[73]. This is strongly emphasized in his Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer.
[74]. Commentary Mss., p. 11. See, also, p. 14, et seq., as well as “Simplicities Defence,” (R. I. Hist. Soc. Ed.) page 183.
[75]. Commentary Mss., page 57.
[76]. Dr. Fiske is in error in classing him as a follower of Anne Hutchinson. His theology was original and peculiarly his own. (Commentary Mss., p. 58).
[77]. Commentary Mss., p. 90.
[78]. It is hardly necessary to say that neither Gorton or Parker held this doctrine in any materialistic sense. It was a lofty philosophical conception that the entire creative energy was expressed in the divine nature, to conceive which as purely masculine was inadequate, anthropomorphic and irrational.
[79]. The first charge against Roger Williams, on which he was banished from Massachusetts Bay, accused him of teaching “That wee have not our land by Pattent from the King, but that the natives are the true owners of it and that wee ought to repent of such receiving it by Pattent.” Gorton agreed with Williams as to the necessity of purchase from the Indians, but thought the charter also necessary.
[80]. John M. Mackie, in “Sparks’s American Biography.”
Samuel Eddy, Secretary of State of Rhode Island, circum 1820, says of Gorton: “From the first establishment of the government he was almost constantly in office, and during a long life there is no instance of record to my knowledge of any reproach or censure cast upon him, no complaint of him, although history furnishes abundance of evidence that there were no lack of enemies to his person, principles, or property. This can hardly be said of any other settler of the Colony of any standing.” Quoted in Judge Brayton’s “Defence of Samuel Gorton.”
[81]. Vide Winthrop’s Letters, the Portsmouth charges, etc.