“This is to certify you, that I look upon my purchase of the town of

Providence to be my lawful right. In my travel, I have inquired, and do

find it is recoverable according to law; for my coming away could not

disinherit me. Some of you cannot but recollect, that we six which came

first should have the first convenience, as it was put in practice by

our house lots, and 2d by the meadow in Wanasquatucket river, and then

those that were admitted by us unto the purchase to have the next which

were about; but it is contrary to law, reason and equity, for to dispose

of my part without my consent. Therefore deal not worse with me than we

dealt with the Indians, for we made conscience of purchasing of it of

them, and hazarded our lives. Therefore we need not, nor any one of us

ought to be denied of our purchase. So hoping you will take it into

serious consideration, and to give me reasonable satisfaction, I rest,

“Yours in the way of right and equity,

“JOSHUA VERIN.

“From Salem, the 21st Nov. 1650.

“This be delivered to the deputies of the town of Providence, to be

presented to the whole town.”

Winthrop’s account of this affair (vol. i. p. 282) under the date of

December 13, 1638, is a good specimen of the manner in which that great

and good man was biased by his feelings, when he spoke of Rhode-Island.

The account must have been founded on reports, perhaps on mere gossip:

“At Providence, also, the devil was not idle. For whereas, at their

first coming thither, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that

no man should be molested for his conscience, now men’s wives, and

children, and servants, claimed liberty hereby to go to all religious

meetings, though never so often, or though private, upon the week days;

and because one Verin refused to let his wife go to Mr. Williams so oft

as she was called for, they required to have him censured. But there

stood up one Arnold, a witty man of their own company, and withstood it,

telling them, that when he consented to that order, he never intended it

should extend to the breach of any ordinance of God, such as the

subjection of wives to their husbands, &c. and gave divers solid reasons

against it. Then one Greene, (who hath married the wife of one Beggerly,

whose husband is living, and no divorce, &c. but only, it was said, that

he had lived in adultery and had confessed it,) he replied, that if they

should restrain their wives, &c. all the women in the country would cry

out of them, &c. Arnold answered him thus: Did you pretend to leave

Massachusetts because you would not offend God to please men, and would

you now break an ordinance and commandment of God, to please women? Some

were of opinion, that if Verin would not suffer his wife to have her

liberty, the church should dispose her to some other man who would use

her better. Arnold told them, it was not the woman’s desire, to go so

oft from home, but only Mr. Williams’ and others. In conclusion, when

they would have censured Verin, Arnold told them, that it was against

their own order, for Verin did that he did out of conscience; and their

order was, that no man should be censured for his conscience.”

Footnote 174:

“Every man and woman, who had brains enough to form some imperfect

conception of them, inferred and maintained some other point, such as

these: a man is justified before he believes; faith is no cause of

justification; and if faith be before justification, it is only passive

faith, an empty vessel, &c. and assurance is by immediate revelation

only. The fear of God and love of our neighbor seemed to be laid by, and

out of the question.” Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 59.

Footnote 175:

One of these decisions of the synod will be approved by the good sense

of Christians in this age. “That though women might meet (some few

together) to pray and edify one another, yet such a set assembly, (as

was then in practice in Boston) where sixty or more did meet every week,

and one woman (in a prophetical way, by resolving questions of doctrine

and expounding Scripture) took upon her the whole exercise, was agreed

to be disorderly, and without rule.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 240.

Footnote 176:

Backus, vol. i. 86.

Footnote 177:

Vol. i. p. 247.

Footnote 178:

This word is spelled by different writers, in various ways. The island

was afterwards (in 1644, according to Callender,) called the Isle of

Rhodes, and by an easy declension, Rhode-Island. (Holmes, vol. i. p.

246.) In a letter of Roger Williams, already quoted, written before May,

1637, the name _Rode_-Island is applied to it. The reason does not

appear. A fancied resemblance to the Isle of Rhodes is supposed to have

been the origin.

Footnote 179:

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

“The 24th of the first month, called March, in the year (so commonly

called) 1637–8, Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two

chief sachems of the Narraganset, by virtue of our general command of

this bay, as also the particular subjecting of the dead sachems of

Aquetneck and Kitackamuckqut, themselves and lands unto us, have sold to

Mr. Coddington and his friends united unto him, the great island of

Aquetneck, lying hence eastward in this bay, as also the marsh or grass

upon Canonicut, and the rest of the islands in this bay (excepting

Chibachuwesa [Prudence] formerly sold to Mr. Winthrop, the now Governor

of the Massachusetts, and Mr. Williams, of Providence) also the grass

upon the rivers and bounds about Kitackamackqut, and from thence to

Paupusquatch, for the full payment of forty fathoms of white beads, to

be equally divided between us; in witness whereof, we have here

subscribed. Item, that by giving, by Miantinomo’s hands, ten coats and

twenty hoes to the present inhabitants, they shall remove themselves

from off the island before next winter.

“Witness our hands,

“The mark (†) of CANONICUS.

“The mark (‡) of MIANTINOMO.

“In presence of

“The mark (X) of YOTAASH,

“ROGER WILLIAMS,

“RANDALL HOLDEN,

“The mark (‡) of ASSOTEMUIT,

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

“Memorandum, that Ousamequin freely consents, that Mr. William

Coddington and his friends united unto him, shall make use of any grass

or trees on the main land on Pawakasick side, and all my men, to the

said Mr. Coddington, and English, his friends united to him, having

received of Mr. Coddington five fathoms of wampum, as gratuity for

himself and the rest.

“The mark (X) of OUSAMEQUIN.

Witness, { ROGER WILLIAMS,

{ RANDALL HOLDEN.

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

Footnote 180:

Mr. Callender says, (His. Dis. p. 32,) “The English inhabited between

two powerful nations, the Wampancags to the north and east, who had

formerly possessed some part of their grants, before they had

surrendered it to the Narragansets, and though they freely owned the

submission, yet it was thought best by Mr. Williams to make them easy by

gratuities to the sachem, his counsellors and followers. On the other

side, the Narragansets were very numerous, and the natives inhabiting

any spot the English sat down upon, or improved, were all to be bought

off to their content, and oftentimes were to be paid over and over

again.”

Footnote 181:

Messrs. Nicholas Easton, John Coggeshall and William Brenton.

Footnote 182:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.

Footnote 183:

“While the General Court sat, there came a letter directed to the Court

from John Greene, of Providence, who, not long before, had been

imprisoned and fined for saying, that the magistrates had usurped upon

the power of Christ in his church, and had persecuted Mr. Williams and

another, whom they had banished for disturbing the peace, by divulging

their opinions against the authority of the magistrates, &c.; but upon

his submission, &c. his fine was remitted; and now, by his letter, he

retracted his former submission, and charged the Court as he had done

before. Now, because the Court knew, that divers others of Providence

were of the same ill-affection to the Court, and were, probably,

suspected to be confederate in the same letter, the Court ordered, that

if any of that plantation were found within our jurisdiction, he should

be brought before one of the magistrates, and if he would not disclaim

the charge in the said letter, he should be sent home, and charged to

come no more into this jurisdiction, upon pain of imprisonment and

further censure.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 256.

Footnote 184:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 185:

3 His. Col. i. p. 166.

Footnote 186:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 267. In the Journal, there are repeated allusions

to information received from Mr. Williams, respecting the Indians, and

services rendered by him. See vol. i. pp. 225, 226. &c.

Footnote 187:

3 His. Col. i. p. 170–3.

Footnote 188:

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

Footnote 189:

righteousness?

Footnote 190:

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.

Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum

Intactum Pallanta.” _Æneis_, x. 501–4.

Footnote 191:

Vol. i. p. 283, already quoted.

Footnote 192:

Governor Hopkins thinks, that there was a church formed on

Congregational principles, before Mr. Williams’ baptism.—History of

Providence, in 2 Mass. His. Col. ix. p. 196. This is not probable, for

nothing is said by the writers in Massachusetts, of such a church, and

the members of the church in Salem, who removed to Providence, were not

excluded from that church, till after their baptism. Hutchinson, vol. i.

p. 371.

Footnote 193:

The first church in Boston, several of whose members were wealthy,

existed two years before they began to build a meeting-house. Winthrop,

vol. i. p. 87.

Footnote 194:

Morton’s Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 195:

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

Footnote 196:

Dr. Woods, on Infant Baptism, Lecture I.—He adds, “the proof then, that

infant baptism is a divine institution, must be made out in another

way.”

Footnote 197:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 293. Under date of March, 1638–9, he says: “At

Providence, things grew still worse; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson,

the wife of one Scott, being infected with anabaptistry, and going last

year to live at Providence, Mr. Williams was taken (or rather

emboldened) by her to make open profession thereof, and accordingly was

re-baptized by one Holliman, a poor man, late of Salem. Then Mr.

Williams re-baptized him and some ten more. They also denied the

baptizing of infants, and would have no magistrates.”

Footnote 198:

Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 293) calls Mr. Holliman “a poor man,”

which Hubbard, (338) in copying, alters to a “mean fellow.” But Mr.

Benedict says, that he was a man of “gifts and piety,” and that he was

chosen an assistant to Mr. Williams. Backus says, “after the year 1650,

I find him more than once a Deputy from the town of Warwick in the

General Court.”—Vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 199:

The first twelve members are named by Benedict, (vol. i. p. 473.) Roger

Williams, Ezekiel Holliman, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely

Westcott, John Green, Richard Waterman, Thomas James, Robert Cole,

William Carpenter, Francis Weston, and Thomas Olney.

Footnote 200:

Backus, vol. i. 106, note. “There had been many of them [Baptists]

intermixed with other societies from their first coming out of Popery;

but their first distinct church in our nation was formed out of the

Independent Church in London, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor, from

1616 to 1624, when he went to Virginia, and Mr. John Lathrop was chosen

in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the society,

finding that the congregation kept not to their first principles of

separation, and being also convinced, that baptism was not to be

administered to infants, but such only as professed faith in Christ,

desired and obtained liberty, and formed themselves into a distinct

church, Sept. 12, 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their

minister.”—Crosby, vol. i. pp. 148, 149. In the year 1639, another

Baptist church was formed in London, but probably not so early as the

church at Providence.

Footnote 201:

Mosheim, b. 1, c. 1, p. 2, ch. 4, s. 8. See Campbell’s Lectures on

Ecclesiastical History, lecture iv. for proof, that laymen, in the early

times of the Christian era, often baptized. He quotes Hilary, who, in

his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4: 11, 12, says,

“Postquam omnibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata,

aliter composita res est, quam cœperat; primum enim omnes docebant, et

omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio.”

That is, when churches were every where constituted, and official duties

prescribed, things were otherwise regulated, than at first, when all

taught, and all baptized, whenever occasion required.

Footnote 202:

Lib. de baptismo, cap. xvii. Laicis etiam jus est (baptizandi.)

Sufficiat in necessitatibus utaris, sicubi aut loci, aut temporis, aut

personæ conditio compellit.

Footnote 203:

S. Ambrosius in Eph. iv.

Footnote 204:

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

Footnote 205:

Hieronymus, adv. Lucifexianas, cap. v.—See Potter on Church Government,

p. 231, &c. Phil. ed. for other authorities.

Footnote 206:

Concil, Elib. Can. xxxviii.—Peregre navigantes, aut si Ecclesia in

proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nec

sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate, ita ut, si supervixerit, ad

Episcopum suum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici

possit.—Quoted by Potter, p. 232.

Footnote 207:

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

Footnote 208:

Neal, vol. iii. p. 233.

Footnote 209:

The excellent John Robinson, the father of the Plymouth colony, had a

controversy with the Rev. Mr. Bernard, an Episcopal minister. Mr.

Robinson wrote a book, entitled “A Justification of Separation from the

Church of England.”—In this book, he uses the same argument as that in

the text: “Zanchy, upon the fifth to the Ephesians, treating of baptism,

propounds a question of a Turk, coming to the knowledge of Christ and to

faith by reading the New Testament, and withal teaching his family and

converting it and others to Christ, and being in a country whence he

cannot easily come to Christian countries, whether he may baptize them,

whom he hath converted to Christ, he himself being unbaptized? He

answers, I doubt not of it, but that he may, and withal provide that he

himself be baptized of one of the three converted by him. The reason he

gives is, because he is a minister of the word, extraordinarily stirred

up by Christ; and so as such a minister may, with the consent of that

small church, appoint one of the communicants, and provide that he be

baptized by him.” Backus, vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 210:

The question, which has been asked, with some emphasis, as if it vitally

affected the Baptist churches in this country: “_By whom was Roger

Williams baptized?_” has no practical importance. All whom he immersed

were, as Pedobaptists must admit, baptized. The great family of Baptists

in this country did not spring from the First Church in Providence. Many

Baptist ministers and members came, at an early period, from Europe, and

thus churches were formed in different parts of the country, which have

since multiplied over the land. The first Baptist church formed in the

present State of Massachusetts, is the church at Swansea. Its origin is

dated in 1663, when the Rev. John Miles came from Wales, with a number

of the members of a Baptist church, who brought with them its records.

It was, in fact, an emigration of a church. Of the 400,000 Baptist

communicants now in the United States, a small fraction only have had

any connection, either immediate or remote, with the venerable church at

Providence, though her members are numerous, and she has been honored as

the mother of many ministers. The question, discussed in the preceding

pages, disturbed, for a while, the first English Baptists. They had no

clerical administrator, who had himself, in their view, been baptized.

Some of them went to Holland, and were baptized by Baptist ministers

there. “But,” says Crosby, (vol. i. p. 103,) “the greatest number of the

English Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this as

needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish doctrine of

right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which

neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the

modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed,

therefore, and practised accordingly, that after a general corruption of

baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a

reformation.” These examples, however, cannot justify a departure from

the usual practice of our churches at the present day, when the ministry

is regularly established.

Footnote 211:

Vol. i. p. 450.

Footnote 212:

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

Footnote 213:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 477.

Footnote 214:

John Howland, Esq., in a letter to the author, says: “The college was

built in 1770. On the question among the founders of it, on what lot to

place the building, they decided on the present site of the old college,

because it was the home lot of Chad Brown, the first minister of the

Baptist church. Other land could have been obtained, but the reason

given prevailed in fixing the site. Had the impression been prevalent,

that Roger Williams was the first minister or principal founder of the

society, his home lot could have been purchased, which was a situation

fully as eligible for the purpose. If any doubts rested in the minds of

the gentlemen at that time, as to the validity of the claim of Chad

Brown to this preference, perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Williams’

deserting the order, and protesting against it, might have produced the

determination in favor of Brown.”

Footnote 215:

This house was built on the west side of North Main street, near its

junction with Smith street, and a short distance north of Roger

Williams’ spring. It was probably a small and rather rude building.

Tradition states, that it was “in the shape of a hay cap, with a

fireplace in the middle, the smoke escaping from a hole in the roof.” It

was taken down, and a larger building erected in 1718. In 1774–5, the

spacious and elegant house now occupied by the First Baptist Church, was

erected.

Footnote 216:

Magnalia, b. vii. sec. 7. Gov. Hopkins, (a member of the Society of

Friends) says, in his history of Providence, written in 1765, “This

church hath, _from its beginning_, kept itself in repute, and maintained

its discipline, so as to avoid scandal or schism, to this day. It hath

always been, and still is, a numerous congregation, and in which I have

with pleasure observed, very lately, sundry descendants from each of the

founders of the colony, except Holliman.” 2 His. Col. ix. 197.

Footnote 217:

The letter, announcing their exclusion, to the church at Dorchester, may

properly be quoted here, as an illustration of the customs of those

times:

“_Salem, 1st 5th mo. 39._

“Reverend and dearly beloved in the Lord,

“We thought it our bounden duty to acquaint you with the names of

such persons as have had the great censure passed upon them in this

our church, with the reasons thereof, beseeching you in the Lord,

not only to read their names in public to yours, but also to give us

the like notice of any dealt with in like manner by you, that so we

may walk towards them accordingly; for some of us, here, have had

communion ignorantly with some of other churches. 2 Thess. iii. 14.

We can do no less than have such noted as disobey the truth.

“ROGER WILLIAMS and his wife, JOHN THROGMORTON and his wife, THOMAS

OLNEY and his wife, STUKELY WESTCOTT and his wife, MARY HOLLIMAN,

Widow REEVES.

“These wholly refused to hear the church, denying it, and all the

churches in the Bay, to be true churches, and (except two) are all

re-baptized.

“JOHN ELFORD, for obstinacy, after divers sins he stood guilty of,

and proved by witness. WILLIAM JAMES, for pride, and divers other

evils, in which he remained obstinate. JOHN TABBY, for much pride,

and unnaturalness to his wife, who was lately executed for murdering

her child. WILLIAM WALCOT, for refusing to bring his children to the

ordinance, neglecting willingly family duties, &c.

“Thus, wishing the continued enjoyment of both the staves, beauty

and bands, and that your souls may flourish as watered gardens,

rest,

“Yours in the Lord Jesus,

“HUGH PETERS,

“By the Church’s order, and in their name.

“For the Church of Christ in Dorchester.”

Footnote 218:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 297. Mr. Savage remarks, in a note: “Those members

of Boston church, who had been driven by intolerance to the new region,

if they gathered a church at all, must do it in a disordered way, for

they might well apprehend, that an application for dismission would be

rejected, and perhaps punished by excommunication.”

Footnote 219:

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

“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

Footnote 220:

John, i. 46.

Footnote 221:

Vol. ii. p. 8.

Footnote 222:

Williams’ Key, p. 22, Providence ed.

Footnote 223:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 224:

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

Footnote 225:

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

Footnote 226:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 59. Lechford, an

author quoted by Mr. Savage, in a note, says: “There (Newport) lately

they whipped Mr. Gorton, a grave man, for denying their power, and

abusing some of their magistrates with uncivil terms, the Governor,

Master Coddington, saying in Court, You that are for the King, lay hold

on Gorton, and he, again, on the other side, called forth, All you that

are for the King, lay hold on Coddington; whereupon Gorton was banished

the island; so, with his wife, he went to Providence. They began about a

small trespass of swine, but it is thought some other matter was

ingredient.” Lechford’s tract, called Plain Dealing, or News from

New-England, is published in the Mass. His. Col. 3d series, 3d vol.

Lechford’s preface is dated January 17, 1641, after his return from

America. He says that there were two hundred families on Rhode-Island.

This must be a mistake.

Footnote 227:

Reply to Mr. Cotton, p. 113.

Footnote 228:

In 3 Mass. His. Col. vol. i. p. 2. is their letter, signed by William

Field, William Harris, William Carpenter, William Wickenden, William

Reinolds, Thomas Harris, Thomas Hopkins, Hugh Bewitt, Joshua Winsor,

Benedict Arnold, William Man, William W. Hunkinges, and Robert R. West.

The letter was written by Benedict Arnold. Roger Williams, also, wrote a

letter to the government of Massachusetts, in which he said, “Mr.

Gorton, having foully abused high and low, at Aquetneck, is now

bewitching and bemadding poor Providence.” General Court’s Vindication,

May 30, 1665. It has been said, that Mr. Williams requested the

government of Massachusetts to interfere; but we have seen no evidence

of this, and it is in itself highly improbable. The utmost which we can

suppose him to ask, in such a case, would be temporary aid in

suppressing a tumult. We may be sure that he would oppose the usurpation

of jurisdiction by Massachusetts. His letters show that he disapproved

it.

Footnote 229:

Vol. ii. p. 59.

Footnote 230:

Winthrop introduces this account, by the remark, that “those of

Providence, being all anabaptists, were divided in judgment; some were

only against baptizing of infants, others denied all magistracy and

churches, &c. of which Gorton, who had lately been whipped at Aquetneck,

[Newport] was their instructer and captain.” This observation is worthy

of notice, as it shows how loosely this fearful word anabaptist was

applied, and as it discriminates between those who merely rejected the

baptism of infants, and those who denied all magistracy and churches. It

is certain, that all the inhabitants were not Baptists; and it is

doubtful whether the allegation against Mr. Gorton, that he was opposed

either to churches or magistracy, could be sustained. A letter from the

Hon. Samuel Eddy, inserted in a note to Winthrop’s Journal, vol. ii. p.

58, after mentioning that Gorton was in office almost constantly, after

the establishment of a government, says: “It would be a remarkable fact,

that a man should be an enemy to magistracy, to religion, in short, a

bad man, and yet constantly enjoy the confidence of his fellow townsmen,

and receive from them the highest honors in their gift.”

Footnote 231:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113.

Footnote 232:

Backus, vol. i. p. 120. These persons were Samuel Gorton, Randal Holden,

Robert Potter, John Wickes, John Warner, Richard Waterman, William

Woodale, John Greene, Francis Weston, Richard Carder, Nicholas Power,

and Sampson Shatton.

Footnote 233:

This sum, at 5s. 8d. per fathom, was 40l. 10s. The deed was dated

January 12, 1642–3. Backus, vol. i. p. 120.

Footnote 234:

Miantinomo was summoned to Boston, where he asserted his claim, but his

arguments were not satisfactory to the Court. It was not convenient to

admit his pretensions; and the Court were, we may suppose, scrupulous in

examining his proofs.

Footnote 235:

“Gorton,” says Hutchinson, (vol. i. p. 117) “published an account of his

sufferings. Mr. Winslow, the agent for Massachusetts, answered him. In

1665, he preferred his petition to the commissioners sent over by King

Charles the Second, for recompense for the wrongs done him by

Massachusetts, alleging, that besides his other sufferings, he and his

friends had eighty head of cattle taken and sold. Massachusetts, in

their answer, charge him with heretical tenets, both in religion and

civil government, and with an unjust possession of the Indian lands in

the vicinity of the colonies, for the sake of disturbing their peace;

and add, that the goods which they seized did not amount to the charge

of their prosecution; but they do not sufficiently vindicate their

seizing their persons or goods, without the limits of their

jurisdiction, and conclude with hoping that his Majesty will excuse any

circumstantial error in their proceedings.” In the appendix of

Hutchinson’s first volume, is a Defence by Gorton, dated Warwick, June

30, 1669, and addressed to Nathaniel Morton, in which the charges in the

Memorial are discussed with an ability, which shows that Gorton could

write, when he chose, clearly and forcibly.

Footnote 236:

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

Footnote 237:

A gentleman of Providence, William R. Staples, Esq. has been engaged,

for some time, in preparing a revised edition of Gorton’s work, entitled

“Simplicity’s Defence against Seven Headed Policy,” with extensive notes

and appendices. This book, it is hoped, will soon be published, and will

furnish the means of forming a correct opinion concerning Gorton, and

the transactions in which he was a party and a sufferer.

Footnote 238:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 101.

Footnote 239:

Mr. Williams was absent, having sailed for England in June or July

preceding. Had he been in the country, he would certainly have used his

influence in favor of Miantinomo.

Footnote 240:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 131.

Footnote 241:

Gov. Hopkins’ History of Providence, 2 His. Col. ix. 202. See note to

Winthrop, vol. ii. 133, where Mr. Savage says: “With profound regret, I

am compelled to express a suspicion, that means of sufficient influence

would easily have been found for the security of themselves, the

pacifying of Uncas, and the preservation of Miantinomo, had he not

encouraged the sale of Shawomet and Pawtuxet to Gorton and his heterodox

associates.”

Footnote 242:

In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says: “Upon frequent

exceptions against Providence men, that we had no authority for civil

government, I went purposely to England, and, upon my report and

petition, the Parliament granted us a charter of government for these

parts, so judged vacant on all hands. And upon this, the country about

was more friendly, and wrote to us, and treated us as an authorized

colony, only the differences of our consciences much obstructed.”

Footnote 243:

Backus, vol. i. p. 148. Winthrop places Lady Moody’s removal from Salem

after Mr. Williams’ mediation with the Long-Island Indians. He speaks

respectfully of her character _before_ her lapse into the heresy of

denying infant baptism: “The Lady Moody, a wise and _anciently

religious_ woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to

infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and

admonished by the church of Salem, (whereof she was a member) but

persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, she removed to the

Dutch, against the advice of all her friends. Many others, infected with

anabaptism, removed thither also. She was after excommunicated.”

Winthrop, vol. ii. pp. 123–4.

Footnote 244:

Key, p. 17.

Footnote 245:

Byron’s Giaour.

Footnote 246:

Holmes’ Annals, vol, i. p. 273.

Footnote 247:

For a copy of the charter, see Appendix E.

Footnote 248:

The Westminster Assembly of Divines, who were then in session, might

have learned from this book, if they had read it, lessons which they

greatly needed.

Footnote 249:

Bloody Tenet, p. 64.

Footnote 250:

Massachusetts was the more disinclined to show favor to Mr. Williams and

his colony, because the Baptists began to multiply. A Baptist church was

formed about this time, in Newport, by Dr. John Clarke and a few others,

and in Massachusetts itself the new doctrine spread. The General Court

was aroused, therefore, to an effort to crush the growing sect; and no

method seemed to promise more success, than to wield against it a

legislative denunciation, edged by an appeal to the popular dread of

anabaptism:

“Immortale odium, et nunquam sanabile vulnus.”

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

“Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since

the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they

have been the incendiaries of the commonwealth, and the infectors of

persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in

all places where they have been, and that they who have held the

baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or

heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do)

concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity

to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this

kind have, since our coming into New-England, appeared amongst

ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of

magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness

of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table;

which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be

increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us,

infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole

commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that, if any person or persons,

within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the

baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the

approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation

at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of

magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to

punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the

Court wilfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and

means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be _sentenced to

banishment_.” Backus, vol. i. p. 150.

Footnote 251:

This incident is related by Richard Scott, in his letter, inserted at

the close of the “New-England Firebrand Quenched.” Mr. Scott disliked

Mr. Williams, and his comment on the transaction referred to is an

instance of the effect of a man’s feelings on his judgment respecting

the conduct of others. “The man,” he says, “being hemmed in, in the

middle of the canoes, was so elevated and transported out of himself,

that I was condemned in myself, that amongst the rest, I had been an

instrument to set him up in his pride and folly.”

Footnote 252:

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

Footnote 253:

He was a brother of Miantinomo, and succeeded him.

Footnote 254:

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

quoted here:

“Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegans, was hated and envied by the

Narragansets, for his attachment to the English, and the distinguishing

favors shown him in return. In 1638, having entertained some of the

Pequods, after the war with them, and fearing he had given offence, he

came to the Governor at Boston, and brought a present, which was at

first refused, but afterwards, the Governor being satisfied that he had

no designs against the English, it was accepted, and he promised to

submit to such orders as he should receive from the English, concerning

the Pequods, and also concerning the Narragansets, and his behavior

towards them, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘This heart

(laying his hand upon his breast) is not mine, but yours. Command me any

difficult service, and I will do it; I have no men, but they are all

yours. I will never believe any Indian against the English any more.’ He

was dismissed, with a present, went home joyful, carrying a letter of

protection for himself and men through the English plantations, and

never was engaged in hostilities against any of the colonies, although

he survived Philip’s war, and died a very old man, after the year 1680.

“The Narragansets failed in the payment of the wampum, and in 1646,

messengers were sent to them from the commissioners, but Passacus, their

chief sachem, not attending, in 1647 the message was repeated, and he

then pretended sickness, and sent Ninigret, a sachem of the Nianticks,

to act in his behalf, and told the messenger, that it was true he had

not kept his covenant, but added, that he entered into it for fear of

the army which he saw, and that he was told, that if he did not set his

hand to such and such things, the army should go against the

Narragansets. When Ninigret appeared, he asked how the Narragansets

became indebted to the English in so large a sum, and being told that it

was for the expense the Narragansets had put them to by their breach of

covenant, he then pleaded poverty, but the commissioners insisting on

the demand, he sent some of his people back to procure what he could,

but brought two hundred fathoms only. They gave him leave to go home,

and allowed him further time. The whole was not paid until 1650, when

Capt. Atherton, with twenty men, was sent to demand the arrears, which

was then about three hundred fathoms. Passacus put him off some time

with dilatory answers, not suffering him to come into his presence. In

the mean while his people were gathering together, but the Captain,

carrying his twenty soldiers to the door of the wigwam, entered himself,

with his pistol in his hand, leaving his men without, and seizing

Passacus by the hair of his head, drew him from the midst of a great

number of his attendants, threatening that if one of them offered to

stir, he would despatch him. Passacus presently paid down what was

demanded, and the English returned in safety. Ninigret, after this,

began to stir up new troubles from the Nianticks, but upon sending Capt.

Davis, with a troop of horse, into the Indian country, he was struck

with a panic, and would not be seen by the English until he had

assurance of his life, and then he readily complied with their demands,

and they and the other Indians continued quiet many years, until by

familiar intercourse, and the use of fire-arms, they became more

emboldened, and engaged in the war in 1675, which issued in their total

destruction. _Records of United Colonies._”

Footnote 255:

Allen says of him, in his Dictionary, “His fine genius was improved by a

liberal education in the Universities of Cambridge and of Dublin, and by

travel upon the continent. He arrived at Boston, in October, 1635, with

authority to make a settlement in Connecticut, and the next month

despatched a number of persons to build a fort at Saybrook. He was

chosen Governor in 1657, and again in 1659, and from that period he was

annually re-elected till his death. In 1661, he went to England, and

procured a charter, incorporating Connecticut and New-Haven into one

colony. He died at Boston, April 5, 1676, in the 71st year of his age.

He possessed a rich variety of knowledge, and was particularly skilled

in chemistry and physic. His valuable qualities as a gentleman, a

christian, a philosopher, and a magistrate, secured to him universal

respect.”

Footnote 256:

Mr. Williams commonly employed the numerical mode of referring to the

month and day of the week. He usually added to the date the words (so

called) or (ut vulgo), intimating some dissent from the common

computation of time; but what his own views were does not appear. The

pertinacity with which he adhered to this practice is characteristic of

his punctilious regard to trifles, when he thought truth was concerned.

Footnote 257:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 258:

A vote passed, granting Mr. Williams “leave to suffer a native to kill

fowl at Narraganset, and to sell a little wine or strong waters to some

natives in sickness.”

Footnote 259:

In some considerations respecting rates, written in 1681, Mr. Williams

says: “No charters are obtained without great suit, favor, or charges.

Our first cost one hundred pounds, (though I never received it all,) our

second about a thousand, Connecticut about six thousand.” Mr. Williams

was afterwards accused by Mr. Coddington, as a hireling, who, for the

sake of money, went to England for the charter! See Coddington’s letter,

at the end of New-England Firebrand Quenched.

Footnote 260:

A sachem of the Nianticks, a branch of the Narraganset tribe. Ninigret’s

principal residence, and the centre of his dominions, was at Wekapaug,

now Westerly, Rhode-Island. It was formerly a part of Stonington,

Connecticut. Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 212.

Footnote 261:

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

Footnote 262:

Journal, vol. ii. 220. Mr. Savage says, in a note, “I rejoice in the

defeat of this futile claim by Plymouth, and equally rejoice in the ill

success of the attempt by our own people.”

We may appropriately introduce here a remarkable document, found in the

Massachusetts Records, vol. 3, p. 47:

“Sir, we received lately out of England a charter from the authority of

the High Court of Parliament, bearing date 10 December, 1643, whereby

the Narraganset Bay, and a certain tract of land wherein Providence and

the Island of Aquetneck are included, which we thought fit to give you

and other of our countrymen in those parts notice of, that you may

forbear to exercise any jurisdiction therein, otherwise to appear at our

next General Court, to be holden the first fourth day of the eighth

month, to show by what right you claim any such jurisdiction, for which

purpose yourself and others, your neighbors, shall have free liberty to

come, stay and sojourn, as the occasion of the said business may

require.

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

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

INCREASE NOWELL, Secretary.”

No notice of this charter has been found in Winthrop, Hutchinson, or

Holmes’ Annals. Mr. Williams, in his letter to Major Mason, says:

“Some time after the Pequod war, and our charter from the Parliament,

the government of Massachusetts wrote to myself (then chief officer in

this colony) of their receiving of a patent from the Parliament for

these vacant lands, as an addition to the Massachusetts, &c. and

thereupon requiring me to exercise no more authority, &c. for they

wrote, their charter was granted some weeks before ours. I returned what

I believed righteous and weighty to the hands of my true friend, Mr.

Winthrop, the first mover of my coming into these parts, and to that

answer of mine I never received the least reply; only it is certain,

that at Mr. Gorton’s complaint against the Massachusetts, the Lord High

Admiral, President, said openly, in a full meeting of the Commissioners,

that he knew no other charter for these parts than what Mr. Williams had

obtained, and he was sure that charter, which the Massachusetts

Englishmen pretended, had never passed the table.”

This whole transaction is somewhat mysterious. The rulers in

Massachusetts were too upright to assert the existence of such a

document, if they had it not in their possession. They were too honest

and too politic to forge one, the spuriousness of which could easily be

detected. There was, undoubtedly, some mistake, and the silence of the

historians corroborates the representation given above by Mr. Williams.

Footnote 263:

Backus, vol. i. p. 194–5.

Footnote 264:

This letter has no date, nor direction; but it was evidently written to

Mr. Winthrop, not long after the preceding letter.

Footnote 265:

This letter has no date. It was probably written near the first of

December, 1648. It is endorsed, by Mr. Winthrop, “rec’d. Dec’r.”

Footnote 266:

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

April, 1649.

Footnote 267:

“Concerning.” Though the original of this letter is much torn, the blank

following the above word is the only one which I was not able

satisfactorily to make out or supply. The fragments of a few letters

look more like parts of the word “Nenekunat” (Ninigret) than any other.

Between that sachem and Wequashcook, as appears from another letter of

Roger Williams, there was a misunderstanding.

G.

Footnote 268:

Vol. i. p. 207.

Footnote 269:

Providence Records.

Footnote 270:

Rev. Mr. Clarke was the founder and pastor of the first Baptist church

in Newport. Mr. Holmes was, a short time before these transactions,

presented by a grand jury to the General Court at Plymouth, because he

and a few others had set up a Baptist meeting in Seekonk. He removed to

Newport, and after Dr. Clarke’s death, was his successor, as Pastor. He

had, at the time he was imprisoned and whipped, a wife and eight

children.

Footnote 271:

Backus, vol. i. p. 215.

Footnote 272:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 367.

Footnote 273:

Mr. Winthrop had considerable skill in medicine. The benevolent zeal of

Mr. Williams for the welfare of the Indians, shows itself on all

occasions.

Footnote 274:

Mr. Hazel was an old man of threescore years. He was one of Mr. Holmes’

brethren, from Seekonk, and had travelled fifty miles to visit him in

prison. The old man died before he reached home.

Footnote 275:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 377.

Footnote 276:

Mr. Neal (vol. iv. ch. 1) says, that after the death of Charles I. the

House of Commons assumed the government, “the House of Lords was voted

useless, and the office of a king unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous.

The form of government for the future was declared to be a free

commonwealth, the executive power lodged in the hands of a Council of

State of forty persons, with full power to take care of the whole

administration for one year. New keepers of the great seal were

appointed, from whom the judges received their commissions. The oaths of

allegiance and supremacy were abolished, and a new one appointed, called

the _engagement_, which was, to be true and faithful to the government

established, without King or House of Peers.”

As great a change took place in ecclesiastical affairs. Episcopacy was

abolished, by law, in 1646; a Directory was substituted for the Liturgy,

a large part of the livings were distributed among the Presbyterian

clergy, and finally, in 1649, Presbyterianism was declared, by act of

Parliament, to be the established religion. The Presbyterians were fully

as tenacious of the _divine right_ of their polity as the Episcopalians

were of theirs; and Dissenters were treated with nearly as much rigor

under the Presbyterian rule, as they were by the Prelates. The

Presbyterians refused to grant toleration to the Independents, and

insisted on their submission. A number of the Presbyterian ministers and

elders in London published a piece, in 1649, “in which they represent

the doctrine of universal toleration as contrary to godliness, opening a

door to libertinism and profaneness, and a tenet to be rejected as a

soul poison.” The ministers of Lancashire published a paper, in 1648, in

which they remonstrated against toleration, “as putting a cup of poison

into the hands of a child, and a sword into that of a madman; as letting

loose madmen, with firebrands in their hands, and appointing a city of

refuge in men’s consciences for the devil to fly to; and instead of

providing for tender consciences, taking away all conscience.” Neal,

vol. iii. p. 313. The Presbyterians might well dislike Cromwell, who

curbed their intolerant spirit. They had time for reflection, when, at

the restoration, the Episcopal clergy expelled thousands of them from

their livings, and treated them as they had treated their Independent

brethren.

Footnote 277:

The application was signed by sixty-five inhabitants of Newport, who are

said to have been, at that time, almost all the free male inhabitants.

Forty-one of the inhabitants of Portsmouth signed a like request.

Backus, vol. i. p. 274. These facts imply, that Mr. Coddington’s party

was not very large, and that his conduct was unjustifiable.

Footnote 278:

In a letter, written in 1677, he says, that “he gave up his trading

house at Narraganset, when he last went to England, with one hundred

pounds profit per annum.”

Footnote 279:

This reason was, his banishment from Massachusetts. There was much

delicacy in thus slightly referring to a measure, in which Mr.

Winthrop’s father was, from his official relations, concerned.

Footnote 280:

Backus, vol. i. p. 272.

Footnote 281:

Providence Records. This letter was written, apparently, in accordance

with the following act, passed on the 3d of June preceding: “Whereas we

have received divers loving letters from our agent, Mr. Roger Williams,

in England, wherein the careful proceedings are manifested unto us

concerning our public affairs, and yet no answering letters of

encouragement have been sent unto him from this colony; therefore the

town doth take it into consideration, and orders to make arrangements

for a committee of the two towns of Warwick and Providence to write to

him.”

Footnote 282:

Vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 283:

Sir Henry Vane was born in England. He was a non-conformist, and he came

to New-England in 1635. The next year he was elected Governor of

Massachusetts, though he was only twenty-four years of age. He became a

follower of Mrs. Hutchinson, and was soon superseded by Governor

Winthrop. He returned to England, where he took a decided part against

the King, and opposed Cromwell. After the restoration, he was executed

for high treason, June 14, 1662, aged fifty years. He died with great

firmness and dignity. He appears to have been an able man, sincerely

pious, and a true friend of liberty.

Footnote 284:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 285–8.

Footnote 285:

Backus, vol. i. p. 288.

Footnote 286:

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

Footnote 287:

It appears, that while Mr. Williams was in England, he was obliged to

provide for his own support, while his large family, we may presume,

were injured by his absence. The General Assembly of the towns of

Providence and Warwick, expressed in a letter, their regret, that they

could not send him money, in consequence of their domestic trials, but

informed him that they meant to aid his family. In his “Bloody Tenet

made more Bloody,” he mentions his exertions to supply the poor in

London with fuel, during the civil wars; to which service he was led,

probably, by his benevolent and active temper, as well as by the desire

to obtain a subsistence. He says: “I can tell, that when these

discussions were prepared for the public in London, his time was eaten

up in attendance upon the service of the Parliament and city, for the

supply of the poor of the city with wood, during the stop of the coal

from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for firing [for which

service, he adds in a note, through the hurry of the times and the

necessity of his departure, he lost his recompense to this day.] It is

true, he might have run the road of preferment, as well in Old as in

New-England, and have had the leisure and time of such who eat and drink

with the drunken, and smite with the fist of wickedness their

fellow-servants.” (p. 38.) In his letter to the town of Providence, in

1654, he says, “I was unfortunately fetched and drawn from my

employment, and sent to so vast distance from my family to do your work

of a high and costly nature, for so many days, and weeks, and months

together, and there left to starve, or steal, or beg, or borrow. But

blessed be God, who gave me favor to borrow one while, and to work

another, and thereby to pay your debts there, and to come over with your

credit and honor, as an agent from you, who had in your name grappled

with the agents and friends of all your enemies round about you.” Few

stronger examples of disinterested patriotism could be found in any age

or country.

Footnote 288:

The names of the commissioners, are preserved by Backus, vol. i. p. 296,

copied from the Providence records.

Footnote 289:

There is a slight anachronism here. It was in May, 1664, that the

General Assembly “ordered, that the seal with the motto _Rhode Island

and Providence Plantations_, with the word _Hope_ over the anchor, be

the present seal of the colony.” The seal adopted in 1647, when the

government was organized under the first charter, bore simply an anchor.

Footnote 290:

Ninigret returned a haughty answer to a message from the commissioners.

He said, that he attacked the Long-Island Indians, because they had

killed a sachem’s son, and sixty of his men, and he would not make peace

with them. He asked of the commissioners, in a tone, which showed that

he considered the Narragansets as a perfectly independent nation: “If

your Governor’s son was slain, and several other men, would you ask

counsel of _another nation_ when and how to right yourselves?”

Footnote 291:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 172.

Footnote 292:

Governor Winthrop died, at Boston, on the 26th of March, 1649, in the

62d year of his age. He was born in Groton, Suffolk, (Eng.) January 12,

1588. He was a justice of peace at the age of eighteen. He had an estate

of six or seven hundred pounds a year, which he turned into money, and

embarked his all to promote the settlement of New-England. He was eleven

times chosen Governor of Massachusetts, and spent his whole estate in

the public service. His son and grandson were successively Governors of

Connecticut. He was a great and good man. His Journal is a monument to

his memory—“ære perennius.” He was a sincere friend of Roger Williams,

though he disapproved his principles, and Mr. Williams always spoke of

him with strong affection.

Footnote 293:

Cromwell.

Footnote 294:

This name is spelled in several different ways.

Footnote 295:

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

Footnote 296:

The General Assembly voted, that Mr. Williams should keep Cromwell’s

letter and the charter in his possession, in behalf of the colony.

Footnote 297:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 172, after stating, that an application from

Newport, for powder and other ammunition was rejected, says, “it was an

error, (in state policy at last) not to support them, for though they

were desperately erroneous, and in such distractions among themselves as

portended their ruin, yet, if the Indians should prevail against them,

it would be a great advantage to the Indians and danger to the whole

country.” About the year 1655, Mr. Clarke sent over from England four

barrels of powder, and eight of shot and bullets, which were consigned

to Mr. Williams, and left, by order of the General Assembly, in his

possession. While provision was thus made for defence against the

Indians, measures were adopted to prevent hostilities. At a town meeting

in Providence, June 24, 1655, at which Mr. Williams was moderator, it

was voted, that if any person should sell a gallon of wine or spirits to

an Indian, either directly or indirectly, he should forfeit six pounds,

one half to the informer, and the other half to the town. Among the

measures adopted for defence, was the following order, passed in town

meeting, March 6, 1655–6: “Ordered, that liberty is given to as many as

please to erect a fortification upon the Stamper’s Hill, or about their

own houses.”

Footnote 298:

This religious society, says Hannah Adams, “began to be distinguished

about the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first

promulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647, for which he

was imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following

at Derby. The appellation of _Quakers_, was given them by way of

contempt; some say, on account of their _tremblings_ under the

impression of divine things; but _they_ say it was first given them by

one of the magistrates, who committed George Fox to prison, on account

of his bidding him and those about him to _tremble_ at the word of the

Lord.” They have since called themselves Friends. The wild fanaticism of

some of the early adherents of the sect, no more resembles the quiet

demeanor of the pious Friends of the present day, than the policy of

Massachusetts in 1656, was like the spirit of our own times.

Footnote 299:

“At Boston, one George Wilson, and at Cambridge, Elizabeth Horton, went

crying through the streets, that the Lord was coming with fire and sword

to plead with them. Thomas Newhouse went into the meeting-house at

Boston with a couple of glass bottles, and broke them before the

congregation, and threatened, ‘Thus will the Lord break you in pieces.’

Another time, M. Brewster came in with her face besmeared, and as black

as a coal. Deborah Wilson went through the streets of Salem, naked as

she came into the world, for which she was well whipped.”—Hutchinson,

vol. i. p. 187.

Footnote 300:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 454.—The letter is signed by Benedict Arnold,

President; William Baulston, Randall Houlden, Arthur Fenner, and William

Feild.

Footnote 301:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 313–316.

Footnote 302:

In his “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes,” (p. 20,) Mr. Williams

says of Mr. Harris, his “facts and courses others (of no small authority

and prudence among us, with whom I advised) saw to be desperate high

treason against the laws of our mother England, and of the colony also.”

He then inquires, “was it my fury (as you call it) or was it not honesty

and duty to God and the colony, and the higher powers then in England,

to act faithfully and impartially in the place wherein I then stood

sentinel?”

Footnote 303:

The origin of this unhappy quarrel is unknown. There were, probably,

faults on both sides. They both used very angry and unjustifiable

language towards each other. It appears that Mr. Williams so disliked

Mr. Harris, that he would not write his name at length, but abbreviated

it thus, “W. Har:” This mode of writing is seen in the fac simile

prefixed to this volume. It seems evident, that Mr. Harris had, for some

cause, a remarkable aptitude to get into difficulties. A letter of the

town of Providence, to the “Honored Governor and Council at Newport on

Rhode-Island,” dated August 31, 1668, and signed “Shadrach Manton, town

clerk,” accuses him of turbulent conduct. In 1667, there was a great

disturbance at Providence, excited, as it appears, by him. Two town

meetings were held, and two sets of deputies chosen to the General

Assembly, among whom was Mr. Harris. He was, however, expelled from the

General Assembly, and fined fifty pounds, which fine was remitted the

next year.—Backus, vol. i. p. 457. We may hope, that Mr. Harris, though

he doubtless had faults, was less culpable, than his contemporaries

thought him. It was an unquiet time, and few public men escaped censure.

Footnote 304:

In the records of the town of Providence, is the following act: “June 2,

1657. Ordered, that Mr. Roger Williams be accommodated with two acres

and a half of land amongst the rest of the neighbors, at the further

Bailey’s Cove, he laying down land equivalent to it, in the judgment of

the town deputies.”

Footnote 305:

Pope (Essay on Man, Ep. iv. l. 284,) has aided in confirming the

prejudice against Cromwell, by his famous line:

“See Cromwell damned to everlasting fame.”

Pope sometimes sacrificed truth to a brilliant couplet. The two lines

which immediately precede the one just quoted are a specimen:

“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shined,

The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.”

Public opinion now does not sustain the poet, in stigmatizing the great

Bacon as the “meanest of mankind,” but views him as more sinned against

than sinning. We may learn from these examples, how great is the

responsibleness of popular authors. By a single line they may perpetuate

calumny. They may poison the wells of knowledge.

Footnote 306:

Examples might be cited, of language like this, in American authors.

They show the effect of a discreditable deference to foreign writers.

But all American authors are not disposed to echo the infidel and tory

opinions of England. Dr. Stiles, in his History of the Judges, defended

Cromwell; and a writer in the Christian Spectator, for September, 1829,

has vindicated the character of the Protector, with ability and

eloquence.

Footnote 307:

History of England, chapter lxi.

Footnote 308:

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

Footnote 309:

Works, vol. i. p. 149.

Footnote 310:

Neal, vol. iv. p. 101.

Footnote 311:

The Protector’s exertions to relieve and protect the unhappy Waldenses,

who were at that time suffering a merciless persecution, claim for him

the gratitude of every friend of religion and liberty. He appointed a

day of national humiliation and prayer throughout all England and Wales,

and ordered that a collection should be made in all the houses of

worship, for the relief of the sufferers. He himself headed a

subscription, with the liberal donation of two thousand pounds, and in a

short time the large sum of nearly forty thousand pounds was raised and

transmitted. Not contented with this measure, he sent letters to the

Duke of Savoy, the inhuman persecutor, and to several of the princes of

Europe, for the purpose of procuring deliverance for the miserable

remnants of the Waldenses. The potent voice of the formidable Protector,

which none of the monarchs of that day ventured to despise, uttered, as

it was, by the powerful pen of Milton, the Latin Secretary, had some

effect, though less than he hoped, to soften the rage of bigotry and

persecution. The following sonnet was written by Milton on this

occasion:

“_On the late Massacre in Piedmont._

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones

Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains, cold;

E’en them, who kept thy truth so pure of old,

When all our fathers worship’d stocks and stones,

Forget not; in thy book record their groans,

Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold

Slain by the bloody Piedmontese, that roll’d

Mother and infant down the rocks. Their moans

The vales redoubled to the hills, and they

To Heaven. Their martyr’d blood and ashes sow

O’er all th’ Italian fields, where still doth sway

The triple tyrant; that from these may grow

A hundred fold, who, having learned thy way,

Early may fly the Babylonian woe.”

Footnote 312:

Judging from the rapid progress of free principles in England, it would

not be surprising if Cromwell should, ere long, be recognised as one of

the great leaders in the struggle for freedom. Mr. Ivirney, in his life

of Milton, (p. 131,) says of Cromwell, “for whose statue I venture to

bespeak a niche among the illustrious dead in Westminster Abbey; not

doubting, from recent events, but the time will come, when the governors

of the nation will be so sensible of the obligations of Britain to that

illustrious ruler and his noble compatriots, as maugre the mean power of

ignorance and prejudice, will decree him a monumental inscription in the

sepulchres of our kings.”

Footnote 313:

The colony of Rhode-Island adopted an address to Richard Cromwell, of

which the following is an extract. The address was never presented:

“May it please your Highness to know, that this poor colony of

Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a birth and breeding of the

Providence of the Most High, we being an outcast people, formerly from

our mother nation, in the bishops’ days, and since from the New-English

over-zealous colonies; our whole frame being like unto the present frame

and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing with the several

judgments and consciences each of other in all the towns of our colony,

which our neighbor colonies do not, which is the only cause of their

great offence against us. Sir, we dare not interrupt your high affairs

with the particulars of our wilderness condition, only beg your eye of

favor to be cast upon our faithful Agent, Mr. John Clarke, and unto what

humble addresses he shall at any time present your Highness with in our

behalf.”—Backus, vol. i. pp. 316–17.

Footnote 314:

An interesting account of the fruitless endeavors of the Presbyterians

to effect this object, is given in Orme’s Life of Baxter, chapter vii.

Footnote 315:

August 23, 1659, a rate of fifty pounds was voted for his use, of which

Newport was to pay twenty, Providence eleven, Portsmouth ten, and

Warwick nine. May 21, 1661, two hundred pounds sterling were voted, of

which Newport was to pay eighty-five, Providence forty, Portsmouth

forty, and Warwick thirty-five. Subsequent appropriations, to the amount

of three hundred and six pounds, are found on the records. The relative

size of the towns may be inferred from the above apportionment. Newport

was more than twice as large as Providence. A record of the names of the

freemen in the several towns, in 1655, states the numbers thus: Newport,

eighty-three; Portsmouth, fifty-two; Providence, forty-two; Warwick,

thirty-eight—total, two hundred and fifteen.

Footnote 316:

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

Footnote 317:

A document exists, purporting to be an act of the town, with a preface,

signed by Gregory Dexter, and entitled “An instrument, or sovereign

plaster, to heal the manifold sores in this town or plantation of

Providence, which do arise about lands.” This document says: “1st. That

act, to divide to the men of Pawtuxet twenty miles, is hereby declared

against as unjust and unreasonable, not being healthful, but hurtful. 2.

Whereas great and manifold troubles have befallen both ourselves and the

whole colony, by reason of that phrase, “up streams without limits, we

might have for the use of our cattle,” for preventing future contention,

we declare that our bounds are limited in our town evidences, and by us

stated, about twenty years since, and known to be the river and fields

of Pawtucket, Sugar Loaf Hill, Bewett’s Brow, Observation Rock, Absolute

Swamp, Oxford and Hipe’s Rock. **** No other privilege, by virtue of the

said phrase, to be challenged by this town, viz. that if the cattle went

beyond the bounds prefixed in the said deed granted to him, [Mr.

Williams] then the owners of the cattle should be no trespassers, the

cattle going so far in one day to feed as they might come home at night.

3. And whereas some of us have desired of the colony leave to purchase

for this town some enlargement, which was granted, and by the great

diligence of our said neighbor, Williams, with the natives, more land is

bought, adjoining your said bounds,” &c.

Footnote 318:

In 1659, Mr. John Winthrop, Major Humphrey Atherton, and associates,

purchased of the Narraganset sachems two tracts of land, joining to the

Bay, one lying to the southward of Mr. Smith’s trading-house, and the

other to the northward of it, and settled it with inhabitants. 1 His.

Col. v. p. 217.

In 1657, Mr. William Coddington and Mr. Benedict Arnold purchased, of

the same sachems, the island Canonicut, which, in 1678, was incorporated

as a township, by the name of Jamestown. Ibid.

In the same year, Mr. John Hull, Mr. John Porter, and three persons

more, purchased a large tract of land, in the southern parts of the

Narraganset country, and called Petaquamscut Purchase. Ibid.

Footnote 319:

Hubbard, chap. lxiv.

Footnote 320:

Hawes’ Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims, p. 149.

Footnote 321:

Dr. Wisner’s Historical Discourses, p. 10.

Footnote 322:

Hawes’ Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims, p. 150.

Footnote 323:

A resolution to alter the third article of the Constitution of

Massachusetts, as a preparatory step towards the repeal of the laws for

the support of religion by taxation, has been adopted by the people,

since the text was written. It will, undoubtedly, be followed by a

repeal of the laws.

Footnote 324:

It is an honorable proof of steadiness of character in the people of

Rhode-Island, that they have continued to prosper under this charter for

one hundred and seventy years. No interruption of the government has

occurred during this long period, and no attempt has been made to resist

it. No community ever enjoyed more perfect freedom, and yet none was

ever more quiet and obedient to the laws. It is a gratifying evidence,

that a truly free government is more stable than any other. The growth

of the State has made some provisions of the charter operate unjustly.

Providence, for example, with sixteen thousand inhabitants, sends only

four representatives to the General Assembly, while Portsmouth, with

seventeen hundred inhabitants, sends four, and Newport, with eight

thousand, sends six. An attempt was made, a few years since, to obtain a

new Constitution, but it did not succeed.

Footnote 325:

See the charter, Appendix, G.

Footnote 326:

It is worthy of notice, that on May 9, 1663, the town of Providence

voted, that “one hundred acres of upland and six acres of meadow shall

be reserved for the maintenance of a school in this town.”

Footnote 327:

At this session, Captain John Cranston was licensed to practise physic,

with the title of “Doctor of Physic and Chirurgery.”

Footnote 328:

Mr. Williams felt a great esteem for Mr. Clarke. In the library of Brown

University, is a copy of “The Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody,” bequeathed

to the library by the Rev. Isaac Backus. On a blank leaf are these

words, in Mr. Williams’ hand writing: “For his honored and beloved Mr.

John Clarke, an eminent witness of Christ Jesus, against the Bloody

Doctrine of Persecution, &c.”

Footnote 329:

For documents on the subject of boundaries, see 1 His. Col. v. pp.

216–252. See also, 2 His. Col. vii. pp. 75–113, Rhode-Island State

Papers, furnished by the Hon. Samuel Eddy.

Footnote 330:

Political Annals, b. i. c. xi. pp. 276, 279.

Footnote 331:

Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 336.

Footnote 332:

Walsh’s “Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain,” pp. 427–435.

Footnote 333:

This was the Rhode-Island doctrine and practice from the beginning. It

was deeply rooted in all hearts. Among the deputies to the General

Assembly, in 1675, the name, “_Toleration_ Harris,” occurs.

Footnote 334:

He says, in this year, that Rhode-Island colony “has been a colluvies of

Antinomians, Familists, Anabaptists, Antisabbatarians, Arminians,

Socinians, Quakers, Ranters, every thing in the world but _Roman

Catholics_ and true Christians—though of the latter, I hope, there have

been more than of the former among them.”—Magnalia, b. vii. c. iii. s.

12.

Footnote 335:

Magnalia, b. vii. c. ii. §8.

Footnote 336:

In thus living disconnected with any church, he followed the example of

Milton and Cromwell. Of Milton, Toland says: “In his early days, he was

a favorer of those Protestants, then opprobriously called by the name of

Puritans. In his middle years, he was best pleased with the Independents

and Anabaptists, as allowing of more liberty than others, and coming

nearest, in his opinion, to the primitive practice; but in the latter

part of his life, he was not a professed member of any particular sect

among Christians; he frequented none of their assemblies, nor made use

of their peculiar rites in his family.” Ivirney’s Life of Milton, p.

251.

Footnote 337:

In a letter, dated May 8, 1682, he requests Governor Bradstreet, of

Boston, to assist him in printing some “discourses, which (by many

tedious journies) I have had with the _scattered English_ at

Narraganset, before the war, [Philip’s war, of 1675–6] and since.” 2

His. Col. viii. p. 197.

Footnote 338:

Mr. Williams says, that Mr. Eliot promised a suit of clothes to an old

Indian, who, not understanding him, asked another Indian, what Mr. Eliot

said. This reminds us of the well known anecdote respecting his

translation of the Bible:—While Eliot was engaged in translating the

Bible into the Indian language, he came to the following passage in

Judges, 5:28: “The mother of Sisera looked out at the window, and cried

through the _lattice_,” &c. Not knowing an Indian word to signify

lattice, he applied to several of the natives, and endeavored to

describe to them what a lattice resembled. He described it as frame

work, netting, wicker, or whatever occurred to him as illustrative, when

they gave him a long, barbarous and unpronouncable word, as are most of

the words in their language. Some years after, when he had learned their

dialect more correctly, he is said to have laughed outright, upon

finding that the Indians had given him the true term for _eel-pot_. “The

mother of Sisera looked out at the window, and cried through the

_eel-pot_.” Bigelow’s History of Natick, p. 84. This anecdote

illustrates the difficulties of translating, and may suggest a useful

caution to translators.

Footnote 339:

“February 19, 1665. Ordered, That Roger Williams shall have his first

choice, after William Hawkins and John Steere, of the fifty acres of

land on the east side of the north line, which beginneth seven miles

from Fox’s Hill, west.”

“June 4, 1666. It is granted unto Roger Williams, that he may change

three acres of land lying in the neck, and take it up somewhere about

the third lake, if it may, with conveniency, without damage to the

highways, or other men’s lands, which are already laid out.”

September 30, 1667, he was allowed to change three acres of land, which

was laid out to him, in addition to his house lot, and take it up in any

part of the common which is not prohibited.

May 2, 1667, there were laid out to him “fifty acres between the seven

mile and the four line.” This four mile line seems to have been the

original line, about four miles west from Fox’s Hill. Additional land

being purchased of the Indians, the seven mile line was established,

June 4, 1660, beginning seven miles west of Fox’s Hill, and running

north to Pawtucket river, and south to Pawtuxet river.

Footnote 340:

John Howland, Esq. says: “I think there must have been a bridge at

Weybosset before 1712.” Perhaps the bridge ordered to be built over

Moshassuck river, in 1662, and to which Mr. Williams’ letter may refer,

was intended to be somewhere between the present Great Bridge and

Smith’s Bridge, for the purpose of getting access to the natural meadows

at the head of the cove. The mention of “hay time,” and the references

of Mr. Williams to the “hopes of meadow,” may strengthen this

supposition. Mr. Howland says, “I have frequently been told by Nathan

Waterman, that teams and men on horseback used to cross the river

(before his day) across the clam bed, opposite Angell’s land (at low

tide) and land somewhere on the western shore. The Thomas Olney lot was

where the Knight Dexter tavern now is, and Angell’s was the next south,

including part of the Baptist meeting-house lot, and Steeple street. In

front of this, lay the shoal place, called the clam-bed.” May 14, 1660,

in a petition of the town to the General Assembly, against an assessment

on the town of thirty pounds, to build a prison at Newport, the town

said, that they had just spent one hundred and sixty pounds in building

a bridge. April 27, 1663, George Sheppard gave all his lands west of

seven mile line to the town, for “maintaining a bridge at Weybosset.”

Footnote 341:

R. I. Lit. Rep. vol. i. pp. 638–640.

Footnote 342:

“I had in mine eye the vindicating of this colony for receiving of such

persons whom others would not. We suffer for their sakes, and are

accounted their abettors. That, therefore, together with the improvement

of our liberties, which the God of heaven and our King’s Majesty have

graciously given, I might give a public testimony against their

opinions, in such a way and exercise, I judged it incumbent upon my

spirit and conscience to do it (in some regards) more than most in the

colony.” p. 26.

Footnote 343:

This remarkable man was born at Drayton, in Leicestershire, in 1624. He

was placed as an apprentice to a grazier, but, at the age of nineteen,

he thought himself called to forsake every thing else, and devote

himself to religion. In 1648, he began to preach, and adopted the

peculiar language and manners which have distinguished his followers. He

incurred persecution, was often imprisoned, and treated with great

severity. In 1669, he married, and soon after visited America, where he

remained two years, and made many proselytes. He returned to England,

and after many sufferings, he died in 1690, in the sixty-seventh year of

his age. His works form three folio volumes. “He was undoubtedly a man

of strong natural parts, and William Penn speaks in high terms of his

meekness, humility and temperance.”—Ency. Amer. art. George Fox.

Footnote 344:

The letters were sent, through some friends of Mr. Fox, to the Deputy

Governor Cranston. They were dated July 13, but Mr. Cranston did not

receive them till the 26th, which, as he said, excited his surprise.

There was some room for suspicion, that the letters were purposely

concealed till Mr. Fox had gone.

Footnote 345:

“God graciously assisted me in rowing all day, with my old bones, so

that I got to Newport toward the midnight before the morning appointed.”

p. 24.

Footnote 346:

In the General Assembly, in 1672, it was voted, that the deputies should

receive two shillings per day. A law was passed, exempting from military

duty persons who had conscientious scruples. On September 2, 1673, it

was enacted, that every person who sold liquor, so that any one became

drunk, or who kept a gaming house, should be fined six shillings.

Constables were appointed to watch on the “first day of the week”

against all “deboystness.” There was, about this time, a trial of an

Indian, by a jury, half of whom were Indians. In 1679, a fine of five

shillings was imposed for employing an Indian or other servant on the

first day; and the same fine, or sitting in the stocks three hours, for

gaming, playing, shooting, or sitting drinking in an alehouse “more than

necessity requireth,” on the first day. It does not appear, that there

was any rule, by which to judge of the “necessity.” The doctrine of

total abstinence was then unknown.

On the 11th of March, 1674–5, Mr. Williams acknowledged the receipt from

Benjamin Hernden of six shillings, ninepence, making up eleven pounds,

“for the house and land sold to him, which was John Clawson’s.”

Footnote 347:

Backus, vol. i. p. 510.

Footnote 348:

Callender, p. 73.

Footnote 349:

Backus, vol. i. p. 418.

Footnote 350:

Hubbard’s Narrative, p. 55, edition of 1775. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 406,

says, that the Narragansets, in 1675, were supposed to have 2000

warriors. Mr. Callender, p. 75, thinks that Hubbard’s and Hutchinson’s

accounts may be reconciled, by supposing that the four thousand warriors

to be raised by the Narragansets included other Indians within their

influence.

Footnote 351:

Callender, p. 75.

Footnote 352:

The following memorandum appears on the records of Providence, about

August 30, 1676, after the death of Philip:

“By God’s providence, it seasonably came to pass, that Providence

Williams brought up his mother from Newport in his sloop, and cleared

the town by his vessel of all the Indians, to the great peace and

content of all the inhabitants.” The Indians, here mentioned, were

probably prisoners.

Footnote 353:

Baylies’ History of Plymouth, part iii. p. 114. Thatcher’s Indian

Biography, vol. i. p. 309. Backus, vol. i. p. 424.

Footnote 354:

Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 162. Morton, Appendix A. A. p.

425.

Footnote 355:

Backus, vol. i. p. 466.

Footnote 356:

Mr. Harris soon after went to England, on this business, but the vessel

was captured by an Algerine or Tunisian corsair, and he was sold for a

slave. His family, in Rhode-Island, redeemed him; by the sale of a part

of his property. He arrived in England, but died there. He was an able

man, and we may hope, a good man, notwithstanding some infirmities. His

quarrels with Roger Williams were very discreditable to them both. On

which side the most blame lay, we cannot now decide.

Footnote 357:

Backus, vol. i. p. 421.

Footnote 358:

In 1679, a fine of five shillings was enacted for “riding gallop in

Providence street.” This implies, that the town was becoming populous

again, after the Indian war, during which it suffered much. Previously

to the war it contained about 500 inhabitants, but many of them removed

to Newport. A rate of sixty pounds, ordered in 1679, was apportioned

thus: Newport, eighteen; Portsmouth, eleven; Providence, four; Warwick,

four; Westerly, four; New-Shoreham, four; Kingstown, six;

East-Greenwich, three; Jamestown, six.

Footnote 359:

Referring to the great comet of 1680. which was supposed to have

approached so near to the sun, as to be heated two thousand times hotter

than red hot iron.

Footnote 360:

2 His. Col. viii. p. 196.

Footnote 361:

Page 110.

Footnote 362:

Backus, vol. i. p. 515.

Footnote 363:

She was certainly alive in November, 1679.—Backus, vol. i. p. 478.

Footnote 364:

See Appendix H. for some account of his grave, and of his family.

Footnote 365:

Bloody Tenet, p. 18.

Footnote 366:

The copy now before me belongs to the library of Harvard College, having

been borrowed in accordance with the very liberal regulations of that

noble collection of books. This copy was presented by the second Thomas

Hollis, and it contains, on the title page, in his hand writing, I

presume, the words, “_A curious tract._” It is pleasant to connect the

names of Williams and Hollis.

Footnote 367:

It was prepared under great disadvantages. He says: “When these

discussions were prepared for the public, in London, his time was eaten

up in attendance upon the service of the Parliament and city, for the

supply of the poor of the city with wood, (during the stop of the coal

from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for firing.) These

meditations were fitted for public view in change of rooms and corners,

yea, sometimes (upon occasions of travel in the country, concerning that

business of fuel,) in variety of strange houses, sometimes in the

fields, in the midst of travel, where he hath been forced to gather and

scatter his loose thoughts and papers.” Bloody Tenet made More Bloody,

p. 38.

Footnote 368:

2 Cor. 5: 11, 20.

Footnote 369:

Mark, 16: 16.

Footnote 370:

Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 14.

Footnote 371:

“Humani juris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere.

Sed nec religionis est cogeere religionem, quæ suscipitsponte debet, non

vi.”

Footnote 372:

Bloody Tenet, p. 185.

Footnote 373:

Bloody Tenet, p. 214.

Footnote 374:

The laws, in some of our States, which make clergymen ineligible to

certain civil offices, are unjust, and inconsistent with our republican

institutions. Every man has equal civil rights, and the exclusion of any

class of men from the enjoyment of any of those rights, is an odious

proscription. It is, indeed, desirable, that no clergyman should accept

a civil office, because his duties as a minister of the Gospel ought to

be sufficient to occupy his mind. But he has a right, as a citizen, to

be elected to any office; and to exclude him is an assumption of the

power to establish a national religion, for if a man may be excluded

from office, because he is a minister, he may, by the same authority, be

invested with office, because he is a minister. It is remarkable, that

those who clamor so loudly against church and state, do not see any

inconsistency in the exclusion of clergymen, as such, from office.

Footnote 375:

Life of Jeremy Taylor, Am. ed. p. 37.

Footnote 376:

Mr. Williams speaks of this work, in his rejoinder to Mr. Cotton’s

reply: “Dr. J. Taylor, what an everlasting monumental testimony did he

publish to this truth, in that his excellent discourse of the Liberty of

Prophesying.” pp. 316–17.

Footnote 377:

Works, vol. x. pp. 45–7.

Footnote 378:

In 1649, the Assembly of Maryland enacted, “that no persons _professing

to believe in Jesus Christ_, shall be molested, in respect of their

religion, or in the free exercise thereof, or be compelled to the belief

or practice of any other religion, against their consent, so that they

be not unfaithful to the proprietary, or conspire against the civil

government. That persons molesting any other in respect of his religious

tenets shall pay treble damages to the party aggrieved, and twenty

shillings to the proprietary. That the reproaching any with opprobrious

epithets of religious distinctions, shall forfeit ten shillings to the

persons aggrieved. That any one _speaking reproachfully against the

Blessed Virgin_, or the Apostles, shall forfeit five pounds, but

blasphemy against God shall be punished with death.” Chalmers’ Pol. Ann.

vol. i. p. 218. These latter provisions might easily be made terrible

engines of persecution, in the hands of ill-disposed magistrates.

Footnote 379:

2 Mass. His. Col. viii. p. 79.

Footnote 380:

There is a thin book, in the Library of Harvard College, which purports

to be a copy of this work, but it contains only the Preface and

Dedicatory Epistles.

Footnote 381:

Alluding to the “Eikon Basilike,” a book, which purported to have been

written by Charles I. and which, it is thought, contributed to the

restoration of his son. It was, however, an imposition, Dr. Gauden being

the real author. Mr. Williams, it seems had sagacity enough to doubt its

authenticity. Milton assailed it with his “Eiconoclastes.”

Footnote 382:

N. E. Firebrand Quenched, p. 9.

Footnote 383:

See Humphrey Norton’s letter to Governor Prince, of Plymouth, Backus,

vol. i. p. 322.

Footnote 384:

Works, vol. i. p. 689.

Footnote 385:

Iliad, A. 1. 210, 211.

Footnote 386:

See pages 57 and 58 of this volume.

Footnote 387:

Century Discourse, p. 17.

Footnote 388:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 249.

Footnote 389:

Bloody Tenet, pp. 116, 243.

Footnote 390:

See Appendix I.

Footnote 391:

“Major Mason—famous for his services, while captain, in the Pequod war.

He was a soldier in the Low Countries, under Sir Thomas Fairfax, one of

the first settlers of Dorchester, Mass, in 1630. He afterwards removed

to Windsor, Conn. He put an end to the Pequod war, in 1638; was

appointed, soon after, Major General of the Connecticut forces, and in

May, 1660, was elected Deputy Governor of that colony. He died at

Norwich, in the seventy-third year of his age, in 1672 or 1673. An

account of the Pequod war was published by him, republished in Hubbard’s

Narrative, and by Rev. T. Prince. In the fourth volume of the

Massachusetts Historical Collections, a curious poem is published, of

Governor Wolcott’s, giving an account of his predecessor Winthrop’s

embassy to the Court of Charles II., to obtain a charter, in which Mason

is mentioned with the highest eulogies. Winthrop is made to give the

King a relation, among other things, of the Pequod war, and says:

‘The army now drawn up: to be their head

Our valiant Mason was commissioned;

(Whose name is never mentioned by me,

Without a special note of dignity.’)

“In granting the charter, Charles speaks thus:

‘Chief in the patent, Winthrop, thou shalt stand,

And valiant Mason place at thy next hand.’”

G.

Footnote 392:

Commonly called Massassoit.

Footnote 393:

The Scituate here mentioned, must be in Massachusetts, as there was no

town of that name in Rhode-Island till 1730.

Footnote 394:

It has been alleged, with a view to lessen Mr. Williams’ claim to the

honor of being the chief agent in establishing liberty of conscience in

Rhode-Island, that the preceding charter contains no provision for the

protection of religious liberty. But it may be replied, that the

instrument conveyed full power to establish any form of government, and

enact any laws, which the inhabitants might deem proper, provided that

they were not repugnant to the laws of England. The charter is in very

general terms. It prescribes no mode of civil government, and omits, of

course, any reference to religious affairs. The principles of Mr.

Williams and his friends were well known to the gentlemen who signed the

charter. Mr. Williams could desire nothing more than entire liberty to

the inhabitants to regulate the civil and ecclesiastical concerns of the

colony according to their own pleasure.

Footnote 395:

“Mr. Williams sold from his estate a lot, forty-eight feet wide on the

street, to Mr. Gabriel Bernon, a very respectable French gentleman, of

great property, and sincere religion, who came from Rochelle, France,

where he had suffered much, and had been imprisoned two years, on

account of his religion, which led Mr. Williams greatly to esteem and

respect him. He was born at Rochelle, April 6, 1644; lived ten years at

Newport and Narraganset, and died in Providence, February 1, 1736, in

the ninety-second year of his age. He had ten children by his first

wife, eight of whom, with herself, came with him to this State. He had

four children by his second wife, Mary Harris. He was buried under the

old Episcopal church, and was the ancestor of many respectable families,

in various parts of the State, in which are great numbers of his

posterity, connected with the names of Coddington, Helme, Whipple,

Crawford, Jenckes, Allen, Tourtellot, &c.

“The lot thus sold to Mr. Bernon contained the famous spring where Mr.

Williams landed, when he came to Providence in a canoe, with Thomas

Angell, in 1636. Governor Hutchinson says: “The inhabitants have a

veneration for a spring, which runs from the hill into the river, above

the great bridge. The sight of this spring caused him to stop his canoe,

and land there.” Mass. His. vol. ii, p. 41.

“This is the same lot where Mr. Nehemiah Dodge is now building a large

brick house, near the stone Episcopal church, a few feet eastward of the

spring, of which there is now no appearance, otherwise than at the

bottom of his well, of a considerable depth, from which it finds a

covered outlet to the river; an instance, among a thousand others, of

the great alteration in the town, since its first settlement.”

Footnote 396:

These towns were, in the order of their settlement or incorporation:

Providence, 1636; Portsmouth, 1637–8; Newport, 1638–9; Warwick, 1642–3;

Westerly, 1665; New Shoreham, 1672; East-Greenwich, 1677; Jamestown,

1678; North-Kingstown, and South-Kingstown, 1722; Smithfield, Glocester,

and Scituate, 1730; Charlestown, 1738. In 1730, the whole number of

inhabitants in the colony, was 17,935. The towns of Burrillville,

Cranston, Cumberland, Foster, Johnston, North-Providence,

Little-Compton, Middletown, Tiverton, Coventry, West-Greenwich, Exeter,

Hopkinton, Richmond, Barrington, Bristol, and Warren, have been since

added, making the total number of towns thirty-one. Population, in 1830,

97,212.

Footnote 397:

This list shows how unjustly some persons, who have chosen to vilify

Rhode-Island, have made the Baptists responsible for every thing which

was done, or neglected. The Baptists have always, perhaps, been more

numerous than any other denomination, but they have been a minority of

the whole community. In 1738, it seems, they had but nine, out of thirty

religious societies or churches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULLER’S WORKS, COMPLETE.

LINCOLN, EDMANDS & CO. have recently published this valuable work, in two

large octavo volumes, on a fair burgeois type and fine paper, at the very

reasonable price of 6 dollars. The cost of the former edition (14 dollars)

precluded many students from replenishing their libraries; and they are

now gratified in being able to possess a work so replete with _doctrinal_

arguments and _practical_ religion. No Christian can read Fuller without

having his impulses to action quickened—and every student ought to _study_

him, if he wishes to arm himself against the attempts of every enemy.

Since this edition has been issued, several periodicals have noticed it

with full commendation. We have recently given extracts from notices in

the Boston Recorder, Christian Watchman, &c.—and we now make a few

extracts from an able review of the work, which appeared in the October

number of the American Baptist Magazine. It was written by the President

of a College, at the South, and is admired for its elegant and just view

of the sentiments of this great author.

He says:—“This work, in the material and style of execution, is highly

creditable to the American press. The publishers, in issuing this work,

have conferred an obligation upon community, and will, doubtless, be

rewarded in a liberal return of their investment. Mr. Fuller was among the

few extraordinary men who have ever appeared in this world. He possessed

great vigor of intellect, an uncommon share of good sense, inflexible

integrity, and the most ardent love for truth. All his powers, therefore,

were early consecrated to the service of the church. His mind was turned,

even before he entered the ministry, to the study of those great truths,

which involve the highest honor of God, and the dearest interests of man.

These truths he embraced with all the affections of his heart, and

maintained with wonderful acuteness, and by invincible arguments; for they

were indeed the sheet-anchor of his soul. He possessed very clear and

consistent views of human depravity, and of the grounds of moral

obligation. To gain them, however, he had to endure heavy trials and

severe studies.

“The grand design of Mr. Fuller, as a writer, was to produce moral action.

He believed in the divine purpose, that the rest of heaven shall be gained

through constant vigilance and labor. In this way the Christian character

is to be formed, and the soul fitted for future blessedness. But

notwithstanding the necessity of this painful care and effort, man is much

inclined to be heedless and slothful; and this proneness has been

strengthened by ingenious and plausible theories in religion. Of this

truth Mr. Fuller had abundant evidence. In his life and travels, he

witnessed the hyper-calvinistic, or antinomian spirit, sweeping over the

churches, withering up, like the Sirocco’s blast, their vital principle,

and converting them into barren wastes. Nor was the influence of this

spirit confined to professors. Its legitimate tendency is, to keep both

saints and sinners in a state of inaction. For it exalts the former above

obligation, and sinks the latter below it. This spirit he knew had its

origin in the false notion, that human apostacy releases sinners from the

duties of piety, and that the gospel dispensation is designed to render

the law useless, and to excuse the people of God from complying with its

requirements. Over these things Mr. Fuller prayed and wept. And when he

took up his pen, it was his chief purpose to correct these errors, and

thus to rouse the church from their paralyzing influence. In accomplishing

his object, he resorted to no unwarranted expedients. He believed that God

had provided adequate agents to sway the soul, and that these are

principally three: truth, motive, and the influences of the Divine Spirit.

Truth convinces the understanding, motive affects the heart, and the

Spirit overcomes the will. The great cause, he believed, why the means of

salvation have produced so little effect, is—that their power has been

greatly weakened by human devices. Truth has been eclipsed, conscience

stupified, and the heart allured by unscriptural motives. The constant

aim, therefore, of this eminent man, was to disperse the darkness, in

which truth was involved, that it might shine forth in all its heavenly

lustre. He labored to remove from the divine law the deadening swathe with

which it had been bound, by those who feared its edge, that it might act

with unobstructed force. It has been said of the immortal Butler, that he

has done more than any other man to restore to conscience her sovereign

sway in the human soul. So we may say, that Fuller has, probably, done

more than any other divine, to restore to the law of God, or to gospel

truth, its sacred dominion in the economy of grace. Truth and the voice of

conscience are the two great ruling powers in the moral world. Hence the

well-being of society requires, that they should be constantly kept in the

clearest light. And that man, who is the instrument, in giving these chief

elements of power the freest action upon the human mind, renders the most

important service to his fellow-men.

“There is another light in which we are anxious the publications of Mr.

Fuller should be viewed—in their adaptedness to prevent two evils, to

which the Christian world at the present day are peculiarly exposed. These

are, first, losing sight of that mysterious and divine agency, on which

the success of all their efforts must depend. And, second, failing to keep

in full view those cardinal truths of the gospel, by which they must gain

and support all their victories in the empire of darkness. In every period

the church has been inclined to forget her dependence on divine

influences; but, perhaps, never so much so, as in the present.

“Though for thirty years we have been conversant with the writings of Mr.

Fuller, yet we must say, that this revision of them has greatly heightened

them in our estimation. And viewing them in the light we do, we cannot but

indulge the belief, that they will, for ages yet to come, continue to

enlighten and bless the church of Christ.”

This edition was printed from a London edition, just revised, by Mr.

A. G. Fuller, who says, in his preface, “In presenting to the public

what has long been called for, viz. a complete edition of the works

of my revered father, it is unnecessary to offer any remarks on the

character of the writings, most of which have for many years been

before the public, and must now be supposed to stand on their own

merits. It may, however, be proper to state, that the present

edition not only contains a great number of valuable pieces which

had been before unavoidably omitted, but also a portion of original

manuscript, part of which is woven into the memoir, and part

inserted in the last volume.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.

2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.

3. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at

the end of the last chapter.

4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.

5. Enclosed black-face font in =equals=.

End of Project Gutenberg's Memoir of Roger Williams, by James D. Knowles