and free pardon, as the rest of our subjects in our other dominions and
territories have, and to create or make them a body politic or
corporate, with the powers and privileges hereinafter mentioned. And,
accordingly, our will and pleasure is, and of our especial grace,
certain knowledge, and mere motion, we have ordained, constituted, and
declared, and, by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do
ordain, constitute, and declare, that they, the said William Brenton,
William Coddington, Nicholas Easton, Benedict Arnold, William Boulston,
John Porter, Samuel Gorton, John Smith, John Weekes, Roger Williams,
Thomas Olney, Gregory Dexter, John Coggeshall, Joseph Clarke, Randall
Houlden, John Greene, John Roome, William Dyre, Samuel Wildbore, Richard
Tew, William Field, Thomas Harris, James Barker, —— Rainsborrow, ——
Williams, and John Nickson, and all such others as are now, or hereafter
shall be, admitted free of the company and society of our colony of
Providence Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, shall
be, from time to time, and forever hereafter, a body corporate and
politic, in fact and name, by the name of _The Governor and Company of
the English Colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in
New-England, in America_; and that by the same name they and their
successors shall and may have perpetual succession, and shall and may be
persons able and capable in the law to sue and be sued, to plead and be
impleaded, to answer and to be answered unto, to defend and to be
defended, in all and singular suits, causes, quarrels, matters, actions,
and things, of what kind or nature soever; and also to have, take,
possess, acquire, and purchase lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or
any goods or chattels, and the same to lease, grant, demise, alien,
bargain, sell, and dispose of, at their own will and pleasure, as other
our liege people of this our realm of England, or any corporation or
body politic within the same, may lawfully do.
“And further, that they, the said Governor and company, and their
successors, shall and may, forever hereafter, have a common seal, to
serve and use for all matters, causes, things, and affairs whatsoever,
of them and their successors: and the same seal to alter, change, break,
and make new, from time to time, at their will and pleasure, as they
shall think fit.
“And further, we will and ordain, and, by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, declare and appoint, that, for the better ordering
and managing of the affairs and business of the said company and their
successors, there shall be one Governor, one Deputy Governor, and ten
Assistants, to be from time to time constituted, elected and chosen, out
of the freemen of the said company, for the time being, in such manner
and form as is hereafter in these presents expressed; which said
officers shall apply themselves to take care for the best disposing and
ordering of the general business and affairs of and concerning the lands
and hereditaments hereinafter mentioned to be granted, and the
plantation thereof, and the government of the people there.
“And, for the better execution of our royal pleasure herein, we do, for
us, our heirs and successors, assign, name, constitute, and appoint the
aforesaid Benedict Arnold to be the first and present Governor of the
said company, and the said William Brenton to be the Deputy Governor;
and the said William Boulston, John Porter, Roger Williams, Thomas
Olney, John Smith, John Greene, John Coggeshall, James Barker, William
Field, and Joseph Clarke, to be the ten present Assistants of the said
company, to continue in the said several offices respectively, until the
first Wednesday which shall be in the month of May now next coming.
“And further, we will, and, by these presents, for us, our heirs and
successors, do ordain and grant, that the Governor of the said company,
for the time being, or, in his absence, by occasion of sickness or
otherwise, by his leave or permission, the Deputy Governor, for the time
being, shall and may, from time to time, upon all occasions, give orders
for the assembling of the said company, and calling them together to
consult and advise of the business and affairs of the said company; and
that forever hereafter, twice in every year, that is to say, on every
first Wednesday in the month of May, and on every last Wednesday in
October, or oftener, in case it shall be requisite, the Assistants, and
such of the freemen of the said company, not exceeding six persons for
Newport, four persons for each of the respective towns of Providence,
Portsmouth, and Warwick, and two persons for each other place, town, or
city, who shall be, from time to time, thereunto elected or deputed, by
the major part of the freemen of the respective towns or places, for
which they shall be so elected or deputed, shall have a general meeting
or assembly, then and there to consult, advise, and determine, in and
about the affairs and business of the said company and plantations.
“And further, we do, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, give and grant unto the said Governor and company of the English
colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in New-England, in
America, and their successors, that the Governor, or, in his absence, or
by his permission, the Deputy Governor of the said company, for the time
being, the Assistants and such of the freemen of the said company, as
shall be so aforesaid elected or deputed, or so many of them as shall be
present at such meeting or assembly, as aforesaid, shall be called the
General Assembly; and that they, or the greatest part of them then
present, (whereof the Governor, or Deputy Governor, and six of the
Assistants at least, to be seven,) shall have, and have hereby given and
granted unto them, full power and authority, from time to time, and at
all times hereafter, to appoint, alter, and change such days, times, and
places of meeting and general assembly, as they shall think fit; and to
choose, nominate, and appoint such and so many persons as they shall
think fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to be free of the
said company and body politic, and them into the same to admit; and to
elect and constitute such offices and officers, and to grant such
needful commissions as they shall think fit and requisite, for ordering,
managing and despatching of the affairs of the said Governor and company
and their successors; and from time to time to make, ordain, constitute,
and repeal, such laws, statutes, orders and ordinances, forms and
ceremonies of government and magistracy, as to them shall seem meet, for
the good and welfare of the said company, and for the government and
ordering of the lands and hereditaments herein after mentioned to be
granted, and of the people that do, or at any time hereafter shall,
inhabit or be within the same; so as such laws, ordinances, and
constitutions, so made, be not contrary and repugnant unto, but (as near
as may be) agreeable to the laws of this our realm of England,
considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there;
and also to appoint, order, and direct, erect and settle such places and
courts of jurisdiction, for hearing and determining of all actions,
cases, matters, and things, happening within the said colony and
plantation, which shall be in dispute and depending there, as they shall
think fit; and also to distinguish and set forth the several names and
titles, duties, powers, and limits, of each court, office, and officer,
superior and inferior; and also to contrive and appoint such forms of
oaths and attestations, not repugnant, but (as near as may be)
agreeable, as aforesaid, to the laws and statutes of this our realm, as
are convenient and requisite, with respect to the due administration of
justice, and due execution and discharge of all offices and places of
trust, by the persons that shall be therein concerned; and also to
regulate and order the way and manner of all elections to offices and
places of trust, and to prescribe, limit, and distinguish the number and
bounds of all places, towns, and cities, within the limits and bounds
hereinafter mentioned, and not herein particularly named, that have or
shall have the power of electing and sending of freemen to the said
General Assembly; and also to order, direct, and authorize the imposing
of lawful and reasonable fines, mulcts, imprisonment, and executing
other punishments, pecuniary and corporal, upon offenders and
delinquents, according to the course of other corporations, within this
our kingdom of England; and again, to alter, revoke, annul, or pardon,
under their common seal, or otherwise, such fines, mulcts,
imprisonments, sentences, judgments, and condemnations, as shall be
thought fit; and to direct, rule, order, and dispose of all other
matters and things, and particularly that which relates to the making of
purchases of the native Indians, as to them shall seem meet; whereby our
said people and inhabitants in the said plantations may be so
religiously, peaceably, and civily governed, as that, by their good life
and orderly conversation, they may win and invite the native Indians of
the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and
Saviour of mankind; willing, commanding, and by these presents, for us,
our heirs and successors, ordaining and appointing, that all such laws,
statutes, orders and ordinances, instructions, impositions, and
directions, as shall be so made by the Governor, Deputy, Assistants, and
freemen, or such number of them as aforesaid, and published in writing,
under their common seal, shall be carefully and duly observed, kept,
performed, and put in execution, according to the true intent and
meaning of the same. And these our letters patent, or the duplicate of
exemplification thereof, shall be, to all and every such officers,
superior or inferior, from time to time, for the putting of the same
orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, instructions, and directions, in due
execution, against us, our heirs and successors, a sufficient warrant
and discharge.
“And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby, for us, our
heirs and successors, establish and ordain, that, yearly, once in the
year, forever hereafter, namely, the aforesaid Wednesday in May, and at
the town of Newport, or elsewhere, if urgent occasion do require, the
Governor, Deputy Governor, and Assistants of the said company, and other
officers of the said company, or such of them as the General Assembly
shall think fit, shall be in the said General Court or Assembly, to be
held from that day or time, newly chosen for the year ensuing, by the
greater part of the said company for the time being, as shall be then
there present. And if it shall happen that the present Governor, Deputy
Governor, and Assistants, by these presents appointed, or any such as
shall hereafter be newly chosen into their respective rooms, or any of
them, or any other of the officers of the said company, shall die, or be
removed from his or their several offices or places, before the said
general day of election, (whom we do hereby declare, for a misdemeanor
or default, to be removable by the Governor, Assistants and company, or
such greater part of them, in any of the said public Courts to be
assembled as aforesaid,) that then, and in every such case, it shall and
may be lawful to and for the said Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistants,
and Company aforesaid, or such greater part of them, so to be assembled,
as is aforesaid, in any of their assemblies, to proceed to a new
election of one or more of their company, in the room or place, rooms or
places, of such officer or officers, so dying, or removed, according to
their directions. And immediately upon and after such election or
elections made of such Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistant, or
Assistants, or any other officer of the said company, in manner and form
aforesaid, the authority, office and power, before given to the former
Governor, Deputy Governor, and other officer or officers so removed, in
whose stead and place new shall be chosen, shall, as to him and them,
and every of them respectively, cease and determine: Provided, always,
and our will and pleasure is, that as well such as are by these presents
appointed to be the present Governor, Deputy Governor, and Assistants of
the said company, as those which shall succeed them, and all other
officers to be appointed and chosen as aforesaid, shall, before the
undertaking the execution of the said offices and places respectively,
give their solemn engagement, by oath or otherwise, for the due and
faithful performance of their duties, in their several offices and
places, before such person or persons as are by these presents hereafter
appointed to take and receive the same: that is to say, the said
Benedict Arnold, who is herein before nominated and appointed the
present Governor of the said Company, shall give the aforesaid
engagement before William Brenton, or any two of the said Assistants of
the said Company, unto whom we do, by these presents, give full power
and authority to require and receive the same: and the said William
Brenton, who is hereby before nominated and appointed the present Deputy
Governor of the said Company, shall give the aforesaid engagement before
the said Benedict Arnold, or any two of the Assistants of the said
Company, unto whom we do, by these presents, give full power and
authority to require and receive the same: and the said William
Boulston, John Porter, Roger Williams, Thomas Olney, John Smith, John
Greene, John Coggeshall, James Barker, William Field, and Joseph Clarke,
who are herein before nominated and appointed the present Assistants of
the Company, shall give the said engagement to their offices and places
respectively belonging, before the said Benedict Arnold and William
Brenton, or one of them, to whom respectively we do hereby give full
power and authority to require, administer, or receive the same: and
further, our will and pleasure is, that all and every other future
Governor, or Deputy Governor, to be elected and chosen by virtue of
these presents, shall give the said engagement before two or more of the
said Assistants of the said Company, for the time being, unto whom we
do, by these presents, give full power and authority to require,
administer, or receive the same: and the said Assistants, and every of
them, and all and every other officer or officers, to be hereafter
elected and chosen by virtue of these presents, from time to time, shall
give the like engagements to their offices and places respectively
belonging, before the Governor, or Deputy Governor, for the time being,
unto which said Governor, or Deputy Governor, we do, by these presents,
give full power and authority to require, administer, or receive the
same accordingly.
“And we do likewise, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that for the more peaceably and orderly government of the said
plantations, it shall and may be lawful for the Governor, Deputy
Governor, Assistants, and all other officers and ministers of the said
Company, in the administration of justice, and exercise of government,
and the said plantations, to use, exercise, and put in execution, such
methods, orders, rules, and directions, (not being contrary and
repugnant to the laws and statutes of this our realm,) as have been
heretofore given, used, and accustomed, in such cases respectively, to
be put in practice, until at the next, or some other General Assembly,
especial provision shall be made in the cases aforesaid.
“And we do further, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Governor,
or, in his absence, the Deputy Governor, and major part of the said
Assistants for the time being, at any time, when the said General
Assembly is not sitting, to nominate, appoint and constitute such and so
many commanders, governors, and military officers, as to them shall seem
requisite, for the leading, conducting, and training up the inhabitants
of the said plantations in martial affairs, and for the defence and
safeguard of the said plantations; that it shall and may be lawful to
and for all and every such commander, governor, and military officer,
that shall be so as aforesaid, or by the Governor, or, in his absence,
the Deputy Governor, and six of the Assistants, and major part of the
freemen of said Company, present at any general assemblies, nominated,
appointed, and constituted, according to the tenor of his and their
respective commissions and directions, to assemble, exercise in arms,
marshal, array, and put in warlike posture, the inhabitants of said
colony, for their especial defence and safety; and to lead and conduct
the said inhabitants, and to encounter, repulse, and resist, by force of
arms, as well by sea as by land, to kill, slay, and destroy, by all
fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever, all and every such
person or persons as shall, at any time hereafter, attempt or enterprise
the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance of the said
inhabitants or plantations; and to use and exercise the law martial, in
such cases only as occasion shall necessarily require; and to take and
surprise, by all ways and means whatsoever, all and every such person or
persons, with their ship, or ships, armor, ammunition, or other goods of
such persons, as shall, in hostile manner, invade, or attempt the
defeating of the said plantation, or the hurt of the said company and
inhabitants; and, upon just cause, to invade and destroy the native
Indians, or other enemies of the said colony.
“Nevertheless, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare to the
rest of our colonies in New-England, that it shall not be lawful for
this our said colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in
America, in New-England, to invade the natives inhabiting within the
bounds and limits of the said colonies, without the knowledge and
consent of the said other colonies. And it is hereby declared, that it
shall not be lawful to or for the rest of the colonies to invade or
molest the native Indians, or any other inhabitants, inhabiting within
the bounds or limits hereafter mentioned, (they having subjected
themselves unto us, and being by us taken into our special protection,)
without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Company of our
colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.
“Also, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare unto all
Christian kings, princes, and states, that, if any person, who shall
hereafter be of the said Company or Plantation, or any other, by
appointment of the said Governor and Company, for the time being, shall,
at any time or times hereafter, rob or spoil, by sea or land, or do any
hurt, or unlawful hostility, to any of the subjects of us, our heirs and
successors, or to any of the subjects of any prince or state, being then
in league with us, our heirs and successors, upon complaint of such
injury done to any such prince, or state, or their subjects, we, our
heirs and successors, will make open proclamation, within any part of
our realm of England, fit for that purpose, that the person or persons
committing any such robbery or spoil, shall, within the time limited by
such proclamation, make full restitution or satisfaction of all such
injuries done or committed, so as the said prince, or others, so
complaining, may be fully satisfied and contented; and if the said
person or persons, who shall commit any such robbery or spoil, shall not
make satisfaction accordingly, within such time so to be limited, that
then we, our heirs and successors, will put such person or persons out
of our allegiance and protection; and, that then it shall and may be
lawful and free for all princes or others to prosecute with hostility
such offenders, and every of them, their and every of their procurers,
aiders, abettors, and counsellors, in that behalf.
“Provided, also, and our express will and pleasure is, and we do, by
these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, ordain and appoint,
that these presents shall not in any manner hinder any of our loving
subjects whatsoever from using and exercising the trade of fishing upon
the coast of New-England, in America; but that they, and every or any of
them, shall have full and free power and liberty to continue and use the
trade of fishing upon the said coast; in any of the seas thereunto
adjoining, or any arms of the sea, or salt water rivers and creeks,
where they have been accustomed to fish; and to build and set upon the
waste land, belonging to the said colony and plantations, such wharves,
stages, and work-houses, as shall be necessary for the salting, drying,
and keeping of their fish, to be taken or gotten upon that coast.
“And further, for the encouragement of the inhabitants of our said
colony of Providence Plantations to set upon the business of taking
whales, it shall be lawful for them, or any of them, having struck a
whale, dubertus, or other great fish, it or them to pursue unto that
coast, or into any bay, river, cove, creek, or shore, belonging thereto,
and it or them upon the said coast, or in the said bay, river, cove,
creek, or shore, belonging thereto, to kill and order for the best
advantage, without molestation, they making no wilful waste or spoil;
any thing in these presents contained, or any other matter or thing, to
the contrary notwithstanding.
“And further, also, we are graciously pleased, and do hereby declare,
that if any of the inhabitants of our said colony do set upon the
planting of vineyards, (the soil and climate both seeming naturally to
concur to the production of vines,) or be industrious in the discovery
of fishing banks, in or about the said colony, we will, from time to
time, give and allow all due and fitting encouragement therein, as to
others in cases of a like nature.
“And further, of our more ample grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, we have given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, do give and grant unto the said Governor and
Company of the English colony of Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, in America, and to
every inhabitant there, and to every person and persons trading thither,
and to every such person or persons as are or shall be free of the said
colony, full power and authority, from time to time, and at all times
hereafter, to take, ship, transport, and carry away, out of any of our
realms and dominions, for and towards the plantation and defence of the
said colony, such and so many of our loving subjects and strangers, as
shall or will, willingly, accompany them in and to their said colony and
plantations, except such person or persons as are or shall be therein
restrained by us, our heirs and successors, or any law or statute of
this realm: and also to ship and transport all and all manner of goods,
chattels, merchandise, and other things whatsoever, that are or shall be
useful, or necessary for the said plantations, and defence thereof, and
usually transported, and not prohibited by any law or statute of this
our realm; yielding and paying unto us, our heirs and successors, such
duties, customs, and subsidies, as are or ought to be paid or payable
for the same.
“And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do, for us, our heirs and
successors, ordain, declare, and grant, unto the said Governor and
Company, and their successors, that all and every the subjects of us,
our heirs and successors, which are already planted and settled within
our said colony of Providence Plantations, or which shall hereafter go
to inhabit within the said colony, and all and every of their children
which have been born there, or which shall happen hereafter to be born
there, or on the sea, going thither, or returning from thence, shall
have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural
subjects, within any of the dominions of us, our heirs and successors,
to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if they and
every of them were born within the realm of England.
“And further, know ye, that we, of our more abundant grace, certain
knowledge, and mere motion, have given, granted, and confirmed, and, by
these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give, grant, and
confirm unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, all
that part of our dominions, in New-England, in America, containing the
Nahantick and Nanhyganset alias Narraganset Bay, and countries and parts
adjacent, bounded on the west or westerly, to the middle or channel of a
river there, commonly called and known by the name of Pawcatuck alias
Pawcawtuck river; and so, along the said river, as the greater or middle
stream thereof stretches or lies up into the north country northward
unto the head thereof, and from thence, by a straight line drawn due
north, until it meet with the south line of the Massachusetts colony;
and on the north or northerly by the aforesaid south or southerly line
of the Massachusetts colony or plantation, and extending towards the
east or eastwardly three English miles, to the east and northeast of the
most eastern and northeastern parts of the aforesaid Narraganset Bay, as
the said Bay lieth or extendeth itself from the ocean, on the south or
southwardly, unto the mouth of the river which runneth towards the town
of Providence; and from thence, along the eastwardly side or bank of the
said river, (higher called by the name of Seacunck) up to the falls
called Patucket Falls, being the most westwardly line of Plymouth
colony; and so, from the said falls, in a straight line, due north,
until it meet with the aforesaid line of the Massachusetts colony, and
bounded on the south by the ocean, and in particular the lands belonging
to the town of Providence, Pawtuxet, Warwick, Misquammacock, alias
Pawcatuck, and the rest upon the main land, in the tract aforesaid,
together with Rhode-Island, Block-Island, and all the rest of the
islands and banks in Narraganset bay, and bordering upon the coast of
the tract aforesaid, (Fisher’s Island only excepted) together with all
firm lands, soils, grounds, havens, ports, rivers, waters, fishings,
mines royal, and all other mines, minerals, precious stones, quarries,
woods, wood-grounds, rocks, slates, and all and singular other
commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises,
pre-eminences, and hereditaments whatsoever, within the said tract,
bounds, lands, and islands aforesaid, to them or any of them belonging,
or in any wise appertaining; to have and to hold the same, unto the said
Governor and company, and their successors forever, upon trust, for the
use and benefit of themselves and their associates, freemen of the said
colony, their heirs and assigns;—to be holden of us, our heirs and
successors, as of the manor of East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, in
free and common soccage, and not in capite, nor by knight’s service;
yielding and paying therefor, to us, our heirs and successors, only the
fifth part of all the ore of gold and silver which, from time to time,
and at all times hereafter, shall be there gotten, had, or obtained, in
lieu and satisfaction of all services, duties, fines, forfeitures, made
or to be made, claims, or demands whatsoever, to be to us, our heirs, or
successors, therefore or thereabout rendered, made, or paid; any grant
or clause in a late grant to the Governor and Company of Connecticut
colony, in America, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding;
the aforesaid Pawcatuck river having been yielded, after much debate,
for the fixed and certain bounds between these our said colonies, by the
agents thereof, who have also agreed, that the said Pawcatuck river
shall also be called alias Narogancett or Narraganset river, and to
prevent future disputes, that otherwise might arise thereby, forever
hereafter shall be construed, deemed, and taken to be the Narraganset
river, in our late grant to Connecticut colony, mentioned as the
easterly bounds of that colony.
“And further, our will and pleasure is, that, in all matters of public
controversies, which may fall out between our colony of Providence
Plantations, to make their appeal therein to us, our heirs and
successors, for redress in such cases, within this our realm of England;
and that it shall be lawful to and for the inhabitants of the said
colony of Providence Plantations, without let or molestation, to pass
and repass with freedom, into and through the rest of the English
colonies, upon their lawful and civil occasions, and to converse and
hold commerce and trade with such of the inhabitants of our other
English colonies, as shall be willing to admit them thereunto, they
behaving themselves peaceably among them, any act, clause, or sentence,
in any of the said colonies provided, or that shall be provided, to the
contrary in any wise notwithstanding.
“And lastly, we do, for us, our heirs and successors, ordain and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that these our letters patent shall be firm, good, effectual,
and available, in all things in the law, to all intents, constructions,
and purposes whatsoever, according to our true intent and meaning herein
before declared, and shall be construed, reputed, and adjudged, in all
cases most favorable on the behalf, and for the best benefit and behoof
of the said Governor and Company, and their successors, although express
mention, &c. In witness, &c.
“Witness, &c. _Per Ipsum Regem._”
NOTE H. page 355.
The following letter from that indefatigable antiquary, the late
Theodore Foster, Esq. contains some interesting information, concerning
the residence of Roger Williams, the time of his death, and the place
where he was buried. It is copied from the Rhode-Island American, of
July 16, 1819:
“To Mr. Williams Thayer, Jr.
“_Foster, R. I. May 21, 1819._
“Dear Sir,
“I have, this afternoon, had the pleasure of receiving your polite
letter of yesterday, requesting information relative to your worthy and
distinguished ancestor, Mr. Roger Williams, the Founder of our State,
and for some years its Chief Magistrate and patron. He was chosen
President, Sept. 13, 1654, after his return from his second successful
agency with the Long Parliament in England. In that office he was
continued, by repeated elections, until May 19, 1657, when he was
succeeded in it by Benedict Arnold.
“In answer to your queries, “At what time did Roger Williams depart this
life? Where did he dwell in Providence? and where was he buried?” I can
only say, that I never met with any record, printed or manuscript, which
I thought more correct, as to the time of his death, than the account
given by Mr. Backus, in his History of the Baptists, vol. i. p. 515.
Governor Hutchinson, in his History of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 43,
says, that he died in the year 1682, forty-eight years after his
banishment. Now, adding forty-eight years to the year of his removal
from Salem to Providence, which, undoubtedly, was in 1636, it makes the
year 1684 as the year of his death, though Governor Hutchinson, by
mistake, says it was in 1682. From Mr. Williams’ writings, it appears
that he was born in 1599; and, as he died in the eighty-fourth year of
his age, it will make the year 1683, as stated by Mr. Backus, that in
which his death happened.
“It appears of record, that on the 16th day of January, 1683, Mr.
Williams, with others, signed a settlement of a controversy which had
long existed between some of the people of Providence and some of those
of Pawtuxet, relative to the Pawtuxet purchase; and that, on the 10th
day of May following, John Thornton, in a letter to Mr. Hubbard,
mentioned his death. So he must have died between January 16 and May 10,
1683.
“The freemen of Providence, in town meeting, July 15, 1771, appointed a
committee, viz. Stephen Hopkins, Amos Atwell, and Darius Sessions,
Esqrs. to draft an inscription for a monument, which it was then
intended to erect to his memory. In their vote on that occasion, Mr.
Williams was called “_the Founder of the Town and Colony_.” The
committee did nothing, and the business has slept from that time. In the
summer of that year, (forty-eight years ago) when much was said
respecting a monument for him, though nothing could be agreed on, his
grave was shown to me, near the east end of the house lot now owned by
Mr. Dorr. The foot grave-stone was then gone, and the top of the other
broken off, so that only the lower part appeared, without any
inscription. There were several other grave-stones near his, in memory
of some of the Ashton family, who were connected with Mr. Williams, on
which the inscriptions were entire. Thinking it a duty to preserve some
knowledge of the place, where was deposited the dust of the founder of
our State, I have repeatedly, of late years, sought for those monuments,
without being able to find any traces of them; though I think I can,
within a rod or two, show where they were placed, so that, on digging
the ground, the graves may, perhaps, be discovered.
“There is no doubt but that Mr. Williams lived, the latter part of his
life, upon the estate whereon he was buried, which was called the
Crawford estate, after the connection of the Crawford and Fenner
families, by the marriage of Gideon Crawford with Freelove Fenner,
daughter of Arthur Fenner, April 13, 1687; which Arthur Fenner, July 31,
1688, gave to his three daughters, Freelove, Bethiah and Phebe,
thirty-one acres of land, “in Providence Neck,” all which became the
property of Mr. Crawford, who married Freelove Fenner, and I believe was
exchanged or negotiated for Mr. Williams’ estate, near the spring.”[395]
As Mr. Williams’ grave and others before mentioned were on that estate,
I applied, on the 12th of May, 1813, to Mrs. Mary Tripe, a descendant of
the said Gideon Crawford, then in the seventy-second year of her age,
for information respecting them. She was a woman of intelligence, good
sense and information, and careful of what she said. She informed me
that your ancestor, Roger Williams, lived in a house which was on the
east side of the main street, a little south of the Episcopal church,
the foundation whereof then remained, which she showed me, within sight
of her house, and which I believe is also now removed, as I saw nothing
of it, on looking for it, the last time I was in Providence. So
transitory are all things pertaining to humanity! She told me there was
no doubt that Mr. Williams was buried at the place which I have
mentioned; that she had always been told so; and that she remembered
seeing fruit trees growing there, when she was a girl; that her father
once owned that and the estate where Moses Brown, Esq. now lives; and
that there was a gang-way, fourteen feet wide, south of Mrs. Tripe’s
house, given by Mr. Williams, to go to his spring, originally laid out
from river to river, near which gang-way his house stood.
“I have an original letter, in the hand writing of Mr. Williams, to the
freemen of the town of Providence, dated “11, 3, 60,” [May 11, 1660]
claiming personal estate of John Clowson, who had been murdered by
Waumaion, an Indian, on the 4th day of the preceding January, containing
additional proof that Mr. Williams then lived near the spring before
mentioned.
“I can give no satisfactory information relative to the other queries in
your letter, but what may be derived from the records of Providence; nor
have I any recollection of any circumstance which indicated that Mr.
Williams left a will.
“It gives me pleasure to be able to furnish useful information to any of
my friends, from documents in my possession. Though in haste, I have
written diffusely, in answer to your letter. So far as it goes, I
believe the information it contains is correct. That it may in some
degree, answer your expectations, and the purpose for which you wanted
it, is the wish of
“Yours, respectfully,
THEODORE FOSTER.”
The following extracts from a letter, inserted in the American, of July
20, 1819, deserve to be inserted, as illustrative of the subject before
us:
“_Providence, July 17, 1819._
“Messrs. Goddard & Knowles,
“Observing, in your paper of yesterday, a letter from the Hon. Theodore
Foster, respecting Roger Williams, the founder of this State, I am
induced to lay before the public the following facts, communicated to me
by the late Capt. Nathaniel Packard, of this town, about the year 1808.
About fifty years since, there was some stir about erecting a monument
to commemorate that distinguished divine, civilian and statesman, and
there was a difference of opinion as to the place of his burial. Capt.
Packard was then absent, but had he been present, he could have pointed
out the very spot where Roger Williams’ house stood, and where he was
buried. When he was about ten years old, one of the descendants of Roger
Williams was buried at the family burying-ground, on the lot right back
of the house of Sullivan Dorr, Esq. Those who dug the grave, dug
directly upon the foot of the coffin, which the people there present
told him was Roger Williams’. They let him down into the new grave, and
he saw the bones in the coffin, which was not wholly decayed, and the
bones had a long, mossy substance upon them. Roger Williams was born in
1599, and died in 1683. Captain Packard was son of Fearnot Packard, who
lived in a small house, standing a little south of the house of Philip
Allen, Esq. and about fifty feet south of the noted spring. In this
house Captain Packard was born, in 1730, and died in 1809, being
seventy-nine years old. He was born forty-seven years after Williams
died. So if he was ten years old when Williams’ descendant was buried,
it was fifty-seven years after Williams died.
“As the people at the funeral of Williams’ descendant told Captain
Packard that Williams was buried in the grave dug upon, there can be no
doubt that Roger Williams was buried in the lot back of Mr. Dorr’s
house, in his own family burying-ground, where I myself have seen stones
to a number of the graves, within twenty years, which have since been
removed. But, though the stones are not to be found, yet I cannot but
venerate the spot where, I have no doubt, the dust of one of the
greatest and best men that ever lived mingled with its mother earth.
“Mrs. Nabby Packard, widow of Captain Packard, who is eighty-five years
old, told me, this day, that her late husband had often mentioned the
above facts to her; and his daughter, Miss Mary Packard, states, that
her father often told her the same.
* * * * *
“As to where Roger Williams’ dwelling-house stood, Captain Nathaniel
Packard told me, that when he was a boy, he used to play in a cellar,
which had a large peach-tree in it, which cellar, he said, was situate
on a lot back of the house built by Thomas Owen, father of the late Hon.
Daniel Owen, afterwards owned by Levi Whipple, and now owned by the
heirs of the late Simeon H. Olney, directly north of the house owned by
Ezra Hubbard, and near where an outbuilding now stands. The people, at
that time, called it Roger Williams’ cellar. Mrs. Nabby Packard,
Nathaniel Packard’s widow, told me this day, that she came to live where
she now lives, when she was eighteen years old, which was sixty-seven
years ago, and that she well remembers the cellar, and that it was
called Roger Williams’ cellar. The site of the house was a little east
of Roger Williams’ spring, and situate directly on the road laid out
from said spring, to the upper ferry, (now Central Bridge.) The spring
is called Roger Williams’ spring, and he owned the land all around it,
being the very place where he sat upon the rock, and conversed with the
Indians. The above facts, derived from Captain N. Packard, his widow and
daughter, are indubitable evidences, that his house was where it is
above stated to have been, and that he was buried in the lot back of Mr.
Dorr’s house.”
It is hoped, that the prosperous city of Providence will not, much
longer, endure the reproach of permitting her founder’s grave to remain
without any memorial to indicate the spot. It is already too late,
perhaps, to ascertain the precise place where his ashes lie, but it may
be found, within a few feet. The ground around it ought to be obtained
by the city, a handsome monument erected, and the whole enclosed within
a permanent iron fence, and adorned with trees, shrubbery, &c. It would
thus form an interesting spot, which the citizen would visit with
interest, and which the stranger would seek as one of the principal
points of attraction. It has been proposed to erect a monument in some
other part of the city; but it would be absurd to place it any where
else than on the spot where his bones are interred. The spot itself is
interesting, because he owned it, and was buried there. It is surprising
that his children ever allowed it to be sold.
In regard to the family of Mr. Williams, little is now known. Even his
lineal descendants seem to have a very scanty knowledge of their
ancestor. A few facts have been collected, though I cannot vouch for
their accuracy.
His wife, it is supposed, survived him, but when and where she died, we
know not.
It is nearly certain, that he left no will. He probably had very little,
if any property, to bequeath.
He had six children:
1. Mary, born at Plymouth, the first week in August, 1633. Whether she
was married or not, is uncertain. In Mr. Williams’ book against George
Fox, he speaks of his daughter _Hart_, as residing in Newport. Mary may
have married a person of this name.
2. Freeborn, born at Salem, the end of October, 1635. Of her, nothing
further is known to me.
3. Providence, born at Providence, the end of September, 1638. He died
unmarried, in Newport [another account says, in Providence] March,
1685–6.
4. Marcy, born July 15, 1640. She was married to Resolved Waterman, of
Warwick, by whom she had four sons and one daughter. After his death,
she was married to Samuel Winsor, of Providence, by whom she had two
sons and one daughter. After his death, she was married to —— Rhodes, of
Pawtuxet, by whom she had several children.
5. Daniel, born February 15, 1641–2. He married Rebecca Power, widow of
Nicholas Power. He died May 14, 1712. He had five sons, Peleg, Roger,
Daniel, Joseph, Providence. Peleg had four sons, Peleg, Robert, Silas,
Timothy; and two daughters, who were married to Daniel Fisk and John
Fisk. Roger had two daughters, one of whom was married to Jonathan
Tourtellot, and the other to David Thayer. Daniel died unmarried. Joseph
had two sons, Benoni and Goliah. Providence had one daughter, Elizabeth.
6. Joseph, born the beginning of December, 1643. He married Lydia Olney,
December 17, 1669. He had three sons, Joseph, Thomas and James. Joseph
had one son, Jeremiah, and eight daughters, who were married to Francis
Atwood, William Randall, Joseph Randall, John Randall, William Dyer,
Benjamin Potter, Benjamin Congdon, John Dyer. Thomas had three sons,
Joseph, Thomas and John, and several daughters. James had four sons,
James, Nathaniel, Joseph and Nathan.
Joseph Williams lived, for several years, on a farm in Cranston, three
or four miles from Providence, where he died, August 17, 1724, in the
eighty-first year of his age, and was buried in the family burying
ground, on the farm, where his grave stone now stands, with this
inscription:
“Here lies the body of Joseph Williams, Esq. son of Roger Williams, Esq.
who was the first white man that came to Providence. He was born 1644.
He died August 17, 1724, in the eighty-first year of his age.
In King Philip’s war, he courageously went through,
And the native Indians he bravely did subdue,
And now he’s gone down to the grave, and he will be no more,
Until it please Almighty God his body to restore,
Into some proper shape, as he thinks fit to be,
Perhaps like a grain of wheat, as Paul sets forth, you see.
(_Corinthians, 1st book, 15th chapter, 37th verse._)”
His wife died a few days after him, and was buried by his side. Her
grave-stone bears this inscription:
“In memory of Lydia Williams, wife of Joseph Williams, Esq. who died
September 9, 1724, in the eightieth year of her age.”
In the same yard, is the grave of their youngest son. The stone has this
inscription:
“Here lies the body of James Williams, son of Joseph Williams and Lydia
his wife, who was born September 24, 1680, died June 25, 1757, in the
seventy-seventh year of his age.
He was of a moderate temper and easy mind,
He to peace was chiefly inclined;
In peace he did live, in peace he would be,
We hope it may last to eternity.”
NOTE I. p. 389.
That Mr. Williams ought to be regarded as the founder of the State of
Rhode-Island, cannot be denied. His settlement of Providence, the first
town in the State; his services in procuring the cession of the island
by the Indians; his efforts to procure the first charter, and his
various sacrifices and toils for the welfare of the whole colony,
entitle him to the merit of being considered as the founder, though
other men, like Mr. Clarke, rendered great and important services. Mr.
Williams claims this honor, in his letter inserted on page 349 of this
volume.
His principles have steadily prevailed in Rhode-Island, till the present
hour. No man has ever been molested, on account of his religious
principles. Gentlemen, of all the existing denominations, have been
elected magistrates. Mr. Callender said, in 1738: “The civil state has
flourished, as well as if secured by ever so many penal laws, and an
Inquisition to put them in execution. Our civil officers have been
chosen out of every religious society, and the public peace has been as
well preserved, and the public councils as well conducted, as we could
have expected, had we been assisted by ever so many religious tests.”—p.
107.
In respect to the religious concerns of the colony, it may be said, that
if they had been such as they have sometimes been represented, an
argument could not fairly be drawn from them unfriendly to Mr. Williams’
principles. It must be recollected, that intolerance prevailed in the
neighboring colonies, and Rhode-Island was a refuge for men of all
opinions. There was consequently a great variety of sects, all weak, at
first, and unable to do much towards the support of religion.
Rhode-Island thus suffered from the intolerance of her neighbors; for if
they had granted the enjoyment of religious liberty to their citizens,
many who went to Rhode-Island, and created disturbances there, would
have remained in the other colonies. The difficulties which arose, in
the early part of the history of Rhode-Island, are rather proofs of the
evils of intolerance in the other colonies, than evidences of the
injurious tendencies of Mr. Williams’ doctrines. If all the uneasy and
discordant spirits in the other States of New-England were driven, by
the force of intolerant laws, into Massachusetts, she would speedily
lose some portion of her high character for morality and good order.
But the state of religion in Rhode-Island has been misrepresented. Mr.
Callender, nearly a hundred years ago, vindicated the character of the
State. He said, that there were, in the fourteen towns which then
composed the state,[396] thirty religious societies, all of which were
then supplied with ministers, except probably the meetings of Friends.
Of these societies, nine were Baptists, nine Friends, five
Congregationalists, five Episcopalians, and two Sabbatarians.[397] Mr.
Callender says, “Thus, notwithstanding all the liberty and indulgence
here allowed, and notwithstanding the inhabitants have been represented
as living without a public worship, and as ungospellized plantations, we
see there is some form of godliness every where maintained.”—p. 68. He
says, in another place:
“I take it to have been no dishonor to the colony, that Christians, of
every denomination, were suffered to lead quiet and peaceable lives,
without any fines, or punishments for their speculative opinions, or for
using those external forms of worship, they believed God had appointed,
and would accept. Bigots may call this confusion and disorder, and it
may be so, according to their poor worldly notions of religion, and the
kingdom of Christ. But the pretended order of human authority, assuming
the place and prerogatives of Jesus Christ, and trampling on the
consciences of his subjects, is, as Mr. R. Williams most justly calls
it, “monstrous disorder.”—p. 50.
“Notwithstanding our constitution left every one to his own liberty, and
his conscience; and notwithstanding the variety of opinions that were
entertained, and notwithstanding some may have contracted too great an
indifference to any social worship, yet I am well assured, there scarce
ever was a time, the hundred years past, in which there was not a weekly
public worship of God, attended by Christians, on this island, and in
the other first towns of the colony.”—p. 51.
It is believed, that at the present time, there are as many religious
societies in Rhode-Island, as in other States, in proportion to the
population, and that the ministry is as well supported, though it is
done by the voluntary liberality of the respective societies. The state
of morality and religion would, it is believed, bear a favorable
comparison with that in other States.
But the true test of the effects of Mr. Williams’ principles is their
operation on a large scale. The religious liberty which prevails in the
United States demonstrates, that religion may be sustained, and
diffused, without any dependence on the civil power. It is believed,
that in no other nation on earth, are the principles of Christianity so
efficacious in their influence on the great mass of the inhabitants; in
no other country, are revivals of religion so frequent; in no other
country, are there so few crimes. Here we leave the argument. May the
principles of Roger Williams soon prevail in every land, and the
kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his
Christ.
-----
Footnote 1:
“Laudator temporis acti,
Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”
_Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4._
Footnote 2:
It is mortifying and painful, that truth compels us to except any
persons among us from this remark.
Footnote 3:
Mr. Savage, in his edition of Winthrop, (vol. i. p. 42) excited, by
the following note, a hope, which was unhappily disappointed:
“Deficiency in all former accounts of this great, _earliest_ asserter
of religious freedom, will, we may hope, soon be supplied by a
gentleman, whose elegance and perspicuity of style are already known.
Several quires of original letters of Williams’ have been seen by me,
transcribed by or for the Rev. Mr. Greenwood, of this city.”
Footnote 4:
“Cœlum non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.”
Ep. lib. i. 11.
Footnote 5:
The records of the church say 1598, (Benedict, vol. i. p. 473) but
this statement appears to be a mistake. Mr. Williams, in a letter
dated July 21, 1679, (Backus, vol. i. p. 421) said that he was then
“near to fourscore years of age.” This proves that he was not born in
1598, and makes it probable that the next year was the true time.
Footnote 6:
Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. p. 284. See Appendix to this
work, (A.)
Footnote 7:
George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, written in 1673.
Footnote 8:
Wood, in his Athenæ; Oxonienses, after giving an account of a
gentleman named Roger Williams, says, “I find another Roger Williams,
later than the former, an inhabitant of Providence, in New England,
and author of (1) _A Key to the Language of New-England_, London,
1643, Oct. (2) _The Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s, or a Discourse
of the Propagation of the Gospel of Christ Jesus_, London, 1652, qu.
&c. But of what university the said Williams was, if of any, I know
not, or whether a real fanatick or Jesuit.” This assertion of Wood
renders it doubtful whether Mr. Williams was educated at Oxford, or
elsewhere. In the absence of all evidence, it might be thought more
probable that he received his education at Cambridge, where a large
proportion of the leading Puritans were educated. Coke himself was a
graduate of Cambridge, and would probably prefer to place Williams
there. Inquiries have been sent to England, for information on this
point, but they have not been successful.
Footnote 9:
Benedict, vol. i. p. 473–4.
Footnote 10:
The refusal of the Pope, Clement VII. to sanction the divorce, would
have been honorable to him, if it had not undeniably sprung from
political motives. He at first prepared a bull, granting Henry’s
request, but in a short time he thought it more conducive to his
political interests to suppress it, and in a fit of anger against the
King for a supposed insult, the Pope issued his sentence, prohibiting
the divorce, and threatening the King with excommunication if he did
not recognise Catharine as his wife. In six days after, he received
intelligence which made him earnestly desire to annul his sentence,
but it was too late. His attribute of infallibility was now found
inconvenient. He could not retract. Henry was exasperated and
renounced his political allegiance, though, in his controversy with
Luther, which won for him from the Pope the title of _Defender of the
Faith_, he had argued that the primacy of the Pope was of divine
right! Histoire du Concile de Trent, livre i. p. 65, Amsterdam
edition, 1686.
Footnote 11:
Elizabeth often said, that she hated the Puritans more than she did
the Papists. Neal, vol. i. p. 319.
Footnote 12:
Neal (vol. i. p. 236) gives the following specimen of the arbitrary
manner in which the ministers were treated. It is an account of the
examination of the London clergy: “When the ministers appeared in
court, Mr. Thomas Cole, a clergyman, being placed by the side of the
Commissioners, in priestly apparel, the Bishop’s chancellor from the
bench addressed them in these words: ‘My masters, and ye ministers of
London, the Council’s pleasure is, that ye strictly keep the unity of
apparel, like the man who stands here canonically habited with a
square cap, a scholar’s gown priest-like, a tippet, and in the church
a linen surplice. Ye that will subscribe, write _volo_; those that
will not subscribe, write _nolo_. Be brief, make no words.’ Some of
these distressed ministers subscribed for the sake of their families,
but thirty-seven absolutely refused. They were immediately suspended
from office, and told, that unless they should conform in three
months, they should be wholly deprived of their livings. In 1585 and
1586, it was found, by a survey, that there were only 2000 ministers,
who were able to preach, to serve 10,000 churches. Bishop Sandys, in
one of his sermons before the Queen, told her Majesty, that some of
her subjects did not hear one sermon in seven years, and that their
blood would be required of some one. Elizabeth thought three or four
preachers in a county sufficient.” Neal, vol. i. p. 359.
Footnote 13:
Neal, vol. i. preface.
Footnote 14:
Neal, vol. i. preface.
Footnote 15:
Neal, vol. ii. p. 28.
Footnote 16:
Prince, p. 107.
Footnote 17:
Mr. Williams had some personal intercourse with the monarch, but of
what kind does not appear. In his letter to Major Mason, he refers to
King James, whom I have spoke with.
Footnote 18:
“Although the discusser acknowledged himself unworthy to speak for God
to Master Cotton, or any, yet possibly Master Cotton may call to mind,
that the discusser (riding with himself and one other, of precious
memory, Master Hooker, to and from Sempringham) presented his
arguments from Scripture, why he durst not join with them in their use
of Common Prayer.” Bloody Tenet made more Bloody, p. 12.
Footnote 19:
Mr. William Harris, in a letter, speaks of a Mr. Warnard, as a brother
of Mrs. Williams, apparently meaning the wife of Roger Williams. This
is the only hint which the author has found, respecting the family of
Mrs. Williams. Her name, by some strange mistake, is stated, in the
records of the church at Providence, to have been Elizabeth, instead
of Mary, her real name. These records led Mr. Benedict, in his
valuable History, (vol. i. p. 476) into the same error. On his
authority, one of the descendants of Roger Williams, now living, named
a child Elizabeth, in honor, as she meant it, of her venerable
maternal ancestor.
Footnote 20:
Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 146.
Footnote 21:
This extensive grant included a considerable part of the British
colonies in North America, the whole of the New England States, and of
New York; about half of Pennsylvania; two thirds of New Jersey and
Ohio; a half of Indiana and Illinois; the whole of Michigan, Huron,
and the whole of the territory of the United States westward of them,
and on both sides of the Rocky Mountains; and from a point
considerably within the Mexican dominions, on the Pacific Ocean,
nearly up to Nootka Sound. This enormous grant shows how imperfectly
the geography of the country was known, by James and his counsellors.
The Council soon found their undertaking an unprofitable speculation,
and surrendered their patent to the Crown. See Hon. E. Everett’s
Anniversary Address at Charlestown, June 28, 1830, pp. 13, 31.
Footnote 22:
Winthrop’s Journal, vol. i. p. 5.
Footnote 23:
Everett’s Address, p. 27.
Footnote 24:
Hutchinson, vol i. p. 24.
Footnote 25:
It is stated, that not less than two hundred persons died, from the
time the company sailed from England, in April, up to the December
following. Everett’s Address, p. 50.
Footnote 26:
This gentleman came from England. He claimed the whole peninsula of
Boston, because he was the first white man who slept there. He
hospitably invited Gov. Winthrop and his friends to remove thither, on
account of a fine spring of water there. He soon left Boston, alleging
that he left England because he did not like the Lords Bishops, but he
could not join with the colonists, because he did not like the Lords
Brethren. His rights as the first occupant were acknowledged, and
thirty pounds were paid to him in 1634. He removed to a spot in the
present town of Cumberland, (R. I.) about six miles from Providence,
and the river which flows near now bears his name. He lived to an old
age, and occasionally preached at Providence and other places.
Tradition says, that he sometimes secured the attention of his hearers
by a skilful distribution of apples. His orchard flourished long after
his death, and some of the trees are, it is said, yet standing.
Footnote 27:
President Quincy’s His. Dis. Sept. 17, 1830, p. 19.
Footnote 28:
It may be profitable to the men of this generation to read the
following account, given by Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 27.
“The weather held tolerable until the 24th of December, but the cold
then came on with violence. Such a Christmas eve they had never seen
before. From that time to the 10th of February their chief care was to
keep themselves warm, and as comfortable, in other respects, as their
scant provisions would permit. The poorer sort were much exposed,
lying in tents and miserable hovels, and many died of the scurvy and
other distempers. They were so short of provisions, that many were
obliged to live upon clams, muscles, and other shell fish, with ground
nuts and acorns instead of bread. One that came to the Governor’s
house, to complain of his sufferings, was prevented, being informed
that even there the last batch was in the oven. Some instances are
mentioned of great calmness and resignation in this distress. A man
who had asked his neighbor to a dish of clams, after dinner returned
thanks to God, who had given them to suck of the abundance of the
seas, and of treasures hid in the sands. They had appointed the 22d of
February for a fast; but on the 5th, to their great joy, the ship
Lyon, Capt. Peirce, one of the last year’s fleet, returned, laden with
provisions, from England, which were distributed according to the
necessities of the people. They turned their fast into a
thanksgiving.”
Footnote 29:
This was a regular colony ship. Her arrival from England, with
emigrants, supplies, &c. is often noted in the Journal. The following
November, on the 2d, she arrived with the Governor’s wife, the famous
John Elliot, and others. But, unfortunately, she was cast away on the
2d of November, 1633, upon a shoal off the coast of Virginia.
G.
Footnote 30:
In the first edition this was printed “_man_.” Mr. Savage, in a note,
says: “In the original MS. this word has been tampered with, perhaps
by some zealot, yet it appears clearly enough to be Winthrop’s usual
abbreviation for that which is restored in the text, and Prince read
it as I do.”
Footnote 31:
Quincy’s Hist. Dis. 1830, p. 20.
Footnote 32:
Hutchinson, vol. i. Appendix, No. 1.
Footnote 33:
The reply of the ministers of the church to this objection is worthy
of notice, as confirming the views which have been stated respecting
their feelings toward the Church of England. “They did not (they
declared) separate from the Church of England, nor from the ordinances
of God there, but only from the corruptions and disorders of that
Church; that they came away from the common prayer and ceremonies, and
had suffered much for their non-conformity in their native land, and
therefore, being in a place where they might have their liberty, they
neither could nor would use them, inasmuch as they judged the
imposition of these things to be a violation of the worship of God.”
Magnalia, b. i. ch. iv. § 8.
Footnote 34:
Snow’s History of Boston, p. 30.
Footnote 35:
Winthrop, vol. i. p. 32.
Footnote 36:
Ibid, vol. i. p. 87.
Footnote 37:
Snow’s Hist. of Boston, p. 42.
Footnote 38:
Winthrop, vol. i. p. 30, note.
Footnote 39:
Extract from a letter of Mr. Cotton. Hutchinson, Appendix iii.
Footnote 40:
See Dr. Wisner’s valuable Historical Discourses, May 9 and 16, 1830.
Footnote 41:
Mr. Backus, and some other writers, have this date 1631, either by
mistake, or by neglecting the difference between the old and the new
style. Some confusion has thus been introduced into the accounts of
Mr. Williams.
Footnote 42:
Magnalia, b. v. ch. 17.
Footnote 43:
Emerson in his History of the First Church is not more explicit. He
says, (p. 13) “It has been said of this man, that he refused
communion,” &c.
Footnote 44:
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: