Chapter XXXIII: Appendix: NOTE A. p. 23 (5)

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 293. Under date of March, 1638–9, he says: “At Providence, things grew still worse; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson, the wife of one Scott, being infected with anabaptistry, and going last year to live at Providence, Mr. Williams was taken (or rather emboldened) by her to make open profession thereof, and accordingly was re-baptized by one Holliman, a poor man, late of Salem. Then Mr. Williams re-baptized him and some ten more. They also denied the baptizing of infants, and would have no magistrates.”

Footnote 198:

Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 293) calls Mr. Holliman “a poor man,” which Hubbard, (338) in copying, alters to a “mean fellow.” But Mr. Benedict says, that he was a man of “gifts and piety,” and that he was chosen an assistant to Mr. Williams. Backus says, “after the year 1650, I find him more than once a Deputy from the town of Warwick in the General Court.”—Vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 199:

The first twelve members are named by Benedict, (vol. i. p. 473.) Roger Williams, Ezekiel Holliman, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely Westcott, John Green, Richard Waterman, Thomas James, Robert Cole, William Carpenter, Francis Weston, and Thomas Olney.

Footnote 200:

Backus, vol. i. 106, note. “There had been many of them [Baptists] intermixed with other societies from their first coming out of Popery; but their first distinct church in our nation was formed out of the Independent Church in London, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor, from 1616 to 1624, when he went to Virginia, and Mr. John Lathrop was chosen in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the society, finding that the congregation kept not to their first principles of separation, and being also convinced, that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but such only as professed faith in Christ, desired and obtained liberty, and formed themselves into a distinct church, Sept. 12, 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their minister.”—Crosby, vol. i. pp. 148, 149. In the year 1639, another Baptist church was formed in London, but probably not so early as the church at Providence.

Footnote 201:

Mosheim, b. 1, c. 1, p. 2, ch. 4, s. 8. See Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, lecture iv. for proof, that laymen, in the early times of the Christian era, often baptized. He quotes Hilary, who, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4: 11, 12, says, “Postquam omnibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est, quam cœperat; primum enim omnes docebant, et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio.” That is, when churches were every where constituted, and official duties prescribed, things were otherwise regulated, than at first, when all taught, and all baptized, whenever occasion required.

Footnote 202:

Lib. de baptismo, cap. xvii. Laicis etiam jus est (baptizandi.) Sufficiat in necessitatibus utaris, sicubi aut loci, aut temporis, aut personæ conditio compellit.

Footnote 203:

S. Ambrosius in Eph. iv.

Footnote 204:

S. Augustinus contra Padmenian, lib. ii. cap. xiii.

Footnote 205:

Hieronymus, adv. Lucifexianas, cap. v.—See Potter on Church Government, p. 231, &c. Phil. ed. for other authorities.

Footnote 206:

Concil, Elib. Can. xxxviii.—Peregre navigantes, aut si Ecclesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nec sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate, ita ut, si supervixerit, ad Episcopum suum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit.—Quoted by Potter, p. 232.

Footnote 207:

Mr. Holliman, who baptized Mr. Williams, became a preacher.

Footnote 208:

Neal, vol. iii. p. 233.

Footnote 209:

The excellent John Robinson, the father of the Plymouth colony, had a controversy with the Rev. Mr. Bernard, an Episcopal minister. Mr. Robinson wrote a book, entitled “A Justification of Separation from the Church of England.”—In this book, he uses the same argument as that in the text: “Zanchy, upon the fifth to the Ephesians, treating of baptism, propounds a question of a Turk, coming to the knowledge of Christ and to faith by reading the New Testament, and withal teaching his family and converting it and others to Christ, and being in a country whence he cannot easily come to Christian countries, whether he may baptize them, whom he hath converted to Christ, he himself being unbaptized? He answers, I doubt not of it, but that he may, and withal provide that he himself be baptized of one of the three converted by him. The reason he gives is, because he is a minister of the word, extraordinarily stirred up by Christ; and so as such a minister may, with the consent of that small church, appoint one of the communicants, and provide that he be baptized by him.” Backus, vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 210:

The question, which has been asked, with some emphasis, as if it vitally affected the Baptist churches in this country: “_By whom was Roger Williams baptized?_” has no practical importance. All whom he immersed were, as Pedobaptists must admit, baptized. The great family of Baptists in this country did not spring from the First Church in Providence. Many Baptist ministers and members came, at an early period, from Europe, and thus churches were formed in different parts of the country, which have since multiplied over the land. The first Baptist church formed in the present State of Massachusetts, is the church at Swansea. Its origin is dated in 1663, when the Rev. John Miles came from Wales, with a number of the members of a Baptist church, who brought with them its records. It was, in fact, an emigration of a church. Of the 400,000 Baptist communicants now in the United States, a small fraction only have had any connection, either immediate or remote, with the venerable church at Providence, though her members are numerous, and she has been honored as the mother of many ministers. The question, discussed in the preceding pages, disturbed, for a while, the first English Baptists. They had no clerical administrator, who had himself, in their view, been baptized. Some of them went to Holland, and were baptized by Baptist ministers there. “But,” says Crosby, (vol. i. p. 103,) “the greatest number of the English Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed, therefore, and practised accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation.” These examples, however, cannot justify a departure from the usual practice of our churches at the present day, when the ministry is regularly established.

Footnote 211:

Vol. i. p. 450.

Footnote 212:

New-England Firebrand Quenched. 2d part, p. 247.

Footnote 213:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 477.

Footnote 214:

John Howland, Esq., in a letter to the author, says: “The college was built in 1770. On the question among the founders of it, on what lot to place the building, they decided on the present site of the old college, because it was the home lot of Chad Brown, the first minister of the Baptist church. Other land could have been obtained, but the reason given prevailed in fixing the site. Had the impression been prevalent, that Roger Williams was the first minister or principal founder of the society, his home lot could have been purchased, which was a situation fully as eligible for the purpose. If any doubts rested in the minds of the gentlemen at that time, as to the validity of the claim of Chad Brown to this preference, perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Williams’ deserting the order, and protesting against it, might have produced the determination in favor of Brown.”

Footnote 215:

This house was built on the west side of North Main street, near its junction with Smith street, and a short distance north of Roger Williams’ spring. It was probably a small and rather rude building. Tradition states, that it was “in the shape of a hay cap, with a fireplace in the middle, the smoke escaping from a hole in the roof.” It was taken down, and a larger building erected in 1718. In 1774–5, the spacious and elegant house now occupied by the First Baptist Church, was erected.

Footnote 216:

Magnalia, b. vii. sec. 7. Gov. Hopkins, (a member of the Society of Friends) says, in his history of Providence, written in 1765, “This church hath, _from its beginning_, kept itself in repute, and maintained its discipline, so as to avoid scandal or schism, to this day. It hath always been, and still is, a numerous congregation, and in which I have with pleasure observed, very lately, sundry descendants from each of the founders of the colony, except Holliman.” 2 His. Col. ix. 197.

Footnote 217:

The letter, announcing their exclusion, to the church at Dorchester, may properly be quoted here, as an illustration of the customs of those times:

“_Salem, 1st 5th mo. 39._

“Reverend and dearly beloved in the Lord,

“We thought it our bounden duty to acquaint you with the names of
such persons as have had the great censure passed upon them in this
our church, with the reasons thereof, beseeching you in the Lord,
not only to read their names in public to yours, but also to give us
the like notice of any dealt with in like manner by you, that so we
may walk towards them accordingly; for some of us, here, have had
communion ignorantly with some of other churches. 2 Thess. iii. 14.
We can do no less than have such noted as disobey the truth.

“ROGER WILLIAMS and his wife, JOHN THROGMORTON and his wife, THOMAS
OLNEY and his wife, STUKELY WESTCOTT and his wife, MARY HOLLIMAN,
Widow REEVES.

“These wholly refused to hear the church, denying it, and all the
churches in the Bay, to be true churches, and (except two) are all
re-baptized.

“JOHN ELFORD, for obstinacy, after divers sins he stood guilty of,
and proved by witness. WILLIAM JAMES, for pride, and divers other
evils, in which he remained obstinate. JOHN TABBY, for much pride,
and unnaturalness to his wife, who was lately executed for murdering
her child. WILLIAM WALCOT, for refusing to bring his children to the
ordinance, neglecting willingly family duties, &c.

“Thus, wishing the continued enjoyment of both the staves, beauty
and bands, and that your souls may flourish as watered gardens,
rest,

“Yours in the Lord Jesus,
“HUGH PETERS,
“By the Church’s order, and in their name.

“For the Church of Christ in Dorchester.”

Footnote 218:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 297. Mr. Savage remarks, in a note: “Those members of Boston church, who had been driven by intolerance to the new region, if they gathered a church at all, must do it in a disordered way, for they might well apprehend, that an application for dismission would be rejected, and perhaps punished by excommunication.”

Footnote 219:

Horace (Ep. lib. ii. Ep. i. 244) has a pungent sarcasm, ending thus:

“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

Footnote 220:

John, i. 46.

Footnote 221:

Vol. ii. p. 8.

Footnote 222:

Williams’ Key, p. 22, Providence ed.

Footnote 223:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 224:

See R. I. State Papers, 2 Mass. His. Col. viii. p. 78.

Footnote 225:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113. Allen’s Bio. Dic. article Gorton.

Footnote 226:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 59. Lechford, an author quoted by Mr. Savage, in a note, says: “There (Newport) lately they whipped Mr. Gorton, a grave man, for denying their power, and abusing some of their magistrates with uncivil terms, the Governor, Master Coddington, saying in Court, You that are for the King, lay hold on Gorton, and he, again, on the other side, called forth, All you that are for the King, lay hold on Coddington; whereupon Gorton was banished the island; so, with his wife, he went to Providence. They began about a small trespass of swine, but it is thought some other matter was ingredient.” Lechford’s tract, called Plain Dealing, or News from New-England, is published in the Mass. His. Col. 3d series, 3d vol. Lechford’s preface is dated January 17, 1641, after his return from America. He says that there were two hundred families on Rhode-Island. This must be a mistake.

Footnote 227:

Reply to Mr. Cotton, p. 113.

Footnote 228:

In 3 Mass. His. Col. vol. i. p. 2. is their letter, signed by William Field, William Harris, William Carpenter, William Wickenden, William Reinolds, Thomas Harris, Thomas Hopkins, Hugh Bewitt, Joshua Winsor, Benedict Arnold, William Man, William W. Hunkinges, and Robert R. West. The letter was written by Benedict Arnold. Roger Williams, also, wrote a letter to the government of Massachusetts, in which he said, “Mr. Gorton, having foully abused high and low, at Aquetneck, is now bewitching and bemadding poor Providence.” General Court’s Vindication, May 30, 1665. It has been said, that Mr. Williams requested the government of Massachusetts to interfere; but we have seen no evidence of this, and it is in itself highly improbable. The utmost which we can suppose him to ask, in such a case, would be temporary aid in suppressing a tumult. We may be sure that he would oppose the usurpation of jurisdiction by Massachusetts. His letters show that he disapproved it.

Footnote 229:

Vol. ii. p. 59.

Footnote 230:

Winthrop introduces this account, by the remark, that “those of Providence, being all anabaptists, were divided in judgment; some were only against baptizing of infants, others denied all magistracy and churches, &c. of which Gorton, who had lately been whipped at Aquetneck, [Newport] was their instructer and captain.” This observation is worthy of notice, as it shows how loosely this fearful word anabaptist was applied, and as it discriminates between those who merely rejected the baptism of infants, and those who denied all magistracy and churches. It is certain, that all the inhabitants were not Baptists; and it is doubtful whether the allegation against Mr. Gorton, that he was opposed either to churches or magistracy, could be sustained. A letter from the Hon. Samuel Eddy, inserted in a note to Winthrop’s Journal, vol. ii. p. 58, after mentioning that Gorton was in office almost constantly, after the establishment of a government, says: “It would be a remarkable fact, that a man should be an enemy to magistracy, to religion, in short, a bad man, and yet constantly enjoy the confidence of his fellow townsmen, and receive from them the highest honors in their gift.”

Footnote 231:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113.

Footnote 232:

Backus, vol. i. p. 120. These persons were Samuel Gorton, Randal Holden, Robert Potter, John Wickes, John Warner, Richard Waterman, William Woodale, John Greene, Francis Weston, Richard Carder, Nicholas Power, and Sampson Shatton.

Footnote 233:

This sum, at 5s. 8d. per fathom, was 40l. 10s. The deed was dated January 12, 1642–3. Backus, vol. i. p. 120.

Footnote 234:

Miantinomo was summoned to Boston, where he asserted his claim, but his arguments were not satisfactory to the Court. It was not convenient to admit his pretensions; and the Court were, we may suppose, scrupulous in examining his proofs.

Footnote 235:

“Gorton,” says Hutchinson, (vol. i. p. 117) “published an account of his sufferings. Mr. Winslow, the agent for Massachusetts, answered him. In 1665, he preferred his petition to the commissioners sent over by King Charles the Second, for recompense for the wrongs done him by Massachusetts, alleging, that besides his other sufferings, he and his friends had eighty head of cattle taken and sold. Massachusetts, in their answer, charge him with heretical tenets, both in religion and civil government, and with an unjust possession of the Indian lands in the vicinity of the colonies, for the sake of disturbing their peace; and add, that the goods which they seized did not amount to the charge of their prosecution; but they do not sufficiently vindicate their seizing their persons or goods, without the limits of their jurisdiction, and conclude with hoping that his Majesty will excuse any circumstantial error in their proceedings.” In the appendix of Hutchinson’s first volume, is a Defence by Gorton, dated Warwick, June 30, 1669, and addressed to Nathaniel Morton, in which the charges in the Memorial are discussed with an ability, which shows that Gorton could write, when he chose, clearly and forcibly.

Footnote 236:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 58, note.

Footnote 237:

A gentleman of Providence, William R. Staples, Esq. has been engaged, for some time, in preparing a revised edition of Gorton’s work, entitled “Simplicity’s Defence against Seven Headed Policy,” with extensive notes and appendices. This book, it is hoped, will soon be published, and will furnish the means of forming a correct opinion concerning Gorton, and the transactions in which he was a party and a sufferer.

Footnote 238:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 101.

Footnote 239:

Mr. Williams was absent, having sailed for England in June or July preceding. Had he been in the country, he would certainly have used his influence in favor of Miantinomo.

Footnote 240:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 131.

Footnote 241:

Gov. Hopkins’ History of Providence, 2 His. Col. ix. 202. See note to Winthrop, vol. ii. 133, where Mr. Savage says: “With profound regret, I am compelled to express a suspicion, that means of sufficient influence would easily have been found for the security of themselves, the pacifying of Uncas, and the preservation of Miantinomo, had he not encouraged the sale of Shawomet and Pawtuxet to Gorton and his heterodox associates.”

Footnote 242:

In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says: “Upon frequent exceptions against Providence men, that we had no authority for civil government, I went purposely to England, and, upon my report and petition, the Parliament granted us a charter of government for these parts, so judged vacant on all hands. And upon this, the country about was more friendly, and wrote to us, and treated us as an authorized colony, only the differences of our consciences much obstructed.”

Footnote 243:

Backus, vol. i. p. 148. Winthrop places Lady Moody’s removal from Salem after Mr. Williams’ mediation with the Long-Island Indians. He speaks respectfully of her character _before_ her lapse into the heresy of denying infant baptism: “The Lady Moody, a wise and _anciently religious_ woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and admonished by the church of Salem, (whereof she was a member) but persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, she removed to the Dutch, against the advice of all her friends. Many others, infected with anabaptism, removed thither also. She was after excommunicated.” Winthrop, vol. ii. pp. 123–4.

Footnote 244:

Key, p. 17.

Footnote 245:

Byron’s Giaour.

Footnote 246:

Holmes’ Annals, vol, i. p. 273.

Footnote 247:

For a copy of the charter, see Appendix E.

Footnote 248:

The Westminster Assembly of Divines, who were then in session, might have learned from this book, if they had read it, lessons which they greatly needed.

Footnote 249:

Bloody Tenet, p. 64.

Footnote 250:

Massachusetts was the more disinclined to show favor to Mr. Williams and his colony, because the Baptists began to multiply. A Baptist church was formed about this time, in Newport, by Dr. John Clarke and a few others, and in Massachusetts itself the new doctrine spread. The General Court was aroused, therefore, to an effort to crush the growing sect; and no method seemed to promise more success, than to wield against it a legislative denunciation, edged by an appeal to the popular dread of anabaptism:

“Immortale odium, et nunquam sanabile vulnus.”

They accordingly passed the following act, in November, 1644:

“Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealth, and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been, and that they who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do) concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this kind have, since our coming into New-England, appeared amongst ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table; which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that, if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the Court wilfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be _sentenced to banishment_.” Backus, vol. i. p. 150.

Footnote 251:

This incident is related by Richard Scott, in his letter, inserted at the close of the “New-England Firebrand Quenched.” Mr. Scott disliked Mr. Williams, and his comment on the transaction referred to is an instance of the effect of a man’s feelings on his judgment respecting the conduct of others. “The man,” he says, “being hemmed in, in the middle of the canoes, was so elevated and transported out of himself, that I was condemned in myself, that amongst the rest, I had been an instrument to set him up in his pride and folly.”

Footnote 252:

From Massachusetts, 190; Plymouth, 40; Connecticut, 40; New-Haven, 30.

Footnote 253:

He was a brother of Miantinomo, and succeeded him.

Footnote 254:

The following note, in Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 134, may be properly quoted here:

“Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegans, was hated and envied by the Narragansets, for his attachment to the English, and the distinguishing favors shown him in return. In 1638, having entertained some of the Pequods, after the war with them, and fearing he had given offence, he came to the Governor at Boston, and brought a present, which was at first refused, but afterwards, the Governor being satisfied that he had no designs against the English, it was accepted, and he promised to submit to such orders as he should receive from the English, concerning the Pequods, and also concerning the Narragansets, and his behavior towards them, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘This heart (laying his hand upon his breast) is not mine, but yours. Command me any difficult service, and I will do it; I have no men, but they are all yours. I will never believe any Indian against the English any more.’ He was dismissed, with a present, went home joyful, carrying a letter of protection for himself and men through the English plantations, and never was engaged in hostilities against any of the colonies, although he survived Philip’s war, and died a very old man, after the year 1680.

“The Narragansets failed in the payment of the wampum, and in 1646, messengers were sent to them from the commissioners, but Passacus, their chief sachem, not attending, in 1647 the message was repeated, and he then pretended sickness, and sent Ninigret, a sachem of the Nianticks, to act in his behalf, and told the messenger, that it was true he had not kept his covenant, but added, that he entered into it for fear of the army which he saw, and that he was told, that if he did not set his hand to such and such things, the army should go against the Narragansets. When Ninigret appeared, he asked how the Narragansets became indebted to the English in so large a sum, and being told that it was for the expense the Narragansets had put them to by their breach of covenant, he then pleaded poverty, but the commissioners insisting on the demand, he sent some of his people back to procure what he could, but brought two hundred fathoms only. They gave him leave to go home, and allowed him further time. The whole was not paid until 1650, when Capt. Atherton, with twenty men, was sent to demand the arrears, which was then about three hundred fathoms. Passacus put him off some time with dilatory answers, not suffering him to come into his presence. In the mean while his people were gathering together, but the Captain, carrying his twenty soldiers to the door of the wigwam, entered himself, with his pistol in his hand, leaving his men without, and seizing Passacus by the hair of his head, drew him from the midst of a great number of his attendants, threatening that if one of them offered to stir, he would despatch him. Passacus presently paid down what was demanded, and the English returned in safety. Ninigret, after this, began to stir up new troubles from the Nianticks, but upon sending Capt. Davis, with a troop of horse, into the Indian country, he was struck with a panic, and would not be seen by the English until he had assurance of his life, and then he readily complied with their demands, and they and the other Indians continued quiet many years, until by familiar intercourse, and the use of fire-arms, they became more emboldened, and engaged in the war in 1675, which issued in their total destruction. _Records of United Colonies._”

Footnote 255:

Allen says of him, in his Dictionary, “His fine genius was improved by a liberal education in the Universities of Cambridge and of Dublin, and by travel upon the continent. He arrived at Boston, in October, 1635, with authority to make a settlement in Connecticut, and the next month despatched a number of persons to build a fort at Saybrook. He was chosen Governor in 1657, and again in 1659, and from that period he was annually re-elected till his death. In 1661, he went to England, and procured a charter, incorporating Connecticut and New-Haven into one colony. He died at Boston, April 5, 1676, in the 71st year of his age. He possessed a rich variety of knowledge, and was particularly skilled in chemistry and physic. His valuable qualities as a gentleman, a christian, a philosopher, and a magistrate, secured to him universal respect.”

Footnote 256:

Mr. Williams commonly employed the numerical mode of referring to the month and day of the week. He usually added to the date the words (so called) or (ut vulgo), intimating some dissent from the common computation of time; but what his own views were does not appear. The pertinacity with which he adhered to this practice is characteristic of his punctilious regard to trifles, when he thought truth was concerned.

Footnote 257:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 258:

A vote passed, granting Mr. Williams “leave to suffer a native to kill fowl at Narraganset, and to sell a little wine or strong waters to some natives in sickness.”

Footnote 259:

In some considerations respecting rates, written in 1681, Mr. Williams says: “No charters are obtained without great suit, favor, or charges. Our first cost one hundred pounds, (though I never received it all,) our second about a thousand, Connecticut about six thousand.” Mr. Williams was afterwards accused by Mr. Coddington, as a hireling, who, for the sake of money, went to England for the charter! See Coddington’s letter, at the end of New-England Firebrand Quenched.

Footnote 260:

A sachem of the Nianticks, a branch of the Narraganset tribe. Ninigret’s principal residence, and the centre of his dominions, was at Wekapaug, now Westerly, Rhode-Island. It was formerly a part of Stonington, Connecticut. Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 212.

Footnote 261:

Backus, vol. i. p. 204, &c.

Footnote 262:

Journal, vol. ii. 220. Mr. Savage says, in a note, “I rejoice in the defeat of this futile claim by Plymouth, and equally rejoice in the ill success of the attempt by our own people.”

We may appropriately introduce here a remarkable document, found in the Massachusetts Records, vol. 3, p. 47:

“Sir, we received lately out of England a charter from the authority of the High Court of Parliament, bearing date 10 December, 1643, whereby the Narraganset Bay, and a certain tract of land wherein Providence and the Island of Aquetneck are included, which we thought fit to give you and other of our countrymen in those parts notice of, that you may forbear to exercise any jurisdiction therein, otherwise to appear at our next General Court, to be holden the first fourth day of the eighth month, to show by what right you claim any such jurisdiction, for which purpose yourself and others, your neighbors, shall have free liberty to come, stay and sojourn, as the occasion of the said business may require.

“Dated at Boston, in the Massachusetts, 27th 6mo. 1645.

“To Mr. Roger Williams, of Providence. By order of the Council.

INCREASE NOWELL, Secretary.”

No notice of this charter has been found in Winthrop, Hutchinson, or Holmes’ Annals. Mr. Williams, in his letter to Major Mason, says:

“Some time after the Pequod war, and our charter from the Parliament, the government of Massachusetts wrote to myself (then chief officer in this colony) of their receiving of a patent from the Parliament for these vacant lands, as an addition to the Massachusetts, &c. and thereupon requiring me to exercise no more authority, &c. for they wrote, their charter was granted some weeks before ours. I returned what I believed righteous and weighty to the hands of my true friend, Mr. Winthrop, the first mover of my coming into these parts, and to that answer of mine I never received the least reply; only it is certain, that at Mr. Gorton’s complaint against the Massachusetts, the Lord High Admiral, President, said openly, in a full meeting of the Commissioners, that he knew no other charter for these parts than what Mr. Williams had obtained, and he was sure that charter, which the Massachusetts Englishmen pretended, had never passed the table.”

This whole transaction is somewhat mysterious. The rulers in Massachusetts were too upright to assert the existence of such a document, if they had it not in their possession. They were too honest and too politic to forge one, the spuriousness of which could easily be detected. There was, undoubtedly, some mistake, and the silence of the historians corroborates the representation given above by Mr. Williams.

Footnote 263:

Backus, vol. i. p. 194–5.

Footnote 264:

This letter has no date, nor direction; but it was evidently written to Mr. Winthrop, not long after the preceding letter.

Footnote 265:

This letter has no date. It was probably written near the first of December, 1648. It is endorsed, by Mr. Winthrop, “rec’d. Dec’r.”

Footnote 266:

This letter is without a date. It was, perhaps, written in March or April, 1649.

Footnote 267:

“Concerning.” Though the original of this letter is much torn, the blank following the above word is the only one which I was not able satisfactorily to make out or supply. The fragments of a few letters look more like parts of the word “Nenekunat” (Ninigret) than any other. Between that sachem and Wequashcook, as appears from another letter of Roger Williams, there was a misunderstanding.

G.

Footnote 268:

Vol. i. p. 207.

Footnote 269:

Providence Records.

Footnote 270:

Rev. Mr. Clarke was the founder and pastor of the first Baptist church in Newport. Mr. Holmes was, a short time before these transactions, presented by a grand jury to the General Court at Plymouth, because he and a few others had set up a Baptist meeting in Seekonk. He removed to Newport, and after Dr. Clarke’s death, was his successor, as Pastor. He had, at the time he was imprisoned and whipped, a wife and eight children.

Footnote 271:

Backus, vol. i. p. 215.

Footnote 272:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 367.

Footnote 273:

Mr. Winthrop had considerable skill in medicine. The benevolent zeal of Mr. Williams for the welfare of the Indians, shows itself on all occasions.

Footnote 274:

Mr. Hazel was an old man of threescore years. He was one of Mr. Holmes’ brethren, from Seekonk, and had travelled fifty miles to visit him in prison. The old man died before he reached home.

Footnote 275:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 377.

Footnote 276:

Mr. Neal (vol. iv. ch. 1) says, that after the death of Charles I. the House of Commons assumed the government, “the House of Lords was voted useless, and the office of a king unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous. The form of government for the future was declared to be a free commonwealth, the executive power lodged in the hands of a Council of State of forty persons, with full power to take care of the whole administration for one year. New keepers of the great seal were appointed, from whom the judges received their commissions. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy were abolished, and a new one appointed, called the _engagement_, which was, to be true and faithful to the government established, without King or House of Peers.”

As great a change took place in ecclesiastical affairs. Episcopacy was abolished, by law, in 1646; a Directory was substituted for the Liturgy, a large part of the livings were distributed among the Presbyterian clergy, and finally, in 1649, Presbyterianism was declared, by act of Parliament, to be the established religion. The Presbyterians were fully as tenacious of the _divine right_ of their polity as the Episcopalians were of theirs; and Dissenters were treated with nearly as much rigor under the Presbyterian rule, as they were by the Prelates. The Presbyterians refused to grant toleration to the Independents, and insisted on their submission. A number of the Presbyterian ministers and elders in London published a piece, in 1649, “in which they represent the doctrine of universal toleration as contrary to godliness, opening a door to libertinism and profaneness, and a tenet to be rejected as a soul poison.” The ministers of Lancashire published a paper, in 1648, in which they remonstrated against toleration, “as putting a cup of poison into the hands of a child, and a sword into that of a madman; as letting loose madmen, with firebrands in their hands, and appointing a city of refuge in men’s consciences for the devil to fly to; and instead of providing for tender consciences, taking away all conscience.” Neal, vol. iii. p. 313. The Presbyterians might well dislike Cromwell, who curbed their intolerant spirit. They had time for reflection, when, at the restoration, the Episcopal clergy expelled thousands of them from their livings, and treated them as they had treated their Independent brethren.

Footnote 277:

The application was signed by sixty-five inhabitants of Newport, who are said to have been, at that time, almost all the free male inhabitants. Forty-one of the inhabitants of Portsmouth signed a like request. Backus, vol. i. p. 274. These facts imply, that Mr. Coddington’s party was not very large, and that his conduct was unjustifiable.

Footnote 278:

In a letter, written in 1677, he says, that “he gave up his trading house at Narraganset, when he last went to England, with one hundred pounds profit per annum.”

Footnote 279:

This reason was, his banishment from Massachusetts. There was much delicacy in thus slightly referring to a measure, in which Mr. Winthrop’s father was, from his official relations, concerned.

Footnote 280:

Backus, vol. i. p. 272.

Footnote 281:

Providence Records. This letter was written, apparently, in accordance with the following act, passed on the 3d of June preceding: “Whereas we have received divers loving letters from our agent, Mr. Roger Williams, in England, wherein the careful proceedings are manifested unto us concerning our public affairs, and yet no answering letters of encouragement have been sent unto him from this colony; therefore the town doth take it into consideration, and orders to make arrangements for a committee of the two towns of Warwick and Providence to write to him.”

Footnote 282:

Vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 283:

Sir Henry Vane was born in England. He was a non-conformist, and he came to New-England in 1635. The next year he was elected Governor of Massachusetts, though he was only twenty-four years of age. He became a follower of Mrs. Hutchinson, and was soon superseded by Governor Winthrop. He returned to England, where he took a decided part against the King, and opposed Cromwell. After the restoration, he was executed for high treason, June 14, 1662, aged fifty years. He died with great firmness and dignity. He appears to have been an able man, sincerely pious, and a true friend of liberty.

Footnote 284:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 285–8.

Footnote 285:

Backus, vol. i. p. 288.

Footnote 286:

Mr. Winthrop had married a daughter of the Rev. Hugh Peters.

Footnote 287:

It appears, that while Mr. Williams was in England, he was obliged to provide for his own support, while his large family, we may presume, were injured by his absence. The General Assembly of the towns of Providence and Warwick, expressed in a letter, their regret, that they could not send him money, in consequence of their domestic trials, but informed him that they meant to aid his family. In his “Bloody Tenet made more Bloody,” he mentions his exertions to supply the poor in London with fuel, during the civil wars; to which service he was led, probably, by his benevolent and active temper, as well as by the desire to obtain a subsistence. He says: “I can tell, that when these discussions were prepared for the public in London, his time was eaten up in attendance upon the service of the Parliament and city, for the supply of the poor of the city with wood, during the stop of the coal from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for firing [for which service, he adds in a note, through the hurry of the times and the necessity of his departure, he lost his recompense to this day.] It is true, he might have run the road of preferment, as well in Old as in New-England, and have had the leisure and time of such who eat and drink with the drunken, and smite with the fist of wickedness their fellow-servants.” (p. 38.) In his letter to the town of Providence, in 1654, he says, “I was unfortunately fetched and drawn from my employment, and sent to so vast distance from my family to do your work of a high and costly nature, for so many days, and weeks, and months together, and there left to starve, or steal, or beg, or borrow. But blessed be God, who gave me favor to borrow one while, and to work another, and thereby to pay your debts there, and to come over with your credit and honor, as an agent from you, who had in your name grappled with the agents and friends of all your enemies round about you.” Few stronger examples of disinterested patriotism could be found in any age or country.

Footnote 288:

The names of the commissioners, are preserved by Backus, vol. i. p. 296, copied from the Providence records.

Footnote 289:

There is a slight anachronism here. It was in May, 1664, that the General Assembly “ordered, that the seal with the motto _Rhode Island and Providence Plantations_, with the word _Hope_ over the anchor, be the present seal of the colony.” The seal adopted in 1647, when the government was organized under the first charter, bore simply an anchor.

Footnote 290:

Ninigret returned a haughty answer to a message from the commissioners. He said, that he attacked the Long-Island Indians, because they had killed a sachem’s son, and sixty of his men, and he would not make peace with them. He asked of the commissioners, in a tone, which showed that he considered the Narragansets as a perfectly independent nation: “If your Governor’s son was slain, and several other men, would you ask counsel of _another nation_ when and how to right yourselves?”

Footnote 291:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 172.

Footnote 292:

Governor Winthrop died, at Boston, on the 26th of March, 1649, in the 62d year of his age. He was born in Groton, Suffolk, (Eng.) January 12, 1588. He was a justice of peace at the age of eighteen. He had an estate of six or seven hundred pounds a year, which he turned into money, and embarked his all to promote the settlement of New-England. He was eleven times chosen Governor of Massachusetts, and spent his whole estate in the public service. His son and grandson were successively Governors of Connecticut. He was a great and good man. His Journal is a monument to his memory—“ære perennius.” He was a sincere friend of Roger Williams, though he disapproved his principles, and Mr. Williams always spoke of him with strong affection.

Footnote 293:

Cromwell.

Footnote 294:

This name is spelled in several different ways.

Footnote 295:

Backus, vol. i. p. 302. George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, p. 14.

Footnote 296:

The General Assembly voted, that Mr. Williams should keep Cromwell’s letter and the charter in his possession, in behalf of the colony.

Footnote 297:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 172, after stating, that an application from Newport, for powder and other ammunition was rejected, says, “it was an error, (in state policy at last) not to support them, for though they were desperately erroneous, and in such distractions among themselves as portended their ruin, yet, if the Indians should prevail against them, it would be a great advantage to the Indians and danger to the whole country.” About the year 1655, Mr. Clarke sent over from England four barrels of powder, and eight of shot and bullets, which were consigned to Mr. Williams, and left, by order of the General Assembly, in his possession. While provision was thus made for defence against the Indians, measures were adopted to prevent hostilities. At a town meeting in Providence, June 24, 1655, at which Mr. Williams was moderator, it was voted, that if any person should sell a gallon of wine or spirits to an Indian, either directly or indirectly, he should forfeit six pounds, one half to the informer, and the other half to the town. Among the measures adopted for defence, was the following order, passed in town meeting, March 6, 1655–6: “Ordered, that liberty is given to as many as please to erect a fortification upon the Stamper’s Hill, or about their own houses.”

Footnote 298:

This religious society, says Hannah Adams, “began to be distinguished about the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first promulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647, for which he was imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following at Derby. The appellation of _Quakers_, was given them by way of contempt; some say, on account of their _tremblings_ under the impression of divine things; but _they_ say it was first given them by one of the magistrates, who committed George Fox to prison, on account of his bidding him and those about him to _tremble_ at the word of the Lord.” They have since called themselves Friends. The wild fanaticism of some of the early adherents of the sect, no more resembles the quiet demeanor of the pious Friends of the present day, than the policy of Massachusetts in 1656, was like the spirit of our own times.

Footnote 299:

“At Boston, one George Wilson, and at Cambridge, Elizabeth Horton, went crying through the streets, that the Lord was coming with fire and sword to plead with them. Thomas Newhouse went into the meeting-house at Boston with a couple of glass bottles, and broke them before the congregation, and threatened, ‘Thus will the Lord break you in pieces.’ Another time, M. Brewster came in with her face besmeared, and as black as a coal. Deborah Wilson went through the streets of Salem, naked as she came into the world, for which she was well whipped.”—Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 187.

Footnote 300:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 454.—The letter is signed by Benedict Arnold, President; William Baulston, Randall Houlden, Arthur Fenner, and William Feild.

Footnote 301:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 313–316.

Footnote 302:

In his “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes,” (p. 20,) Mr. Williams says of Mr. Harris, his “facts and courses others (of no small authority and prudence among us, with whom I advised) saw to be desperate high treason against the laws of our mother England, and of the colony also.” He then inquires, “was it my fury (as you call it) or was it not honesty and duty to God and the colony, and the higher powers then in England, to act faithfully and impartially in the place wherein I then stood sentinel?”

Footnote 303:

The origin of this unhappy quarrel is unknown. There were, probably, faults on both sides. They both used very angry and unjustifiable language towards each other. It appears that Mr. Williams so disliked Mr. Harris, that he would not write his name at length, but abbreviated it thus, “W. Har:” This mode of writing is seen in the fac simile prefixed to this volume. It seems evident, that Mr. Harris had, for some cause, a remarkable aptitude to get into difficulties. A letter of the town of Providence, to the “Honored Governor and Council at Newport on Rhode-Island,” dated August 31, 1668, and signed “Shadrach Manton, town clerk,” accuses him of turbulent conduct. In 1667, there was a great disturbance at Providence, excited, as it appears, by him. Two town meetings were held, and two sets of deputies chosen to the General Assembly, among whom was Mr. Harris. He was, however, expelled from the General Assembly, and fined fifty pounds, which fine was remitted the next year.—Backus, vol. i. p. 457. We may hope, that Mr. Harris, though he doubtless had faults, was less culpable, than his contemporaries thought him. It was an unquiet time, and few public men escaped censure.

Footnote 304:

In the records of the town of Providence, is the following act: “June 2, 1657. Ordered, that Mr. Roger Williams be accommodated with two acres and a half of land amongst the rest of the neighbors, at the further Bailey’s Cove, he laying down land equivalent to it, in the judgment of the town deputies.”

Footnote 305:

Pope (Essay on Man, Ep. iv. l. 284,) has aided in confirming the prejudice against Cromwell, by his famous line:

“See Cromwell damned to everlasting fame.”

Pope sometimes sacrificed truth to a brilliant couplet. The two lines which immediately precede the one just quoted are a specimen:

“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shined,
The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.”

Public opinion now does not sustain the poet, in stigmatizing the great Bacon as the “meanest of mankind,” but views him as more sinned against than sinning. We may learn from these examples, how great is the responsibleness of popular authors. By a single line they may perpetuate calumny. They may poison the wells of knowledge.

Footnote 306:

Examples might be cited, of language like this, in American authors. They show the effect of a discreditable deference to foreign writers. But all American authors are not disposed to echo the infidel and tory opinions of England. Dr. Stiles, in his History of the Judges, defended Cromwell; and a writer in the Christian Spectator, for September, 1829, has vindicated the character of the Protector, with ability and eloquence.

Footnote 307:

History of England, chapter lxi.

Footnote 308:

Works, Orme’s edition, vol. i. p. 153.

Footnote 309:

Works, vol. i. p. 149.

Footnote 310:

Neal, vol. iv. p. 101.

Footnote 311:

The Protector’s exertions to relieve and protect the unhappy Waldenses, who were at that time suffering a merciless persecution, claim for him the gratitude of every friend of religion and liberty. He appointed a day of national humiliation and prayer throughout all England and Wales, and ordered that a collection should be made in all the houses of worship, for the relief of the sufferers. He himself headed a subscription, with the liberal donation of two thousand pounds, and in a short time the large sum of nearly forty thousand pounds was raised and transmitted. Not contented with this measure, he sent letters to the Duke of Savoy, the inhuman persecutor, and to several of the princes of Europe, for the purpose of procuring deliverance for the miserable remnants of the Waldenses. The potent voice of the formidable Protector, which none of the monarchs of that day ventured to despise, uttered, as it was, by the powerful pen of Milton, the Latin Secretary, had some effect, though less than he hoped, to soften the rage of bigotry and persecution. The following sonnet was written by Milton on this occasion:

“_On the late Massacre in Piedmont._

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains, cold;
E’en them, who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worship’d stocks and stones,
Forget not; in thy book record their groans,
Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese, that roll’d
Mother and infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyr’d blood and ashes sow
O’er all th’ Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundred fold, who, having learned thy way,
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.”

Footnote 312:

Judging from the rapid progress of free principles in England, it would not be surprising if Cromwell should, ere long, be recognised as one of the great leaders in the struggle for freedom. Mr. Ivirney, in his life of Milton, (p. 131,) says of Cromwell, “for whose statue I venture to bespeak a niche among the illustrious dead in Westminster Abbey; not doubting, from recent events, but the time will come, when the governors of the nation will be so sensible of the obligations of Britain to that illustrious ruler and his noble compatriots, as maugre the mean power of ignorance and prejudice, will decree him a monumental inscription in the sepulchres of our kings.”

Footnote 313:

The colony of Rhode-Island adopted an address to Richard Cromwell, of which the following is an extract. The address was never presented:

“May it please your Highness to know, that this poor colony of Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a birth and breeding of the Providence of the Most High, we being an outcast people, formerly from our mother nation, in the bishops’ days, and since from the New-English over-zealous colonies; our whole frame being like unto the present frame and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing with the several judgments and consciences each of other in all the towns of our colony, which our neighbor colonies do not, which is the only cause of their great offence against us. Sir, we dare not interrupt your high affairs with the particulars of our wilderness condition, only beg your eye of favor to be cast upon our faithful Agent, Mr. John Clarke, and unto what humble addresses he shall at any time present your Highness with in our behalf.”—Backus, vol. i. pp. 316–17.

Footnote 314:

An interesting account of the fruitless endeavors of the Presbyterians to effect this object, is given in Orme’s Life of Baxter, chapter vii.

Footnote 315:

August 23, 1659, a rate of fifty pounds was voted for his use, of which Newport was to pay twenty, Providence eleven, Portsmouth ten, and Warwick nine. May 21, 1661, two hundred pounds sterling were voted, of which Newport was to pay eighty-five, Providence forty, Portsmouth forty, and Warwick thirty-five. Subsequent appropriations, to the amount of three hundred and six pounds, are found on the records. The relative size of the towns may be inferred from the above apportionment. Newport was more than twice as large as Providence. A record of the names of the freemen in the several towns, in 1655, states the numbers thus: Newport, eighty-three; Portsmouth, fifty-two; Providence, forty-two; Warwick, thirty-eight—total, two hundred and fifteen.

Footnote 316:

R. I. Lit. Rep. for March, 1815, p. 638.

Footnote 317: