.
Soc. for Feb. 1832. Adams’ Bio. Dic. art. Eliot and Mayhew.

Footnote 110:

The illustrious Professors Adelung and Vater, and Baron Humboldt,
deserve a special mention. They are the authors of that astonishing
work, the Mithridates.

Footnote 111:

The Cherokee language exceeds even the Greek in its power to express,
by the inflection of a single word, delicate modifications of thought.
An example is given in the Appendix to the 6th volume of the
Encyclopædia Americana. It is also a specimen of the length to which
the words in the Indian languages are often extended. The word is,
Winitaw´tigeginaliskawlungtanawneli´tisesti, which may be rendered,
“They will by that time have nearly done granting [favors] from a
distance to thee and to me.” This word is understood to be regularly
inflected, according to fixed rules. If so, the Cherokee language must
have an arrangement of modes, tenses and numbers, which few if any
other languages on earth can equal.

Footnote 112:

2 His. Col. ix. 227.

Footnote 113:

The number assigned, in the same work, to Europe, is 587; to Africa,
276; to Asia, 987. Total, in the world, 3064.

Footnote 114:

2 His. Col. ix. 233, 234.

Footnote 115:

Heckewelder and Edwards assert this fact.

Footnote 116:

Key, introduction.

Footnote 117:

Vattel’s Law of Nations, book i. sections 81 and 209.

Footnote 118:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and
multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Genesis, i. 28.

Footnote 119:

The patents which they brought with them were, in theory, unjust; for
they implied, in terms, the absolute control of the English monarch
over the ceded territory, and contained no recognition of the rights
of the natives. But the Christian integrity of the Pilgrims corrected,
in practice, the error or defect of the patents. An able writer says:
“It is beyond all question, that the early settlers at Plymouth, at
Saybrook, and, as a general rule, all along the Atlantic coast,
purchased the lands upon which they settled, and proceeded in their
settlements with the consent of the natives. Nineteen twentieths of
the land in the Atlantic States, and nearly all the land settled by
the whites in the western States, came into our possession as the
result of amicable treaties.” “The settlers usually gave as much for
land as it was then worth, according to any fair and judicious
estimate. An Indian would sell a square mile of land for a blanket and
a jack-knife; and this would appear to many to be a fraudulent
bargain. It would, however, by no means deserve such an appellation.
The knife alone would add more to the comfort of an Indian, and more
to his wealth, than forty square miles of land, in the actual
circumstances of the case.” See a very judicious article in the North
American Review, for October, 1830. We may add, that, at this day, a
square mile of land might be bought in some parts of the United
States, for less than the first settlers paid the Indians for their
lands. Indeed, as the writer just quoted says, “There are millions of
acres of land in the Carolinas, which would not, at this moment, be
accepted as a gift, and yet much of this land will produce, with very
little labor, one hundred and fifty bushels of sweet potatoes to the
acre.” Vattel says, (book i. § 209) “We cannot help praising the
moderation of the English puritans, who first settled in New-England,
who, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their
sovereign, purchased of the Indians the land they resolved to
cultivate. This laudable example was followed by Mr. William Penn, who
planted the colony of Quakers in Pennsylvania.”

Footnote 120:

The consternation which the war with Black Hawk spread over the
western country the last year, may give some faint idea of the horrors
of an Indian warfare in the early days of the colonies.

Footnote 121:

See Opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January
term, 1832, in the Cherokee case.

Footnote 122:

There is a strange confusion in the statements of different authors
respecting the time of Mr. Williams’ banishment, and of the settlement
of Providence. The above date is unquestionably correct, for reasons
which will hereafter be presented.

Footnote 123:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 124:

Letter of Roger Williams.

Footnote 125:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 126:

Key, chap. ii.

Footnote 127:

The venerable Moses Brown assures me, that he has ascertained this
fact, to his own satisfaction.

Footnote 128:

William Harris, John Smith (miller), Joshua Verin, Thomas Angell and
Francis Wickes. R. I. Register, 1828, article written by Moses Brown.

Footnote 129:

Equivalent to the modern _How do you do?_

Footnote 130:

The lands adjacent to this spot were called _Whatcheer_, in memory of
the occurrence.

Footnote 131:

“Tradition has uniformly stated the place where they landed, to be at
the spring southwest of the Episcopal church, at which a house has
recently been built by Mr. Nehemiah Dodge.” Moses Brown.

Footnote 132:

Mrs. Hemans’ noble ode, “The Landing of the Pilgrim Fathers.” This
beautiful stanza applies with more literal truth to Roger Williams and
his companions, than to all the Pilgrim fathers.

Footnote 133:

Published in the Providence Gazette, from January to March, 1765, and
republished in the 2 Mass. His. Col. ix.

Footnote 134:

Mass. Rec. vol. i. p. 163.

Footnote 135:

Backus, vol. i. 74.

Footnote 136:

The Plymouth settlers, in 1623, began to plant their corn the middle
of April. Prince, p. 216.

Footnote 137:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 190.

Footnote 138:

In a letter to the author, from John Howland, Esq. of Providence, one
of the most intelligent and active members of the Rhode-Island
Historical Society, he says, “When our Society was first formed, it
was proposed to fix on the day of his arrival here, as the day of the
annual meetings of the Society; and till that day could be
ascertained, we decided on the day of the date of the charter of
Charles II.”

Footnote 139:

Backus, vol. i. p. 89.

Footnote 140:

Rhode-Island Register, 1828.

Footnote 141:

“Under the general name of Narraganset, were included Narraganset
proper, and Coweset. Narraganset proper extended south from what is
now called Warwick to the ocean; Coweset, from Narraganset northerly
to the Nipmuck country, which now forms Oxford, (Mass.) and some other
adjoining towns. The western boundaries of Narraganset and Coweset
cannot be definitely ascertained. Gookin says, the Narraganset
jurisdiction extended thirty or forty miles from Seekonk river and
Narraganset Bay, including the islands, southwesterly to a place
called Wekapage, four or five miles to the eastward of Pawcatuck
river; that it included a part of Long-Island, Block-Island, Coweset
and Niantick, and received tribute from some of the Nipmucks. After
some research, I am induced to believe, that the Nianticks occupied
the territory now called Westerly. If so, then the jurisdiction of the
Narragansets extended to the Pawcatuck, and perhaps beyond
it.”—Whatcheer, Notes, p. 176.

Footnote 142:

This is transcribed from a copy furnished by John Howland, Esq. It
differs a little from that contained in Backus, vol. i. p. 89. The
orthography is conformed to modern usage.

Footnote 143:

“The great hill, Notaquoncanot, mentioned as a bound, is three miles
west from Weybosset bridge. Mashapaug is about two miles south of the
hill.—J. H.”

Footnote 144:

Mr. Backus (vol. i. p. 90) has this reading: “He acknowledged this his
act and hand; up the streams,” &c. But the reading in the text is
retained, according to Mr. Howland’s copy. The deed was written by
Roger Williams, but the memorandum by some other person.

Footnote 145:

Backus, vol. i. p. 94.

Footnote 146:

Backus, vol. i. p. 290.

Footnote 147:

See above. He adds, “It hath been told me, that I labored for a
licentious and contentious people; that I have foolishly parted with
town and colony advantages, by which I might have preserved both town
and colony in as good order as any in the country about us.” The
following letter from his son may be properly quoted here, as
confirming the preceding statements:

“To all them that deem themselves purchasers in the town of
Providence, if they be real purchasers, I would have them make it
appear.

“Gentlemen,

“I thought good in short to present you with these few lines,
concerning the bounds of Providence, &c. I have put forth several
queries to several men in the township, to be answered; but have not
any answer from any of them; and, as I judge, doth not care to have
any discourse about it. Therefore, now I speak to you all, desiring
your honors will be pleased to consider of the matter, and to answer
me to one or two queries; that is, whether you have any thing under
my father’s hand to prove the bounds of this town afore those twelve
men were concerned; or whether my father disposed of any of the
township to any other persons since the twelve men were first in
power, &c. If my father had disposed or sold his whole township, and
they he sold it to, or have it under his hand, prove the sale,
although it was but for one penny, God forbid that ever I should
open my mouth about it, &c. It is evident, that this township was my
father’s, and it is held in his name against all unjust clamors, &c.
Can you find such another now alive, or in this age? He gave away
his lands and other estate, to them that he thought were most in
want, until he gave away all, so that he had nothing to help
himself, so that he being not in a way to get for his supply, and
being ancient, it must needs pinch somewhere. I do not desire to say
what I have done for both father and mother. I judge they wanted
nothing that was convenient for ancient people, &c. What my father
gave, I believe he had a good intent in it, and thought God would
provide for his family. He never gave me but about three acres of
land, and but a little afore he deceased. It looked hard, that out
of so much at his disposing, that I should have so little, and he so
little. For the rest, &c. I did not think to be so large; so
referring your honors to those queries you have among you,

“Your friend and neighbor,
“DANIEL WILLIAMS.

“Providence, Aug. 24, 1710.

“If a covetous man had that opportunity as he had, most of this town
would have been his tenants, I believe.

D. W.”

Footnote 148:

The first deed was “written in a strait of time and haste,” as he alleged, and contained only the initials of the names of the grantees. He was censured for this by some of them, as if he had done it for some sinister design! They urged him to give them another deed, which he finally did, on the 22d of December, 1666, when the document in the text was written, retaining the original date.

Footnote 149:

The name, _New Providence_, appears in a few documents written by Mr. Williams himself, and by others, but it was soon discontinued. The origin of the epithet _New_ may have been, a desire to distinguish the town from the island of Providence, one of the Bahama islands, on which a plantation was begun in 1629. Holmes’ Annals, vol. i. p. 201. This island has since received the name of New Providence. The town of Roger Williams was entitled to the precedence.

Footnote 150:

Backus, vol. i. p. 92.

Footnote 151:

This seems to be loosely expressed. Mr. Williams could not mean that he delivered the deed to the grantees in 1637, for several of the persons named, did not arrive in Providence till after April, 1638. (Backus, vol. i. p. 92.) His own deed of cession is dated Oct. 8, 1638. He probably meant, that he delivered the deed, signed by the sachems in 1637, to the purchasers. This deed was dated March 24, the last day of 1637, old style.

Footnote 152:

An anchor, reclining.

Footnote 153:

We are surprised at the form of this signature. That Mrs. Williams could not write, would be incredible, if it were not rendered certain that she could write, by a reference to her letters, in a public document at Providence. It is probable, that she wrote the initials, believing them to be sufficient; and some person added the words, _the mark of_, and wrote the name at length.

Footnote 154:

Mr. Backus so understood it. Vol. i. p. 93.

Footnote 155:

He found “Indian gifts” very costly. He was under the necessity of making frequent presents. He says, that he let the Indians have his shallop and pinnace at command, transporting fifty at a time, and lodging fifty at his house; that he never denied them any thing lawful; that when he established a trading house at Narraganset, Canonicus had freely what he desired; and when the old chief was about to die, he sent for Mr. Williams, and “desired to be buried in my cloth, of free gift.”

Footnote 156:

Throckmorton, Olney and Westcott, three of the first proprietors, were members of the Salem church. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 371.

Footnote 157:

Hubbard repeatedly alludes, in a somewhat taunting tone, to the poverty of Roger Williams.—pp. 205, 350.

Footnote 158:

The author of Whatcheer, (p. 163) has accommodated his hero with the dwelling of a deceased Indian powaw. Poets have a license to build castles in the air, or on the land. I fear that Roger Williams was not so easily furnished with a habitation. It was, however, we may suppose, sufficiently humble.

Footnote 159:

Among these, were Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, William Wickenden, Robert Williams (brother of Roger), Richard Scott, William Reynolds, John Warner, Benedict Arnold, Joshua Winsor and Thomas Hopkins. Backus, vol. i. p. 93.

Footnote 160:

Gov. Hopkins, History of Providence, 2 Mass. His. Col. ix. p. 183.

Footnote 161:

Vol. i. p. 293.

Footnote 162:

John Howland, Esq. in a letter to the author.

Footnote 163:

Moses Brown says (Rhode-Island Register, 1828) “Roger Williams’ lot was No. 38, northward from Mile End Cove, at the south end of the town; William Harris’ was No. 36; John Smith’s, No. 41; Joshua Verins’, No. 39, adjoining on the north of Roger Williams’ lot; Francis Wickes’, No. 35. The Court House appears to be standing on No. 34. These first six settlers all became proprietors, though Francis Wickes and Thomas Angell did not receive full shares till they became of age.”

Footnote 164:

Copied from 3 His. Col. i. 165.

Footnote 165:

Journal, vol. ii. p. 360.

Footnote 166:

Winthrop, vol. i. 147, 149. The Pequods agreed to deliver up the individuals who were engaged in the murder, and to pay four hundred fathoms of wampumpeag, forty beaver skins, and thirty otter skins. While the Pequod ambassadors were at Boston, a party of the Narragansets came as far as Naponset, and it was rumored that their object was to murder the Pequod ambassadors. The magistrates had a conference at Roxbury, with the Narragansets, (among whom were two sachems) and persuaded them to make peace with the Pequods, to which the sachems agreed, the magistrates having secretly promised them, as a condition, a part of the wampumpeag, which the Pequods had stipulated to pay. The note of Mr. Savage, on this affair, deserves to be repeated:

“If any doubt has ever been entertained, in Europe or America, of the equitable and pacific principles of the founders of New-England, in their relations with the Indians, the secret history, in the foregoing paragraph, of this negotiation, should dissipate it. By the unholy maxims of vulgar policy, the discord of these unfriendly nations would have been encouraged, and our European fathers should have employed the passions of the aborigines for their mutual destruction. On the contrary, an honest artifice was resorted to for their reconciliation, and the tribute received by us from one offending party was, by a Christian deception, divided with their enemies, to procure mutual peace. Such mediation is more useful than victory, and more honorable than conquest.”

It may be added, here, as an illustration of the temper of the times, that Mr. Eliot, the Indian apostle, expressed, in a sermon, some disapprobation of this treaty with the Pequods, for this reason, among others, that the magistrates and ministers acted without authority from the people. He was called to account, and Mr. Cotton and two other ministers were appointed to convince him of his error. The good man appeared to be convinced, and agreed to make a public retraction. It is stated by Dr. Bentley, that Mr. Williams, then at Salem, expressed his disapprobation of the treaty, doubtless on the same ground, of the combination of civil and clerical agency in the transaction. But Mr. Williams would not retract, after the example of Eliot.

Footnote 167:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 192.

Footnote 168:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 199. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 61. The last article of the treaty provided, that it should continue to the _posterity of both parties_. Our fathers thus treated with the Indians as independent tribes. They did not then dream of the doctrine, that the Indians are mere tenants of the soil, and are under the jurisdiction of the whites.

Footnote 169:

3 His. Col. i. p. 159.

Footnote 170:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 171:

The principal force from Massachusetts, under General Stoughton, did not arrive till some time after the action. The Plymouth troops did not march, though fifty men were got in readiness, but not till the war was nearly finished. The friendly Indians did very little service, except to intercept some fugitives. The battle was fought by the whites.

Footnote 172:

“It was judged,” says Dr. Holmes, (Annals, vol. i. p. 241) “that, during the summer, seven hundred Pequods were destroyed, among whom were thirteen sachems. About two hundred, besides women and children, survived the swamp fight. Of this number, the English gave eighty to Miantinomo, and twenty to Ninigret, two sachems of Narraganset, and the other hundred to Uncas, sachem of the Mohegans, to be received and treated as their men. A number of the male children were sent to Bermuda. However just the occasion of this war, humanity demands a tear on the extinction of a valiant tribe, which preferred death to what it might naturally anticipate from the progress of English settlements—dependence, or extirpation.

‘Indulge, my native land! indulge the tear,
That steals, impassion’d, o’er a nation’s doom;
To me each twig from Adam’s stock, is dear,
And sorrows fell upon an Indian’s tomb.’”
_Dwight’s Greenfield Hill._

Footnote 173:

Backus, vol. i. p. 95. None might have a voice in government in this new plantation, who would not allow this liberty. Hence, about this time, I found the following town act, viz. “It was agreed, that Joshua Verin, upon breach of covenant, for restraining liberty of conscience, shall be withheld from liberty of voting, till he shall declare the contrary.” Verin left the town, and his absence seems to have been considered as a forfeiture of his land, for in 1650, he wrote the following letter to the town, claiming his property. The town replied, that if he would come and prove his title, he should receive the land.

“Gentlemen and countrymen of the town of Providence:

“This is to certify you, that I look upon my purchase of the town of Providence to be my lawful right. In my travel, I have inquired, and do find it is recoverable according to law; for my coming away could not disinherit me. Some of you cannot but recollect, that we six which came first should have the first convenience, as it was put in practice by our house lots, and 2d by the meadow in Wanasquatucket river, and then those that were admitted by us unto the purchase to have the next which were about; but it is contrary to law, reason and equity, for to dispose of my part without my consent. Therefore deal not worse with me than we dealt with the Indians, for we made conscience of purchasing of it of them, and hazarded our lives. Therefore we need not, nor any one of us ought to be denied of our purchase. So hoping you will take it into serious consideration, and to give me reasonable satisfaction, I rest,

“Yours in the way of right and equity,

“JOSHUA VERIN.

“From Salem, the 21st Nov. 1650.

“This be delivered to the deputies of the town of Providence, to be presented to the whole town.”

Winthrop’s account of this affair (vol. i. p. 282) under the date of December 13, 1638, is a good specimen of the manner in which that great and good man was biased by his feelings, when he spoke of Rhode-Island. The account must have been founded on reports, perhaps on mere gossip:

“At Providence, also, the devil was not idle. For whereas, at their first coming thither, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that no man should be molested for his conscience, now men’s wives, and children, and servants, claimed liberty hereby to go to all religious meetings, though never so often, or though private, upon the week days; and because one Verin refused to let his wife go to Mr. Williams so oft as she was called for, they required to have him censured. But there stood up one Arnold, a witty man of their own company, and withstood it, telling them, that when he consented to that order, he never intended it should extend to the breach of any ordinance of God, such as the subjection of wives to their husbands, &c. and gave divers solid reasons against it. Then one Greene, (who hath married the wife of one Beggerly, whose husband is living, and no divorce, &c. but only, it was said, that he had lived in adultery and had confessed it,) he replied, that if they should restrain their wives, &c. all the women in the country would cry out of them, &c. Arnold answered him thus: Did you pretend to leave Massachusetts because you would not offend God to please men, and would you now break an ordinance and commandment of God, to please women? Some were of opinion, that if Verin would not suffer his wife to have her liberty, the church should dispose her to some other man who would use her better. Arnold told them, it was not the woman’s desire, to go so oft from home, but only Mr. Williams’ and others. In conclusion, when they would have censured Verin, Arnold told them, that it was against their own order, for Verin did that he did out of conscience; and their order was, that no man should be censured for his conscience.”

Footnote 174:

“Every man and woman, who had brains enough to form some imperfect conception of them, inferred and maintained some other point, such as these: a man is justified before he believes; faith is no cause of justification; and if faith be before justification, it is only passive faith, an empty vessel, &c. and assurance is by immediate revelation only. The fear of God and love of our neighbor seemed to be laid by, and out of the question.” Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 59.

Footnote 175:

One of these decisions of the synod will be approved by the good sense of Christians in this age. “That though women might meet (some few together) to pray and edify one another, yet such a set assembly, (as was then in practice in Boston) where sixty or more did meet every week, and one woman (in a prophetical way, by resolving questions of doctrine and expounding Scripture) took upon her the whole exercise, was agreed to be disorderly, and without rule.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 240.

Footnote 176:

Backus, vol. i. 86.

Footnote 177:

Vol. i. p. 247.

Footnote 178:

This word is spelled by different writers, in various ways. The island was afterwards (in 1644, according to Callender,) called the Isle of Rhodes, and by an easy declension, Rhode-Island. (Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.) In a letter of Roger Williams, already quoted, written before May, 1637, the name _Rode_-Island is applied to it. The reason does not appear. A fancied resemblance to the Isle of Rhodes is supposed to have been the origin.

Footnote 179:

This deed is as follows: (Backus, vol. i. pp. 180–1.)

“The 24th of the first month, called March, in the year (so commonly called) 1637–8, Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, by virtue of our general command of this bay, as also the particular subjecting of the dead sachems of Aquetneck and Kitackamuckqut, themselves and lands unto us, have sold to Mr. Coddington and his friends united unto him, the great island of Aquetneck, lying hence eastward in this bay, as also the marsh or grass upon Canonicut, and the rest of the islands in this bay (excepting Chibachuwesa [Prudence] formerly sold to Mr. Winthrop, the now Governor of the Massachusetts, and Mr. Williams, of Providence) also the grass upon the rivers and bounds about Kitackamackqut, and from thence to Paupusquatch, for the full payment of forty fathoms of white beads, to be equally divided between us; in witness whereof, we have here subscribed. Item, that by giving, by Miantinomo’s hands, ten coats and twenty hoes to the present inhabitants, they shall remove themselves from off the island before next winter.

“Witness our hands,
“The mark (†) of CANONICUS.
“The mark (‡) of MIANTINOMO.

“In presence of

“The mark (X) of YOTAASH,
“ROGER WILLIAMS,
“RANDALL HOLDEN,

“The mark (‡) of ASSOTEMUIT,
“The mark (∥) of MIHAMMOH, Canonicus his son.

“Memorandum, that Ousamequin freely consents, that Mr. William Coddington and his friends united unto him, shall make use of any grass or trees on the main land on Pawakasick side, and all my men, to the said Mr. Coddington, and English, his friends united to him, having received of Mr. Coddington five fathoms of wampum, as gratuity for himself and the rest.

“The mark (X) of OUSAMEQUIN.

Witness, { ROGER WILLIAMS,
{ RANDALL HOLDEN.

“Dated the 6th of the fifth month, 1638.”

Footnote 180:

Mr. Callender says, (His. Dis. p. 32,) “The English inhabited between two powerful nations, the Wampancags to the north and east, who had formerly possessed some part of their grants, before they had surrendered it to the Narragansets, and though they freely owned the submission, yet it was thought best by Mr. Williams to make them easy by gratuities to the sachem, his counsellors and followers. On the other side, the Narragansets were very numerous, and the natives inhabiting any spot the English sat down upon, or improved, were all to be bought off to their content, and oftentimes were to be paid over and over again.”

Footnote 181:

Messrs. Nicholas Easton, John Coggeshall and William Brenton.

Footnote 182:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.

Footnote 183:

“While the General Court sat, there came a letter directed to the Court from John Greene, of Providence, who, not long before, had been imprisoned and fined for saying, that the magistrates had usurped upon the power of Christ in his church, and had persecuted Mr. Williams and another, whom they had banished for disturbing the peace, by divulging their opinions against the authority of the magistrates, &c.; but upon his submission, &c. his fine was remitted; and now, by his letter, he retracted his former submission, and charged the Court as he had done before. Now, because the Court knew, that divers others of Providence were of the same ill-affection to the Court, and were, probably, suspected to be confederate in the same letter, the Court ordered, that if any of that plantation were found within our jurisdiction, he should be brought before one of the magistrates, and if he would not disclaim the charge in the said letter, he should be sent home, and charged to come no more into this jurisdiction, upon pain of imprisonment and further censure.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 256.

Footnote 184:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 185:

3 His. Col. i. p. 166.

Footnote 186:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 267. In the Journal, there are repeated allusions to information received from Mr. Williams, respecting the Indians, and services rendered by him. See vol. i. pp. 225, 226. &c.

Footnote 187:

3 His. Col. i. p. 170–3.

Footnote 188:

3 His. Col. i. 173–7. The letter was written about Sept. 1638.

Footnote 189:

righteousness?

Footnote 190:

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.
Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum
Intactum Pallanta.” _Æneis_, x. 501–4.

Footnote 191:

Vol. i. p. 283, already quoted.

Footnote 192:

Governor Hopkins thinks, that there was a church formed on Congregational principles, before Mr. Williams’ baptism.—History of Providence, in 2 Mass. His. Col. ix. p. 196. This is not probable, for nothing is said by the writers in Massachusetts, of such a church, and the members of the church in Salem, who removed to Providence, were not excluded from that church, till after their baptism. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 371.

Footnote 193:

The first church in Boston, several of whose members were wealthy, existed two years before they began to build a meeting-house. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 87.

Footnote 194:

Morton’s Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 195:

Peirce’s History of Harvard University, pp. 10, 18.

Footnote 196:

Dr. Woods, on Infant Baptism, Lecture I.—He adds, “the proof then, that infant baptism is a divine institution, must be made out in another way.”

Footnote 197: