Memoir of Roger Williams, the Founder of the State of Rhode-Island

by James D. Knowles

Note I. p. 389.

That Mr. Williams ought to be regarded as the founder of the State of Rhode-Island, cannot be denied. His settlement of Providence, the first town in the State; his services in procuring the cession of the island by the Indians; his efforts to procure the first charter, and his various sacrifices and toils for the welfare of the whole colony, entitle him to the merit of being considered as the founder, though other men, like Mr. Clarke, rendered great and important services. Mr. Williams claims this honor, in his letter inserted on page 349 of this volume.

His principles have steadily prevailed in Rhode-Island, till the present hour. No man has ever been molested, on account of his religious principles. Gentlemen, of all the existing denominations, have been elected magistrates. Mr. Callender said, in 1738: “The civil state has flourished, as well as if secured by ever so many penal laws, and an Inquisition to put them in execution. Our civil officers have been chosen out of every religious society, and the public peace has been as well preserved, and the public councils as well conducted, as we could have expected, had we been assisted by ever so many religious tests.”—p. 107.

In respect to the religious concerns of the colony, it may be said, that if they had been such as they have sometimes been represented, an argument could not fairly be drawn from them unfriendly to Mr. Williams’ principles. It must be recollected, that intolerance prevailed in the neighboring colonies, and Rhode-Island was a refuge for men of all opinions. There was consequently a great variety of sects, all weak, at first, and unable to do much towards the support of religion. Rhode-Island thus suffered from the intolerance of her neighbors; for if they had granted the enjoyment of religious liberty to their citizens, many who went to Rhode-Island, and created disturbances there, would have remained in the other colonies. The difficulties which arose, in the early part of the history of Rhode-Island, are rather proofs of the evils of intolerance in the other colonies, than evidences of the injurious tendencies of Mr. Williams’ doctrines. If all the uneasy and discordant spirits in the other States of New-England were driven, by the force of intolerant laws, into Massachusetts, she would speedily lose some portion of her high character for morality and good order.

But the state of religion in Rhode-Island has been misrepresented. Mr. Callender, nearly a hundred years ago, vindicated the character of the State. He said, that there were, in the fourteen towns which then composed the state,[^[396]] thirty religious societies, all of which were then supplied with ministers, except probably the meetings of Friends. Of these societies, nine were Baptists, nine Friends, five Congregationalists, five Episcopalians, and two Sabbatarians.[^[397]] Mr. Callender says, “Thus, notwithstanding all the liberty and indulgence here allowed, and notwithstanding the inhabitants have been represented as living without a public worship, and as ungospellized plantations, we see there is some form of godliness every where maintained.”—p. 68. He says, in another place:

“I take it to have been no dishonor to the colony, that Christians, of every denomination, were suffered to lead quiet and peaceable lives, without any fines, or punishments for their speculative opinions, or for using those external forms of worship, they believed God had appointed, and would accept. Bigots may call this confusion and disorder, and it may be so, according to their poor worldly notions of religion, and the kingdom of Christ. But the pretended order of human authority, assuming the place and prerogatives of Jesus Christ, and trampling on the consciences of his subjects, is, as Mr. R. Williams most justly calls it, “monstrous disorder.”—p. 50.

“Notwithstanding our constitution left every one to his own liberty, and his conscience; and notwithstanding the variety of opinions that were entertained, and notwithstanding some may have contracted too great an indifference to any social worship, yet I am well assured, there scarce ever was a time, the hundred years past, in which there was not a weekly public worship of God, attended by Christians, on this island, and in the other first towns of the colony.”—p. 51.

It is believed, that at the present time, there are as many religious societies in Rhode-Island, as in other States, in proportion to the population, and that the ministry is as well supported, though it is done by the voluntary liberality of the respective societies. The state of morality and religion would, it is believed, bear a favorable comparison with that in other States.

But the true test of the effects of Mr. Williams’ principles is their operation on a large scale. The religious liberty which prevails in the United States demonstrates, that religion may be sustained, and diffused, without any dependence on the civil power. It is believed, that in no other nation on earth, are the principles of Christianity so efficacious in their influence on the great mass of the inhabitants; in no other country, are revivals of religion so frequent; in no other country, are there so few crimes. Here we leave the argument. May the principles of Roger Williams soon prevail in every land, and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.

---

[1]. .sp 1

“Laudator temporis acti,

Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”

Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4.

[2]. It is mortifying and painful, that truth compels us to except any persons among us from this remark.

[3]. Mr. Savage, in his edition of Winthrop, (vol. i. p. 42) excited, by the following note, a hope, which was unhappily disappointed: “Deficiency in all former accounts of this great, earliest asserter of religious freedom, will, we may hope, soon be supplied by a gentleman, whose elegance and perspicuity of style are already known. Several quires of original letters of Williams’ have been seen by me, transcribed by or for the Rev. Mr. Greenwood, of this city.”

[4]. “Cœlum non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.”

Ep. lib. i. 11.

[5]. The records of the church say 1598, (Benedict, vol. i. p. 473) but this statement appears to be a mistake. Mr. Williams, in a letter dated July 21, 1679, (Backus, vol. i. p. 421) said that he was then “near to fourscore years of age.” This proves that he was not born in 1598, and makes it probable that the next year was the true time.

[6]. Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. p. 284. See Appendix to this work, (A.)

[7]. George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, written in 1673.

[8]. Wood, in his Athenæ; Oxonienses, after giving an account of a gentleman named Roger Williams, says, “I find another Roger Williams, later than the former, an inhabitant of Providence, in New England, and author of (1) A Key to the Language of New-England, London, 1643, Oct. (2) The Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s, or a Discourse of the Propagation of the Gospel of Christ Jesus, London, 1652, qu. &c. But of what university the said Williams was, if of any, I know not, or whether a real fanatick or Jesuit.” This assertion of Wood renders it doubtful whether Mr. Williams was educated at Oxford, or elsewhere. In the absence of all evidence, it might be thought more probable that he received his education at Cambridge, where a large proportion of the leading Puritans were educated. Coke himself was a graduate of Cambridge, and would probably prefer to place Williams there. Inquiries have been sent to England, for information on this point, but they have not been successful.

[9]. Benedict, vol. i. p. 473–4.

[10]. The refusal of the Pope, Clement VII. to sanction the divorce, would have been honorable to him, if it had not undeniably sprung from political motives. He at first prepared a bull, granting Henry’s request, but in a short time he thought it more conducive to his political interests to suppress it, and in a fit of anger against the King for a supposed insult, the Pope issued his sentence, prohibiting the divorce, and threatening the King with excommunication if he did not recognise Catharine as his wife. In six days after, he received intelligence which made him earnestly desire to annul his sentence, but it was too late. His attribute of infallibility was now found inconvenient. He could not retract. Henry was exasperated and renounced his political allegiance, though, in his controversy with Luther, which won for him from the Pope the title of Defender of the Faith, he had argued that the primacy of the Pope was of divine right! Histoire du Concile de Trent, livre i. p. 65, Amsterdam edition, 1686.

[11]. Elizabeth often said, that she hated the Puritans more than she did the Papists. Neal, vol. i. p. 319.

[12]. Neal (vol. i. p. 236) gives the following specimen of the arbitrary manner in which the ministers were treated. It is an account of the examination of the London clergy: “When the ministers appeared in court, Mr. Thomas Cole, a clergyman, being placed by the side of the Commissioners, in priestly apparel, the Bishop’s chancellor from the bench addressed them in these words: ‘My masters, and ye ministers of London, the Council’s pleasure is, that ye strictly keep the unity of apparel, like the man who stands here canonically habited with a square cap, a scholar’s gown priest-like, a tippet, and in the church a linen surplice. Ye that will subscribe, write volo; those that will not subscribe, write nolo. Be brief, make no words.’ Some of these distressed ministers subscribed for the sake of their families, but thirty-seven absolutely refused. They were immediately suspended from office, and told, that unless they should conform in three months, they should be wholly deprived of their livings. In 1585 and 1586, it was found, by a survey, that there were only 2000 ministers, who were able to preach, to serve 10,000 churches. Bishop Sandys, in one of his sermons before the Queen, told her Majesty, that some of her subjects did not hear one sermon in seven years, and that their blood would be required of some one. Elizabeth thought three or four preachers in a county sufficient.” Neal, vol. i. p. 359.

[13]. Neal, vol. i. preface.

[14]. Neal, vol. i. preface.

[15]. Neal, vol. ii. p. 28.

[16]. Prince, p. 107.

[17]. Mr. Williams had some personal intercourse with the monarch, but of what kind does not appear. In his letter to Major Mason, he refers to King James, whom I have spoke with.

[18]. “Although the discusser acknowledged himself unworthy to speak for God to Master Cotton, or any, yet possibly Master Cotton may call to mind, that the discusser (riding with himself and one other, of precious memory, Master Hooker, to and from Sempringham) presented his arguments from Scripture, why he durst not join with them in their use of Common Prayer.” Bloody Tenet made more Bloody, p. 12.

[19]. Mr. William Harris, in a letter, speaks of a Mr. Warnard, as a brother of Mrs. Williams, apparently meaning the wife of Roger Williams. This is the only hint which the author has found, respecting the family of Mrs. Williams. Her name, by some strange mistake, is stated, in the records of the church at Providence, to have been Elizabeth, instead of Mary, her real name. These records led Mr. Benedict, in his valuable History, (vol. i. p. 476) into the same error. On his authority, one of the descendants of Roger Williams, now living, named a child Elizabeth, in honor, as she meant it, of her venerable maternal ancestor.

[20]. Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 146.

[21]. This extensive grant included a considerable part of the British colonies in North America, the whole of the New England States, and of New York; about half of Pennsylvania; two thirds of New Jersey and Ohio; a half of Indiana and Illinois; the whole of Michigan, Huron, and the whole of the territory of the United States westward of them, and on both sides of the Rocky Mountains; and from a point considerably within the Mexican dominions, on the Pacific Ocean, nearly up to Nootka Sound. This enormous grant shows how imperfectly the geography of the country was known, by James and his counsellors. The Council soon found their undertaking an unprofitable speculation, and surrendered their patent to the Crown. See Hon. E. Everett’s Anniversary Address at Charlestown, June 28, 1830, pp. 13, 31.

[22]. Winthrop’s Journal, vol. i. p. 5.

[23]. Everett’s Address, p. 27.

[24]. Hutchinson, vol i. p. 24.

[25]. It is stated, that not less than two hundred persons died, from the time the company sailed from England, in April, up to the December following. Everett’s Address, p. 50.

[26]. This gentleman came from England. He claimed the whole peninsula of Boston, because he was the first white man who slept there. He hospitably invited Gov. Winthrop and his friends to remove thither, on account of a fine spring of water there. He soon left Boston, alleging that he left England because he did not like the Lords Bishops, but he could not join with the colonists, because he did not like the Lords Brethren. His rights as the first occupant were acknowledged, and thirty pounds were paid to him in 1634. He removed to a spot in the present town of Cumberland, (R. I.) about six miles from Providence, and the river which flows near now bears his name. He lived to an old age, and occasionally preached at Providence and other places. Tradition says, that he sometimes secured the attention of his hearers by a skilful distribution of apples. His orchard flourished long after his death, and some of the trees are, it is said, yet standing.

[27]. President Quincy’s His. Dis. Sept. 17, 1830, p. 19.

[28]. It may be profitable to the men of this generation to read the following account, given by Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 27.

“The weather held tolerable until the 24th of December, but the cold then came on with violence. Such a Christmas eve they had never seen before. From that time to the 10th of February their chief care was to keep themselves warm, and as comfortable, in other respects, as their scant provisions would permit. The poorer sort were much exposed, lying in tents and miserable hovels, and many died of the scurvy and other distempers. They were so short of provisions, that many were obliged to live upon clams, muscles, and other shell fish, with ground nuts and acorns instead of bread. One that came to the Governor’s house, to complain of his sufferings, was prevented, being informed that even there the last batch was in the oven. Some instances are mentioned of great calmness and resignation in this distress. A man who had asked his neighbor to a dish of clams, after dinner returned thanks to God, who had given them to suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sands. They had appointed the 22d of February for a fast; but on the 5th, to their great joy, the ship Lyon, Capt. Peirce, one of the last year’s fleet, returned, laden with provisions, from England, which were distributed according to the necessities of the people. They turned their fast into a thanksgiving.”

[29]. This was a regular colony ship. Her arrival from England, with emigrants, supplies, &c. is often noted in the Journal. The following November, on the 2d, she arrived with the Governor’s wife, the famous John Elliot, and others. But, unfortunately, she was cast away on the 2d of November, 1633, upon a shoal off the coast of Virginia.

G.

[30]. In the first edition this was printed “man.” Mr. Savage, in a note, says: “In the original MS. this word has been tampered with, perhaps by some zealot, yet it appears clearly enough to be Winthrop’s usual abbreviation for that which is restored in the text, and Prince read it as I do.”

[31]. Quincy’s Hist. Dis. 1830, p. 20.

[32]. Hutchinson, vol. i. Appendix, No. 1.

[33]. The reply of the ministers of the church to this objection is worthy of notice, as confirming the views which have been stated respecting their feelings toward the Church of England. “They did not (they declared) separate from the Church of England, nor from the ordinances of God there, but only from the corruptions and disorders of that Church; that they came away from the common prayer and ceremonies, and had suffered much for their non-conformity in their native land, and therefore, being in a place where they might have their liberty, they neither could nor would use them, inasmuch as they judged the imposition of these things to be a violation of the worship of God.” Magnalia, b. i. ch. iv. § 8.

[34]. Snow’s History of Boston, p. 30.

[35]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 32.

[36]. Ibid, vol. i. p. 87.

[37]. Snow’s Hist. of Boston, p. 42.

[38]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 30, note.

[39]. Extract from a letter of Mr. Cotton. Hutchinson, Appendix iii.

[40]. See Dr. Wisner’s valuable Historical Discourses, May 9 and 16, 1830.

[41]. Mr. Backus, and some other writers, have this date 1631, either by mistake, or by neglecting the difference between the old and the new style. Some confusion has thus been introduced into the accounts of Mr. Williams.

[42]. Magnalia, b. v. ch. 17.

[43]. Emerson in his History of the First Church is not more explicit. He says, (p. 13) “It has been said of this man, that he refused communion,” &c.

[44]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 91.

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

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

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

[47]. 1 His. Col. vi. p. 246.

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

[49]. 1 His. Col. vi. pp. 24, 56.

[50]. Ibid.

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

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

[53]. Memorial, p. 151.

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

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

[55]. Weymouth.

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

[57]. Memorial, p. 151.

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

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

[60]. See Appendix B. for some remarks on the Anabaptists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[68]. Magnalia, book i. c. v. § 5.

[69]. Travels, vol. i. p. 167.

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

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

[71]. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 142.

[72]. Neal’s Hist. Puritans, vol. i. p. 184.

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

[74]. His. Col. vi. p. 246.

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

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

[77]. Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.

[78]. Backus, vol. i, p. 62.

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

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

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

[81]. Ecclesiastes, vii. 7.

[82]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 167, note.

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

[84]. See Appendix C.

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

[86]. MSS. Letter.

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

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

[89]. 1 His. Col. vi. p. 248.

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

“Let men of God in court and churches watch

“O’er such as do a toleration hatch.”

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

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

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

[93]. Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. chap. 4.

[94]. 2 His. Col. vol. ix. pp. 235, 236.

[95]. Key, Introduction.

[96]. Key, ch. 21.

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

[98]. Key, ch. 22.

[99]. Encyclopædia Americana, art. Indians.

[100]. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 411.

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

[102]. Key, ch. 2.

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

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

[105]. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 406.

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

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

[108]. Key, ch. 21.

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

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

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

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

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

[112]. 2 His. Col. ix. 227.

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

[114]. 2 His. Col. ix. 233, 234.

[115]. Heckewelder and Edwards assert this fact.

[116]. Key, introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[123]. Letter to Major Mason.

[124]. Letter of Roger Williams.

[125]. Letter to Major Mason.

[126]. Key, chap. ii.

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

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

[129]. Equivalent to the modern How do you do?

[130]. The lands adjacent to this spot were called Whatcheer, in memory of the occurrence.

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

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

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

[134]. Mass. Rec. vol. i. p. 163.

[135]. Backus, vol. i. 74.

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

[137]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 190.

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

[139]. Backus, vol. i. p. 89.

[140]. Rhode-Island Register, 1828.

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

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

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

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

[145]. Backus, vol. i. p. 94.

[146]. Backus, vol. i. p. 290.

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

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

“Gentlemen,

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

“Your friend and neighbor,

“DANIEL WILLIAMS.

“Providence, Aug. 24, 1710.

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

D. W.”

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

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

[150]. Backus, vol. i. p. 92.

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

[152]. An anchor, reclining.

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

[154]. Mr. Backus so understood it. Vol. i. p. 93.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[161]. Vol. i. p. 293.

[162]. John Howland, Esq. in a letter to the author.

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

[164]. Copied from 3 His. Col. i. 165.

[165]. Journal, vol. ii. p. 360.

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

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

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

[167]. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 192.

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

[169]. 3 His. Col. i. p. 159.

[170]. Letter to Major Mason.

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

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

‘Indulge, my native land! indulge the tear,

That steals, impassion’d, o’er a nation’s doom;

To me each twig from Adam’s stock, is dear,

And sorrows fell upon an Indian’s tomb.’”

Dwight’s Greenfield Hill.

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

“Gentlemen and countrymen of the town of Providence:

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

“Yours in the way of right and equity,

“JOSHUA VERIN.

“From Salem, the 21st Nov. 1650.

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

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

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

[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.

[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.

[176]. Backus, vol. i. 86.

[177]. Vol. i. p. 247.

[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.

[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.”

[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.”

[181]. Messrs. Nicholas Easton, John Coggeshall and William Brenton.

[182]. Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.

[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.

[184]. Letter to Major Mason.

[185]. 3 His. Col. i. p. 166.

[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.

[187]. 3 His. Col. i. p. 170–3.

[188]. 3 His. Col. i. 173–7. The letter was written about Sept. 1638.

[189]. righteousness?

[190]. .sp 1

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.

Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum

Intactum Pallanta.” Æneis, x. 501–4.

[191]. Vol. i. p. 283, already quoted.

[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.

[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.

[194]. Morton’s Memorial, p. 151.

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

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[203]. S. Ambrosius in Eph. iv.

[204]. S. Augustinus contra Padmenian, lib. ii. cap. xiii.

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

[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.

[207]. Mr. Holliman, who baptized Mr. Williams, became a preacher.

[208]. Neal, vol. iii. p. 233.

[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.

[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.

[211]. Vol. i. p. 450.

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

[213]. Benedict, vol. i. p. 477.

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[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.”

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

“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

[220]. John, i. 46.

[221]. Vol. ii. p. 8.

[222]. Williams’ Key, p. 22, Providence ed.

[223]. See Appendix D.

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

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

[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.

[227]. Reply to Mr. Cotton, p. 113.

[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.

[229]. Vol. ii. p. 59.

[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.”

[231]. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113.

[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.

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

[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.

[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.

[236]. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 58, note.

[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.

[238]. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 101.

[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.

[240]. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 131.

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[244]. Key, p. 17.

[245]. Byron’s Giaour.

[246]. Holmes’ Annals, vol, i. p. 273.

[247]. For a copy of the charter, see Appendix E.

[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.

[249]. Bloody Tenet, p. 64.

[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.

[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.”

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

[253]. He was a brother of Miantinomo, and succeeded him.

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[257]. Holmes, vol. i. p. 279.

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[261]. Backus, vol. i. p. 204, &c.

[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.

[263]. Backus, vol. i. p. 194–5.

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

[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.”

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

[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.

[268]. Vol. i. p. 207.

[269]. Providence Records.

[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.

[271]. Backus, vol. i. p. 215.

[272]. Benedict, vol. i. p. 367.

[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.

[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.

[275]. Benedict, vol. i. p. 377.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[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.

[280]. Backus, vol. i. p. 272.

[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.”

[282]. Vol. i. p. 279.

[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.

[284]. Backus, vol. i. pp. 285–8.

[285]. Backus, vol. i. p. 288.

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

[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.

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

[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.

[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?”

[291]. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 172.

[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.

[293]. Cromwell.

[294]. This name is spelled in several different ways.

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

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

[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.”

[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.

[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.

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

[301]. Backus, vol. i. pp. 313–316.

[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?”

[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.

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[307]. History of England, chapter lxi.

[308]. Works, Orme’s edition, vol. i. p. 153.

[309]. Works, vol. i. p. 149.

[310]. Neal, vol. iv. p. 101.

[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.”

[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.”

[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.

[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.

[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.

[316]. R. I. Lit. Rep. for March, 1815, p. 638.

[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.

[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.

[319]. Hubbard, chap. lxiv.

[320]. Hawes’ Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims, p. 149.

[321]. Dr. Wisner’s Historical Discourses, p. 10.

[322]. Hawes’ Tribute to the Memory of the Pilgrims, p. 150.

[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.

[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.

[325]. See the charter, Appendix, G.

[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.”

[327]. At this session, Captain John Cranston was licensed to practise physic, with the title of “Doctor of Physic and Chirurgery.”

[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.”

[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.

[330]. Political Annals, b. i. c. xi. pp. 276, 279.

[331]. Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 336.

[332]. Walsh’s “Appeal from the Judgments of Great Britain,” pp. 427–435.

[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.

[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.

[335]. Magnalia, b. vii. c. ii. §8.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[341]. R. I. Lit. Rep. vol. i. pp. 638–640.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.”

[347]. Backus, vol. i. p. 510.

[348]. Callender, p. 73.

[349]. Backus, vol. i. p. 418.

[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.

[351]. Callender, p. 75.

[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.

[353]. Baylies’ History of Plymouth, part iii. p. 114. Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 309. Backus, vol. i. p. 424.

[354]. Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 162. Morton, Appendix A. A. p. 425.

[355]. Backus, vol. i. p. 466.

[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.

[357]. Backus, vol. i. p. 421.

[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.

[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.

[360]. 2 His. Col. viii. p. 196.

[361]. Page 110.

[362]. Backus, vol. i. p. 515.

[363]. She was certainly alive in November, 1679.—Backus, vol. i. p. 478.

[364]. See Appendix H. for some account of his grave, and of his family.

[365]. Bloody Tenet, p. 18.

[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.

[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.

[368]. 2 Cor. 5: 11, 20.

[369]. Mark, 16: 16.

[370]. Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 14.

[371]. “Humani juris et naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere. Sed nec religionis est cogeere religionem, quæ suscipitsponte debet, non vi.”

[372]. Bloody Tenet, p. 185.

[373]. Bloody Tenet, p. 214.

[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.

[375]. Life of Jeremy Taylor, Am. ed. p. 37.

[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.

[377]. Works, vol. x. pp. 45–7.

[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.

[379]. 2 Mass. His. Col. viii. p. 79.

[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.

[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.”

[382]. N. E. Firebrand Quenched, p. 9.

[383]. See Humphrey Norton’s letter to Governor Prince, of Plymouth, Backus, vol. i. p. 322.

[384]. Works, vol. i. p. 689.

[385]. Iliad, A. 1. 210, 211.

[386]. See pages 57 and 58 of this volume.

[387]. Century Discourse, p. 17.

[388]. 1 His. Col. vi. p. 249.

[389]. Bloody Tenet, pp. 116, 243.

[390]. See Appendix I.

[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.

[392]. Commonly called Massassoit.

[393]. The Scituate here mentioned, must be in Massachusetts, as there was no town of that name in Rhode-Island till 1730.

[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.

[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.”

[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.

[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.