[261] [“Mr. Williams probably refers to the refusal by the General Court to listen to a petition from Salem relative to a piece of land which was claimed as belonging to that town. But according to Winthrop, ‘because they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher, while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to the magistrates, their petition was refused,” &c. Knowles, p. 70.]
[262] [“His banishment proceeded not against him or his for his own refusal of any worship, but for seditious opposition against the patent, and against the oath of fidelity offered to the people; ... he also wrote letters of admonition to all the churches whereof the magistrates were members, for deferring to give present answer to a petition of Salem, who had refused to hearken to a lawful motion of theirs.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 113.]
[263] [“It seemeth he never read the story of the classes in Northamptonshire, Suffolk, Essex, London, Cambridge, discovered by a false brother to Doctor Bancroft.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 116, Neal’s Puritans, i. 226, 319.]
[264] [Udall had been a tutor to Queen Elizabeth in the learned languages, yet for writing a little book against Diocesan Church Government and Ceremonies he was condemned to die, and would have been executed but for the queen’s feelings of respect to her aged tutor. A copy of this exceedingly rare book is in Mr. Offor’s library.]
[265] [“He died by the annoyance of the prison: when the coroner’s jury came to survey the dead body of Mr. Udall in prison, he bled freshly, though cold before, as a testimony against the murderous illegal proceedings of the state against him.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 116, Neal, i. 339.]
[266] [Mr. Cotton says, that Penry confessed that he deserved death for having seduced many to separation from hearing the word in the parish churches, so that their souls were justly required at his hand. Ibid. p. 117. This can scarcely be correct if we judge from the general tenor of Penry’s character. See Hanbury’s Hist. Memorials, i. 79, note e.]
[267] [See Broadmead Records, Intro. p. xxxviii. Hanbury, i. 35, 62. Mr. Cotton endeavours to throw no little obloquy and discredit on these two witnesses to the truth; but most unjustly. Answer p. 117.]
[268] [In “A Necessitie of Separation from the Church of England proved by Nonconformist Principles, &c.” By John Canne, pastor of the Ancient English Church at Amsterdam, 1634, 4to. pp. 264.]
[269] [“Mr. Ainsworth’s name is of best esteem, without all exception, in that way who refused communion with hearing in England. And if his people suffered him to live on ninepence a week, with roots boiled, surely either the people were grown to a very extreme low estate, or else the growth of their godliness was grown to a very low ebb.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 122. The remarks of Mr. Hanbury, with the quotation he produces from the preface, by a friend of Ainsworth, to his Annotations on Solomon’s Song, do not appear in the least to invalidate the statement of Williams. In the earlier part of his exile, in common with Johnson and the other separatists, he was exposed to great straits and difficulties, and it may be to that period that Mr. Williams refers. See Hanbury, i. 433.]
[270] [“This I speak with respect to Mr. Robinson and to his church, who grew to acknowledge, and in a judicious and godly discourse to approve and defend, the lawful liberty of hearing the word from the godly preachers of the parishes in England.” Cotton’s Answer, p. 123.]