[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.”