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

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Memoir of Roger Williams - The Founder of the State of Rhode-Island
Author: Knowles, James D.
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Memoir of Roger Williams - The Founder of the State of Rhode-Island" ***

(This file was produced from images generously made

MEMOIR

ROGER WILLIAMS.

[Illustration:

_FAC SIMILE OF THE HANDWRITING_ OF ROGER WILLIAMS.

_Copied from a Document written in 1677._
]

=MEMOIR=
OF
ROGER WILLIAMS,
THE
FOUNDER OF THE STATE
OF
RHODE-ISLAND.

BY JAMES D. KNOWLES,

PROFESSOR OF PASTORAL DUTIES IN THE NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.

“Roger Williams justly claims the honor of having been the first
legislator in the world, in its latter ages, that fully and effectually
provided for and established a full, free and absolute liberty of
conscience.”

GOVERNOR HOPKINS.

BOSTON:
LINCOLN, EDMANDS AND CO.
1834.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1833,
BY JAMES D. KNOWLES,
In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

Lewis & Penniman, Printers.
Bromfield-street.

TO THE

=Citizens of Rhode-Island,=

THIS VOLUME

IS RESPECTFULLY INSCRIBED BY

THE AUTHOR.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFACE.

The citizens of the United States, have sometimes been ridiculed, for an
alleged propensity to please their imaginations with romantic visions
concerning the future glory of their country. They boast, it is said,
not of what the nation has been, nor of what it is, but of what it will
be. The American faculty, it is affirmed, is anticipation, not memory.

If the truth of this charge were admitted, it might be replied, that the
‘proper motion’ of the youthful imagination—in states as well as in
individuals—is towards the future. It springs forward, with buoyant
wing, forgetting the past, and disregarding the present, in the
eagerness of its desire to reach fairer scenes. It is the instinct of
our nature, the irrepressible longing of the immortal soul for something
higher and better. It is never extinguished, though frequent
disappointments abate its ardor, and long experience confirms the
testimony of revelation, that perfect happiness is sought in vain on
earth. In mature age, therefore, reason has corrected the errors of the
imagination, and the old man looks backward to his early years, as the
happiest period of his life, and praises the men and the scenes of his
youthful days, as far surpassing those which he now sees around him.[1]

Most nations are impelled, by the same principle, to recur to some past
epoch in their history, as the period of their greatest glory. There is
little in the prospect of the future to excite their hopes. The
adherents to old institutions dread the progress of that spirit of
innovation, which has already overthrown many of them, and which
threatens speedy ruin to the rest. And the patriot, who is striving to
raise his country to the enjoyment of liberty and happiness, foresees
too many obstacles, too much fierce strife, suffering and bloodshed, to
permit him to contemplate the future without anxiety.

It is the happiness of America, that almost every thing in her condition
invites her to look forward with hope. Her perfect freedom,[2] her rapid
progress, the elastic energy of her national character, the boundless
extent of her territory, her situation, far from the contentions of
European nations, and safe from the dangers both of their friendship and
of their hostility, all awaken and justify the confident hope, that she
is destined to reach a height of prosperity and power, which no other
nation, of ancient or modern times, has attained.

But if Americans were so prone to look forward, that they forgot the
past, it would certainly be a fault, which would deserve rebuke. Bright
as the future may be, the past can present scenes, on which the American
may gaze with pleasure, and from which he should draw lessons of wisdom
and incitements to patriotism. Passing by the prosperous course of our
history, since the adoption of the Constitution; not pausing to
contemplate the formation of that Constitution, though it was one of the
most glorious achievements of wisdom and national virtue; looking beyond
the unparalleled revolution itself; the character and actions of the men
who laid the foundations of this country deserve the careful study, and
must attract the admiration, of every true-hearted American. The
motives, the policy, the personal qualities of the founders; their
fervent piety, their courage and patience, their unwavering constancy,
their calm wisdom, their love of learning, and their thirst for liberty,
entitle those venerable men to the affection and gratitude of every
succeeding generation. Their faults we may now see more clearly than
their contemporaries; but those faults were, for the most part, the
excesses of their virtues, the errors of wise heads and pure hearts,
whose piety sometimes became austere, and whose conscientious love of
truth occasionally betrayed them into intolerance. There is no stain
upon their personal character; and the American may point, with grateful
pleasure, to the bright names of Winslow, Winthrop, Hooker, Penn,
Baltimore, Oglethorpe, and their associates, as among the choicest
treasures of his country.

Among these names, that sense of justice, which eventually triumphs over
temporary prejudice and wrong, has already placed that of ROGER
WILLIAMS. Long misunderstood and misrepresented, he was excluded from
his appropriate place among the chief founders and benefactors of
New-England. The early historians, Morton, Mather, Hubbard, and even
Winthrop, spoke harshly of his character. His principles, both political
and religious, were offensive to the first generations; and it is not
strange, that he was viewed and treated as a fanatical heresiarch in
religion, and a factious disturber of the state.

Later writers have treated his memory with more respect; and we might
quote many honorable testimonies to his principles and his character.
But no extended memoir of his life has ever before been published. It
would not be difficult to assign reasons for this neglect. The want of
materials, and the contradictory accounts of various writers, were
sufficient to deter his friends from the undertaking, and a lingering
prejudice against him prevented others. The attention of some able
writers has, nevertheless, been drawn to the subject. Dr. Belknap
designed to give to the life of Roger Williams a place in his American
Biography, and he made application to several persons in Rhode-Island
for materials, but without success. It was announced, a few years since,
that Robert Southey, Esq. intended to write the life of Mr. Williams. He
probably relinquished the plan, for the same reason. The Rev. Mr.
Greenwood, of Boston, formed the design of preparing a memoir, at the
suggestion, I believe, of Mr. Southey. Mr. Greenwood collected many
valuable materials, but the failure of his health, and other causes,
induced him to abandon the undertaking.[3]

My attention was directed to the subject, in 1829, by hearing the Rev.
Dr. Sharp, of Boston, pronounce, with his usual eloquence and true love
of freedom, a eulogium on the character of Roger Williams. I soon
afterwards suggested to him, that the life of Mr. Williams ought to be
better known. He urged me to undertake the office of biographer, and
many other friends concurred in the request. I consented, having
learned—that Mr. Greenwood had resolved to relinquish the design. I made
an application to him, however, to be informed of his real purposes.
With the most generous politeness, he placed at my disposal all the
materials which he had collected. Among them were between twenty and
thirty unpublished letters, copied from the originals, which were kindly
lent to him by the Hon. Thomas L. Winthrop. These letters form a
valuable part of this volume.

In my further search for information, I soon discovered, that many
persons, well acquainted with our early history, knew very little of
Roger Williams. In the books, I found almost every important fact,
concerning him, stated differently. I was obliged to gather hints from
disconnected documents, and to reconcile contradictory assertions; and
in fine, my labor often resembled that of the miner, who sifts large
masses of sand, to obtain a few particles of gold. I have spared neither
toil nor expense to obtain materials. I have endeavored to make the book
as complete and accurate as possible. It has cost me much time, and a
degree of labor, which no one can estimate, who has not been engaged in
similar investigations.

I have, however, received much aid from several individuals. Besides Mr.
Greenwood, my thanks are especially due to the venerable Nestor of
Providence, Moses Brown, and to John Howland, Esq. Other gentlemen are
entitled to my gratitude, whom it would give me pleasure to name. I
have, too, derived great assistance from several books. Among these I
ought to mention Mr. Backus’ History, from which I have copied a number
of valuable documents, and gathered important information. Mr. Savage’s
admirable edition of Winthrop’s Journal has been my chief guide, in
narrating the early events of Mr. Williams’ history, after his arrival
in this country. From the valuable Annals of Dr. Holmes, and from the
Library and the Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, I
have derived important aid.

I have strongly felt the want of a history of Rhode-Island. I have been
obliged to relate many historical facts, which I have collected, in
various ways, at the hazard of mistake and deficiency. It has been
somewhat mortifying to me, as a native of Rhode-Island, to be obliged to
rely on the writers of Massachusetts and Plymouth, for facts concerning
the history of Rhode-Island, which could not, otherwise, be ascertained.
While all the other New-England States, and indeed most of the States of
the Union, have histories, it is hoped that Rhode-Island will not much
longer be content to bear the reproach, of being indebted to other
States for her knowledge of her own history. I am glad to learn, that
the papers of the late Theodore Foster, Esq. are now in the possession
of the Rhode-Island Historical Society. I hope that the Society will
immediately appoint some competent person to prepare a history of the
State. The Legislature ought to aid in procuring the requisite documents
from England, and in defraying other necessary expenses. The State has
no reason to be ashamed of her history. She owes it to herself to record
it truly.

The want of such a history has induced me to insert in this volume
several documents which cannot readily be found. I am not aware of any
Rhode-Island publication, except a file of newspapers, in which a copy
of the first charter is contained. The second charter is not easily to
be procured. Very few, probably, of the citizens possess a copy.

It may, indeed, be objected to this book, that it is encumbered with
documents. But I have desired to furnish the reader with the means of
forming an acquaintance with Mr. Williams, by a perusal of his own
letters, and other writings. These are never common-place. They are all
marked with the impress of his character. The numerous authorities have
been added, in order that if I have committed mistakes, the reader might
have the means of correcting them. It would be strange, if, amid so much
contradiction and confusion, I have fallen into no errors. I can only
say, that I have anxiously labored to learn the truth; and I shall be
thankful for any suggestions, which may tend to make the book more
accurate and useful.

A few of the notes are marked “G.” They were appended by Mr. Greenwood
to the documents which he loaned to me, and I have taken the liberty to
copy them, as valuable illustrations.

Roger Williams lived in an eventful period, and a memoir of him must
contain many references to contemporary personages and events. I have
endeavored, to speak of these with candor and kindness. The character
and actions of the Pilgrim fathers have necessarily come under review. I
have been obliged, occasionally, to censure; but it has been a source of
pleasure, that the more I investigated their actions, the more deep and
sincere was my veneration for those excellent men. It is due to them to
point out those errors in their conduct, which they, were they now
living, would lament and condemn.

The position in which this country is placed, as the great exemplar of
civil and religious liberty, makes it inexpressibly important, that the
true principles on which this liberty rests, should be thoroughly
understood. A responsibility lies on the citizens of this country, which
no other nation ever sustained. Here it is to be demonstrated, that man
can govern himself, and that religion can walk abroad in her own dignity
and unsullied loveliness, as the messenger of God, armed with his
authority, and wielding his omnipotence; that she can speak to the
hearts of men with a voice of power, which owes no part of its emphasis
to the force of human laws; that she, instead of leaning on the arm of
the magistrate for support, can enter the halls of legislation, the
cabinets of rulers, and the courts of justice, to spread out her laws,
and proclaim her eternal sanctions. If civil liberty fail here, or if
religion be overwhelmed with error or worldliness, the great cause of
human happiness will suffer a disastrous check. It is believed, that a
better knowledge of the principles of Roger Williams will have a
salutary tendency, and that the publication of a memoir of his life is
opportune, at this crisis, when, both in America and in Europe, the
public mind is strongly agitated by questions which affect both the
civil and the religious rights of men. If this book shall contribute, in
the slightest degree, to the promotion of truth and freedom, I shall
rejoice, and praise Him, who has restored my health, and given me
leisure to finish the work.

A word or two of explanation, on certain points, may be necessary. In
the quotations from old documents, I have altered the orthography
conformably to present usage. One reason for this course was, that
scarcely any writer was consistent with himself, especially in relation
to proper names. There is, too, nothing in orthography to mark the style
of a particular writer, and it may, consequently, be altered, without
affecting the idiomatic peculiarities of his composition, while the book
is freed from the uncouth forms of words spelled according to antiquated
fashions.

The Indian names have been reduced to a uniform orthography, agreeably
to what was believed to be the best form. They are spelled, in a most
perplexing variety of ways, by different authors. Roger Williams himself
sometimes spelled the same name differently in the same document.

I have endeavored to arrange the dates according to the old style. Many
mistakes have been committed, by various authors, from a neglect of this
point. Before 1752, the year was computed to commence on the 25th of
March, which was, accordingly, reckoned as the first month, and January
and February were the eleventh, and twelfth. Dates between the 1st of
January and the 25th of March, are usually, in this book, marked with
both years. Thus the time of Mr. Williams’ arrival in America was the
5th of February, 1630–1.

No portrait of Roger Williams, it is believed, is in existence. As the
best substitute, a fac-simile of his hand writing has been engraved, and
prefixed to this volume. It was copied from a document, kindly furnished
by Moses Brown.

Ill health, and various other causes, have delayed the work. Further
search might, perhaps, detect additional materials; but my official
duties, and other reasons, forbid a longer delay. It is now respectfully
commended to the favor of the public; and above all, to the blessing of
Him, without whose smile human approbation would be vain. I cannot, and,
indeed, ought not to, be without some solicitude respecting the
reception of a work, on which I have expended so much time and labor,
cheered by the hope, that it would serve the cause of human happiness. I
am well aware, that it is defective in several points; but it has not
been in my power to make it more complete. I can easily anticipate
objections, which will arise in some minds. One of these, it is
probable, will be, that I have spoken too freely of the faults of
Christians and ministers; that I have unveiled scenes of intolerance and
persecution, which the enemies of religion may view with malicious joy.
But my reply is, that I have not alluded to such topics, except where my
main theme compelled me to speak of them. I trust, that what I have said
is true, and uttered in a respectful and kind spirit. We must not, in
order to promote or defend religion, attempt to conceal events which
history has already recorded, and much less to palliate conduct, which
we cannot justify. Let us, rather, confess, with frankness and humility,
our own faults, and those of our fathers; learn wisdom from past errors;
and bring ourselves and others, as speedily as possible, to the adoption
of those pure principles, by which alone Christianity can be sustained
and diffused. The book of God records, among its salutary lessons, the
mistakes and sins of good men. I have believed, that the wrong and
mischievous tendency of intolerance could not be more forcibly
exhibited, than in the conduct of our fathers. All men concede to them
sincere piety, pure lives and conscientious uprightness of purpose. How
pernicious, then, must be a principle, which could so bias the minds of
such men, as to impel them to oppress, banish or put to death their
fellow Christians! How dangerous the principle, if, in such hands, its
operation was so terrible! We need not wonder that, under the direction
of bigotry, ambition, cupidity and despotism, it produced the horrors of
St. Bartholomew’s, and the atrocities of Smithfield. The experience of
New-England has proved, that the best men cannot be trusted with power
over the conscience; and that this power must be wrested from the hands
of all men, and committed to Him who alone is competent to wield it.
This volume is dedicated to the defence of religious liberty, both by an
exposition of the principles of Roger Williams, and by a display of the
evils of intolerance. If it shall thus aid in hastening the universal
triumph of pure and undefiled religion; my strongest desire will be
accomplished.

_Newton, December 12, 1833._

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

Page
Early life of Mr. Williams—state of religious affairs in
England—Mr. Williams embarks for America, 21

CHAPTER II.

Historical sketch—view of the condition of the country, at the
time of Mr. Williams’ arrival, 33

CHAPTER III.

Mr. Williams refuses to unite with the Boston church—is invited to
Salem—interference of the General Court—removes to Plymouth—the
Indians—difficulties at Plymouth—birth of Mr. Williams’ eldest
child, 45

CHAPTER IV.

Returns to Salem—ministers’ meetings—Court again interferes—the
rights of the Indians—his book against the patent—wearing of
veils—controversy about the cross in the colors, 55

CHAPTER V.

Proceedings which led to his banishment—freeman’s oath—various
charges against him—sentence—birth of his second child—leaves
Salem for Narraganset Bay—review of the causes of his
banishment, 64

CHAPTER VI.

Numbers, condition, language, rights, &c. of the Indians in New
England, 82

CHAPTER VII.

Mr. Williams proceeds to Seekonk—crosses the river, and founds the
town of Providence, 100

CHAPTER VIII.

Purchase of lands from the Indians—division of the lands among the
settlers, 106

CHAPTER IX.

Settlement of the town of Providence—Whatcheer—islands of
Prudence, Patience, and Hope, 118

CHAPTER X.

Mr. Williams prevents the Indian league—war with the Pequods—their
defeat and ruin, 125

CHAPTER XI.

Settlement on Rhode-Island commenced—Mrs. Hutchinson—settlement at
Pawtuxet, 138

CHAPTER XII.

Condition of Providence—execution of three murderers of an
Indian—birth of Mr. Williams’ eldest son, 148

CHAPTER XIII.

Baptism of Mr. Williams—establishment of the first Baptist church
in Providence—Mr. Williams soon leaves the church, 162

CHAPTER XIV.

Affairs of the Indians—birth of Mr. Williams’ fourth
child—disputes at Providence about boundaries—Committee of
Arbitration—account of Samuel Gorton, 179

CHAPTER XV.

Birth of Mr. Williams’ second son—league of the colonies—war
between the Narragansets and Mohegans—capture and death of
Miantinomo—Mr. Williams embarks for England, 190

CHAPTER XVI.

Mr. Williams’ first visit to England—Key to the Indian
languages—charter—birth of Mr. Williams’ youngest child—Bloody
Tenet—he returns to America—reception at Boston and
Providence—again aids in preventing an Indian war, 196

CHAPTER XVII.

Letters to John Winthrop—organization of the government—vote of
money to Mr. Williams—agreement of several inhabitants of
Providence—dissensions—Indian troubles, 206

CHAPTER XVIII.

Mr. Coddington—letters to John Winthrop—execution of Charles I., 227

CHAPTER XIX.

Warwick—Mr. Williams’ compensation—imprisonment of John Clarke and
Obadiah Holmes—Mr. Coddington’s separate charter—Mr. Williams
and Mr. Clarke prepare to go to England, 238

CHAPTER XX.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke sail—Mr. Coddington’s charter
vacated—troubles in Rhode-Island—Mr. Williams returns—Sir Henry
Vane—Milton—Mr. Williams endeavors to re-establish
order—Indians—letter on religious and civil liberty, 252

CHAPTER XXI.

Troubles in Rhode-Island—William Harris—Quakers—severe laws
against them in other colonies—conduct of Rhode-Island—Mr.
Williams and Mr. Harris—Mr. Williams not re-elected as
President, 281

CHAPTER XXII.

Death of Cromwell—his character—Richard Cromwell
succeeds—restoration of Charles II.—Act of Uniformity, and
ejection of the Non-conformists—affairs in Rhode-Island—Indian
deed—letters to Mr. Winthrop, 300

CHAPTER XXIII.

Infant baptism—half-way covenant—laws to support religion—charter
from Charles II.—first meeting of Assembly—Mr.
Clarke—difficulties about boundaries—charges against
Rhode-Island, concerning Catholics and Quakers, 315

CHAPTER XXIV.

Mr. Williams’ public services—religious habits—efforts as a
minister—Indians—private affairs—letter to John Whipple, 326

CHAPTER XXV.

Controversy with the Quakers—Philip’s war—letters—Mr. Williams’
death, 336

CHAPTER XXVI.

Mr. Williams’ writings—Key—Bloody Tenet—liberty of conscience—Mr.
Cotton’s Reply—Mr. Williams’ Rejoinder, 356

CHAPTER XXVII.

Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s—the ministry—controversy with
George Fox—other writings—character as a writer—his general
character, 376

APPENDIX, 391

MEMOIR.

CHAPTER I.

Early life of Mr. Williams—State of religious affairs in England—Mr.
Williams embarks for America.

The obvious analogy between human life and a river has supplied the poet
with similes, and the moralist with arguments. The resemblance of the
two objects is, in this point, at least, worthy of notice, that their
origin awakens the curiosity of every reflective mind. This feeling has
impelled many travellers to a perilous search for the sources of the
Niger and the Nile; and it made Lewis and his associates look, with
triumphant joy, on the little rill, at the summit of the Rocky
Mountains, which flows on, and expands into the mighty Missouri.

We feel a similar desire, when we survey the actions of a distinguished
individual, to learn the incidents of his youth. The mind is perplexed
and dissatisfied, if such a personage has suddenly appeared, like Manco
Capac to the Peruvians, as if he had indeed alighted on the earth from
the sun, or risen, like the fabled Venus, from the ocean.

This curiosity has valuable uses. The instruction which is gathered from
the lives of men is drawn, in great part, from a view of the steps, by
which they advanced to their subsequent elevation in virtue and
usefulness, or to a bad eminence in crime. The character of most men is
formed early, and we can scarcely pronounce a fair judgment respecting
any individual, unless we take into the account the circumstances, which
shed a propitious or malignant influence on those early years, when his
habits were fixed, and his principles imbibed.

It is a subject of regret, that of the early life of ROGER WILLIAMS so
little is known. A few facts only have been preserved, and these do not
rest on very certain evidence. It is remarkable, that in his numerous
writings, there are no allusions to his parents, to the place of his
birth and education, and to other points relating to his early years.
There are, in his letters and books, but two or three incidental
references to events anterior to his arrival in this country; though his
allusions to early occurrences after his emigration are very frequent.

He was about 32 years of age when he reached our shores; a period of
life, when the energy of youth remains without its rashness, and the
mind has acquired steadiness, without the timid caution and fixed
pertinacity of old age. It is a period, however, when the character of
most men is already formed. Though new situations and difficult
exigencies may develope unexpected powers, and give prominence to
certain traits of character, yet the mind commonly remains unchanged in
its essential qualities. It was long since said by Horace, that those
who cross the ocean pass under a new sky, but do not acquire a new
disposition.[4] This was probably true of Mr. Williams; and if we could
trace his early history, we should undoubtedly see an exhibition of the
same principles and temper which distinguished his subsequent career.

It may, however, be said of most of the prominent men among the first
settlers of New England, that their history begins at the period of
their arrival here. Our accounts of their early lives are very brief.
They were too busy to record their own early fortunes, and too pious to
feel any pride in displaying their descent, their virtues, or their
sufferings. The present and the future filled their minds; and they seem
to have felt, that the wide ocean which separated them from the land of
their fathers had effected a similar disjunction of their history. Of
Roger Williams less is known than of some others, because no efforts
were made by early biographers to collect facts concerning him. His
opponents were more disposed to obliterate his name, than to record his
life. His contemporary friends were sharers in his sufferings, and were
not at leisure to relate his story or their own. Even the records of the
church which he founded at Providence contain no notice of him, written
earlier than 1775, when the Rev. John Stanford, a venerable minister,
still living in New-York, collected the fugitive traditions concerning
the origin of the church.

These traditions state that Mr. Williams was born in Wales, in 1599.[5]
The place of his birth, and the character of his parents, are not known.
We may easily believe that he was a native of Wales. He possessed the
Welch temperament—excitable and ardent feelings, generosity, courage,
and firmness, which sometimes, perhaps, had a touch of obstinacy. It has
been supposed, that he was a relative of Oliver Cromwell, one of whose
ancestors was named Williams.[6] This conjecture has not a very solid
basis. Roger Williams does not claim, in his writings, any kindred to
the formidable Protector, though he repeatedly alludes to his intimacy
with him, and once speaks of a “close conference with Oliver,” on the
subject of Popery, which they both abhorred and feared. It appears, from
a remark in one of his books, that he became pious in early life. “The
truth is, from my childhood, now above threescore years, the Father of
lights and mercies touched my soul with a love to himself, to his only
begotten, the true Lord Jesus, to his holy Scriptures,” &c.[7]

That his parents were in humble life, and that his disposition was pious
and thoughtful, may be inferred from an incident which is related
concerning him, and which, if true, had a great share in determining his
future course. It is said, that the famous lawyer, Sir Edward Coke,
observed him, one day, during public worship, taking notes of the
discourse. His curiosity was excited, and he requested the boy to show
him his notes. Sir Edward was so favorably impressed by the evidences of
talent which these exhibited, that he requested the parents of young
Williams to intrust their son to his care. He placed him, as the
tradition runs, at the University of Oxford,[8] where he drank deeply at
the fountains of learning. His writings testify, that his education was
liberal, according to the taste of those times, when logic and the
classics formed the chief objects of study at the universities.

He afterwards commenced the study of the law, at the desire and under
the guidance of his generous patron, who would naturally wish to train
his pupil to the honorable and useful profession which he himself
adorned. The providence of God may be seen in thus leading the mind of
Mr. Williams to that acquaintance with the principles of law and
government, which qualified him for his duties as legislator of his
little colony.

But he probably soon found that the study of the law was not congenial
with his taste. Theology possessed more attractions to a mind and heart
like his. To this divine science he directed his attention, and received
Episcopal orders. It is stated, that he assumed, while in England, the
charge of a parish; that his preaching was highly esteemed, and his
private character revered.[9]

We have thus recited the traditions which have been current in Rhode
Island. There is undoubtedly some truth in them, though the story is a
little romantic, and may have received some embellishment in its
progress.

Roger Williams entered on public life at an eventful period, when the
national mind was strongly agitated by those political and religious
causes, which had been slowly operating for many years, and which soon
subverted the throne and the Episcopal Church. At these causes we can do
no more than glance.

The Reformation, in England, commenced as far back as the latter part of
the fourteenth century, when Wickliffe taught the pure doctrines of the
Scriptures, and kindled a great light for the guidance of the people in
the path to Heaven, by translating the Scriptures, for the first time,
into the English language. He was, of course, denounced and persecuted
by the Catholic Church, but his doctrines spread, and though many of his
followers were put to death, and the utmost cruelty was practised, in
various ways, to hinder the progress of the truth, yet the principles of
the Reformation were extensively diffused in England, before Luther and
his fellow laborers commenced their glorious ministry. But no public
blow was given to the papal power in England, till Henry VIII. finding
the authority of the Pope an obstacle to his favorite project of
repudiating his wife Catharine and marrying Anne Boleyn, renounced, in
1534, his political allegiance to his Holiness.[10] The King was
created, by act of Parliament, the Head of the Church, and the powers
which had previously been claimed and exercised by the Pope, were
transferred to the King. But, while the papal authority was rejected,
the doctrines of Popery were not discarded. The King was a strenuous
believer in transubstantiation, purgatory, sprinkling of holy water,
invocation of saints, and other doctrines and rites of the Catholic
Church. He exacted as implicit a submission to his will as the Pope
himself. Indeed, little more was yet gained, than the substitution of a
Pope in England for a Pope in Rome. Henry was of a temper too despotic
to permit him to be a friend of the Protestant religion. To a monarch of
arbitrary principles, the spirit of Popery is more congenial than that
of the Protestant faith. The Catholic system requires an unconditional
submission to the authority of man. The first principle of Protestantism
is implicit obedience to God alone. The decisions of Councils and the
commands of the Pope bind the Catholic; the will of God, as it is
uttered in the Holy Scriptures, is the only rule of faith and practice
to the true Protestant.

After the death of Henry, his son, Edward VI. ascended the throne. He
was a religious Prince, and a zealous friend of the Reformation. The
Church of England was purified from many corruptions during his reign, a
liturgy was compiled, and the Protestant religion made a rapid progress
in the nation. But some relics of Popery were still retained, and among
others, the vestments of the clergy. It was deemed indispensable, that
the priests should wear the square cap, the surplice, the cope, the
tippet, and other articles of apparel, which were in use among the
Popish clergy. Some excellent ministers refused to wear these garments,
on the ground that they were associated in the public mind with Popery;
were regarded by many of the people with superstitious reverence, and
ought, consequently, to be rejected with the other corruptions from
which the church had purged herself. It was, unquestionably, very unwise
to retain an appendage of the old system, which tended to remind the
people of the discarded religion, to irritate the minds of its enemies,
while it nourished the attachment to it which some persons secretly
retained, and to suggest the obvious conclusion, that as the ministers
of the new religion resembled so nearly those of the old, the difference
between the two systems was very small. The effect of wearing the popish
garments was so manifestly injurious to the progress of truth, that the
refusal to wear them was not a trivial scruple of conscience, as it may,
at first sight, appear. But the attempt to enforce the use of them, by
severe penalties, and by expulsion from office, was unjust; and it led
to a final separation of the Protestants themselves into Conformists and
Non-Conformists.

After Edward’s death, and the accession of Mary, Popery was restored,
and scenes of barbarous cruelty and bloody persecution ensued, which
have made the name of this Queen infamous. Many hundreds of the
Protestants perished at the stake, or in prison, and multitudes fled to
Germany, Switzerland, and other countries.

The reign of this fierce bigot was happily short, and Elizabeth
succeeded her. The Protestant religion was re-established, and during
her long reign it gained an ascendancy which it has never since lost.
Yet Elizabeth possessed the despotic temper of her father. She had a
fondness for some of the gaudy rites of Popery.[11] She peremptorily
insisted on the use of the clerical vestments, and on a strict
conformity to all the other ceremonies of the church. The final
separation of the Non-Conformists from the Church of England was thus
hastened. Those who had fled from England during the reign of Mary,
returned, on the accession of Elizabeth, bringing with them an
attachment to the purer rites of the Reformed Churches in Holland,
Switzerland and France. Most of these exiles, and of the other
Non-Conformists, were, nevertheless, willing to subscribe to the
doctrines of the Church of England, and to use the liturgy, if they
might be permitted to omit the vestments, the sign of the cross in
baptism, and some other ceremonies. They disliked the pretensions of the
Bishops, and many of them preferred the Presbyterian or Independent form
of Church government. There were, too, some minor points in the liturgy,
to which they objected. But had they been treated with Christian
kindness, and allowed, in the spirit of mutual forbearance and charity,
to neglect those forms, which they considered as sinful or inexpedient,
they would, for the most part, have remained in the Episcopal Church,
and England would have been spared the manifold crimes and miseries,
which issued in a civil war, and drenched her soil with the blood of her
King, and of thousands of her bravest sons.

But the principles of religious liberty were then unknown. The Queen,
though for a while she treated the Non-Conformists with indulgence, till
her power was fully established, soon announced to them her sovereign
pleasure, that they should submit to all the ceremonies of the church.
Severe laws were passed by an obsequious Parliament, and enforced, with
ready zeal, by servile Bishops. Every minister who refused to conform to
all the prescribed ceremonies was liable to be deprived of his office;
and a large number of the ablest ministers in the nation were thus
expelled and silenced.[12] In order to enforce the laws with the utmost
rigor, a new tribunal was erected, called the Court of High Commission,
consisting of Commissioners, appointed by the Queen. This Court was
invested with power to arrest ministers in any part of the kingdom, to
deprive them of their livings, and to fine or imprison them at the
pleasure of the Court. “Instead of producing witnesses in open court, to
prove the charges, they assumed a power of administering an oath _ex
officio_, whereby the prisoner was obliged to answer all questions the
Court should put to him, though never so prejudicial to his own defence.
If he refused to swear, he was imprisoned for contempt; and if he took
the oath, he was convicted upon his own confession.”[13] By this
Protestant Inquisition, and by other means, one fourth of the preachers
in England are said to have been under suspension. Numerous parishes
were destitute of preachers, and so many were filled by illiterate and
profligate men, that not one beneficed clergyman in six was capable of
composing a sermon.[14] Thus were learned and pious ministers oppressed,
merely for their conscientious scruples about a few ceremonies, their
families were ruined, the people were deprived of faithful teachers, the
progress of truth was hindered, the papists were gratified, and a state
of irritation was produced in the public mind, which led, in a
succeeding reign, to the disastrous issue of a bloody civil war.

Nor was the edge of this intolerance turned against the clergy alone.
The people were rigorously required to attend regularly at the parish
churches.

Measures like these gradually alienated the affections of many from the
Established Church, and convinced them, that there was no prospect of
obtaining toleration, or of effecting a further reform in the church.
They accordingly separated from it, and established meetings, where the
ceremonies were not practised. These Non-Conformists were called
Puritans, a term of reproach derived from the Cathari, or Puritans, of
the third century after Christ. The term, however, was not
inappropriate, as it intimated their desire of a purer form of worship
and discipline in the church. It was afterwards applied to them on
account of the purity of their morals, and the Calvinistic cast of their
doctrines.

This separation occurred in the year 1566. The storm of royal and
ecclesiastical wrath now beat the more fiercely on the heads of the
Puritans. The history of England, for the succeeding century, is a
deplorable narrative of oppression, bloodshed and indescribable misery,
inflicted on men and women, of deep piety and pure lives, but guilty of
claiming the rights of conscience, and choosing to worship God with
different forms from those which the National Church prescribed. No man,
of right feelings, can read Neal’s History of the Puritans, without
sorrow and indignation. Every man ought to read it, if he would
understand the reasons why the founders of this country left their
native land, to seek an asylum in the wilderness, and if he would
rightly estimate the great principles of religious liberty which Roger
Williams maintained and defended.

The accession of James I. excited the hopes of the Puritans. He had been
educated in the principles of the Reformation, and had stigmatized the
service of the Church of England as “an evil said mass in English.”[15]
He had promised, that he would maintain the principles of the Church of
Scotland while he lived. But he changed his principles or his policy,
after he ascended the throne of England. He then announced the true
royal creed, _No Bishops, no King_. He treated the Puritans with
contempt and rigor, declaring that they were a sect “unable to be
suffered in any well-governed commonwealth.”[16] Many of the Puritans,
finding their situation intolerable at home, left the kingdom for the
continent, or turned their eyes to America for a refuge from
persecution.

In the midst of these scenes, Roger Williams was born and educated. His
character impelled him to the side of the Puritans. His political
principles were then, it is probable, as they were throughout his
subsequent life, very liberal; and were entirely repugnant to the
doctrines which were then upheld by the court and the dignitaries of the
church. James was an obstinate and arbitrary monarch, who inflexibly
maintained, in theory and often in practice, those despotic principles,
which led his son to the scaffold, and expelled James II. from the
throne. A mind, like that of Williams, strong, searching and fearless,
would naturally be opposed to the pretensions and policy of the
King.[17] His patron, Sir Edward Coke, incurred the resentment of James,
for his free principles, and his bold vindication of the rights of the
people. Charles I. was, if possible, more arbitrary than his father, and
more disposed to trample on the constitution, and on the rights of the
people.

The tyranny exercised by the Bishops, the severe persecution of the
Puritans, and the arrogant demand of absolute submission to the National
Church, were still more offensive to a man like Mr. Williams. His
principles, as he afterwards expounded them, by his life and in his
writings, claimed for all men a perfect liberty of conscience, in
reference to religion. Such principles, allied to a bold spirit, must
have brought him into notice at such a crisis, and must have attracted
upon his head the storm of persecution. Cotton, Hooker, and many other
ministers, were silenced. In such times, Mr. Williams could not escape.
If he was indeed admitted to a living, it must have been through the
indulgence of some mild Prelate, or by the influence of some powerful
patron. If Cotton and Hooker were not spared, Williams could not be
suffered to preach, for his refusal to conform seems to have been more
decided than theirs.[18]

The same motives, without doubt, which induced others to forsake their
native land for America, operated on the mind of Mr. Williams. On the
1st of December, 1630, he embarked at Bristol, in the ship Lyon, Captain
William Peirce. His wife accompanied him, a lady, of whose previous
history we are more ignorant than of his own.[19] There is, however,
satisfactory evidence, in her subsequent life, of her virtues as a wife
and a mother. We cannot doubt, that she was of a kindred spirit with her
husband, whose fortunes, both adverse and prosperous, she shared for
half a century.

CHAPTER II.

Historical Sketch—View of the condition of the country at the time of
Mr. Williams’ arrival.

The first settlement, by Europeans, in North America, was made in 1585,
when Sir Walter Raleigh sent a fleet of seven ships from England to
Virginia. One hundred and seven persons were landed on the island of
Roanoke, near the mouth of Albemarle Sound, in the present State of
North Carolina. But discouraged by the want of provisions, and probably
by other causes, all the colonists returned to England the next year.
Another, and more successful, attempt was made twenty years afterwards,
under the authority of a patent from King James, who granted all the
territory in North America, comprehended between the 34th and 45th
degrees of latitude, to be equally divided between two companies,
called, respectively, the London and the Plymouth.

In 1607, three ships, with one hundred emigrants, formed a settlement on
the James River, in Virginia, and called the spot Jamestown, in honor of
the King.

In the same year, a small colony made a settlement at the mouth of the
Kennebec River, in the present State of Maine; but the loss of their
stores by fire, and the severity of the winter, induced them all to
abandon the undertaking the next year, and return to England.

In 1610, a settlement was commenced at Newfoundland, and in 1614, the
Dutch built a fort on the island of Manhattan, where the city of New
York now stands, and held the country many years, under a grant from the
States’ General, by the name of the New Netherlands.[20]

In 1620, the ever memorable landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth took
place. The colonists were a company of Puritans, who left England so
early as 1608, with their pastor, the Rev. John Robinson, and settled at
Leyden, in Holland. The merciless oppression which they endured in
England impelled them thus to abandon their native land. They enjoyed
protection and prosperity in Holland, but they were not satisfied with
their condition and prospects in that country, which a foreign language
and lax morals rendered an undesirable home for them and their children.
They accordingly resolved to emigrate to America. They sailed from
Plymouth (England) in September, 1620, and on the 11th of December they
landed at the spot to which they gave the name of Plymouth.

The settlement of Massachusetts Bay occurred a few years after. This
great enterprise was conducted under the direction of the Plymouth
Company, who obtained a new patent from King James, by which a number of
the highest nobility and gentry of England, their associates and
successors, were constituted “the Council established at Plymouth, in
the county of Devon, for the planting, ruling, ordering and governing of
New England, in America.” By this patent, the whole territory between
the 40th and the 48th degrees of north latitude, from the Atlantic to
the Pacific Ocean, was granted to the company.[21] In 1627–8, the
Company sold to several gentlemen, among whom were John Endicott and
John Humfrey, all that part of New-England which lies between three
miles north of Merrimac River and three miles south of Charles River,
across the whole breadth of the continent. In June, 1628, Mr. Endicott
sailed from England, for Naumkeag, since called Salem, where a small
company of emigrants had fixed their residence a short time before. Mr.
Endicott’s first letter from America is dated September 13, 1628, and
his arrival is considered as the date of the first permanent settlement
of Massachusetts Proper.

The patent from the Council of Plymouth gave a good right to the soil,
(says Hutchinson, vol. i. pp. 16, 17) but no powers of government. A
royal charter was necessary. This passed the seals March 4, 1628–9. It
confirmed the patent of the Council of Plymouth, and created the
Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, in New-England, a body
politic and corporate. By this charter, the Company were empowered to
elect, annually, forever, out of the freemen of said Company, a
Governor, a Deputy Governor, and eighteen assistants, and to make laws
not repugnant to the laws of England.

As the state of things in the parent country daily became more
distressing to the friends of religion and liberty, an emigration,
unparalleled for its extent, and for the character of the emigrants, was
projected. A considerable number of persons of great respectability, of
good fortune, and of consideration in society, among whom were Winthrop,
Dudley, Johnson, and Saltonstall, resolved to remove, with their
families and property, to Massachusetts, on condition that the charter
of the colony and the seat of its government should be transferred to
America. This important proposition was acceded to, and on the 28th of
April, 1630, Winthrop, who had been elected Governor, and his
associates, sailed from Yarmouth,[22] in a fleet, which, with the
vessels that preceded and followed them the same season, amounted in the
whole to seventeen sail,[23] with above fifteen hundred passengers.[24]
The Arbella, with Governor Winthrop on board, arrived at Salem on the
12th of June, and the other vessels arrived soon after. The colonists
there had lost eighty of their number by death the winter previous.
Their provisions were nearly consumed, and they were in a distressing
situation. The arrival of the new emigrants occasioned great joy to the
sufferers, and revived their hopes.

It was early determined that Salem was not the proper position for the
capital. The Governor, and the principal part of the emigrants, left
Salem soon after their arrival, and resided awhile at Charlestown. Here
sickness prevailed among them, and a considerable number died.[25] They
were distressed by the want of fresh water. Many of them accordingly
abandoned Charlestown, and settled at Watertown and Dorchester, while a
still larger number removed, in September, to the other side of the
river, and laid the foundation of Boston. The peninsula was then
inhabited by only one white man, the Rev. William Blackstone.[26] It was
called by the Indians Shawmut, and by the neighboring settlers,
Trimountain, the former name signifying the abundance and sweetness of
its waters, the latter the peculiar character of its hills.[27] It was
called Boston by a vote of the Court, September 7, in well deserved
honor of the Rev. John Cotton, who had been a minister of Boston, in
England, and whose arrival in America was earnestly expected.

The sufferings of the first inhabitants of the metropolis were very
great. Sickness swept many of them into the grave. The weather during
the winter was extremely severe, and provisions were so scarce, that the
inhabitants were in imminent peril of starvation.[28] At this critical
juncture, the ship Lyon, in which Roger Williams had embarked, arrived,
on the 5th of February, 1630–1. Governor Winthrop (vol. i. pp. 41, 42)
thus records the arrival of this vessel:

“Feb. 5. The ship Lyon,[29] Mr. William Peirce, master, arrived at
Nantasket. She brought Mr. Williams, a godly minister,[30] with his
wife, Mr. Throgmorton, Perkins, Ong, and others, with their wives and
children, about twenty passengers, and about two hundred tons of goods.
She set sail from Bristol, December 1. She had a very tempestuous
passage, yet through God’s mercy, all her people came safe, except Way
his son, who fell from the spritsail yard in a tempest, and could not be
recovered, though he kept in sight near a quarter of an hour; her goods
also came all in good condition.”

The strong contrast between the situation of the present inhabitants of
the metropolis, and that of the little company of suffering exiles in
1630, forces itself on our minds. They were few in number. They had no
suitable dwellings to shelter them from the rigors of winter, then more
severe, perhaps, than any which we now experience. They were almost
without food. Disease was among them, and several of their number sunk
into the grave, whose lives might doubtless have been preserved, had
they been furnished with suitable shelter, food and medicine. When they
looked around them, all was dreary and melancholy. “Where now exists a
dense and aggregated mass of living beings and material things, amid all
the accommodations of life, the splendors of wealth, the delights of
taste, and whatever can gratify the cultivated intellect, there were
then only a few hills, which, when the ocean receded, were intersected
by wide marshes, and when its tide returned, appeared a group of lofty
islands, abruptly rising from the surrounding waters. Thick forests
concealed the neighboring hills, and the deep silence of nature was
broken only by the voice of the wild beast or the bird, and the war
whoop of the savage.”[31]

How different the situation of the present inhabitants. That little
company has swelled to more than sixty thousand. Those forests, which
then covered the hills and vallies, are gone; the ocean has been driven
back from much of the space over which it then rolled; and now, where
stood the few tents and cabins of the first settlers, have sprung up,
over the whole peninsula, sumptuous structures and spacious temples,
comfortable dwellings, ample warehouses, and every thing which can
minister to the happiness of men. The poorest of its citizens is better
sheltered and better fed, than some of the richest families among the
first inhabitants. Let them give devout thanks to God, that He has
reserved for them a happier lot than that of their fathers. Let them,
amid their profusion of blessings, praise the Lord, who has done so
great things for their city, and its successive generations. Let them,
above all, hold fast those great truths, for which the founders
sacrificed every thing dear to them on earth.

As the colonists came to this country to enjoy the privilege of
worshipping God according to their conceptions of His will, it was, of
course, among their first objects to form churches, and make provision
for the regular worship of the Most High.

The settlers at Plymouth were organized as a church before they left
Holland, and as such they landed on our shores. This church was formed
on the principle of entire independence on all human authority. Its
members belonged to that class of the Non-Conformists, who had separated
entirely from the Church of England, and adopted a form of church polity
which they deemed more consistent with the letter and the spirit of the
New Testament.

The separate independence of each church on all others; the necessity of
true piety as a qualification for membership; the right of each church
to elect its own officers; the rejection of all officers except pastors
or elders, and deacons, and the entire equality of all pastors and
elders, in respect to power and privileges, were among the principles
adopted by this excellent body of Christians. They are the principles
which the Scriptures teach, and it would have been happy for the cause
of truth, if they had been held fast, without any corrupt mixture, by
all the churches which professed to receive them. Another principle
adopted by the church of Plymouth was, that ecclesiastical censures are
wholly spiritual, and not to be accompanied with temporal penalties. In
this respect, the church of Plymouth were in advance of their brethren
in Massachusetts, and the history of the Plymouth colony is honorably
distinguished by a tolerant spirit, which contributed not less to her
peace and prosperity, than to her true fame.

The first settlers at Salem, Boston, and other towns in Massachusetts
Bay, belonged, for the most part, to the other class of Non-Conformists,
who did not, while in England, separate wholly from the Established
Church, though they opposed her corruptions. They desired only a further
reform of the Church herself, and retained their membership, some of
them conforming, though reluctantly, to her ceremonies, to avoid
persecution, and others refusing such a conformity, protected awhile by
the indulgence of some mild Prelates, or by the friendship of powerful
laymen. When, at length, despairing of the desired reform, and weary of
persecution, they embarked for America, they came as members of the
Church of England. Winthrop and his associates, while on board the fleet
at Yarmouth, addressed a farewell letter to the “rest of their brethren
in and of the Church of England,” which is as beautiful in diction as it
is admirable for its affectionate pathos. They say, “We desire you would
be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our company, as
those who esteem it our honor to call the Church of England, from whence
we arise, our dear mother, and cannot part from our native country,
where she specially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many
tears in our eyes; ever acknowledging, that such hope and part as we
have obtained in the common salvation, we have received in her bosom,
and sucked it from her breasts. We leave it not, therefore, as loathing
that milk, wherewith we were nourished, but blessing God for the
parentage and education, as members of the same body, shall always
rejoice in her good, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrow that shall
ever betide her; and, while we have breath, sincerely desire and
endeavor the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the
enlargement of her bounds in the kingdom of Christ Jesus.”[32]

There was, unquestionably, an entire sincerity in these expressions of
attachment to the Church of England. There was, as they judged, no
inconsistency in their subsequent conduct, in forming churches, from
which Episcopacy, and all the ceremonies of the parent Church, were
excluded. Their love for that Church was founded on her doctrines, not
on her ceremonies. They recognised in her articles the genuine faith,
once delivered to the saints. Her ceremonies they regarded as unseemly
appendages, the relics of Popish superstition, of which they desired to
divest her. They loved the inward spirit, not the outward form. They did
reverence to the majestic soul, while they looked with sorrow on her
fantastic attire. They would have remained in her bosom, and submitted
to much which they deemed undesirable, if she would have permitted them
to reject what they considered as positively unlawful and wrong. But as
she left them no alternative but unconditional submission, or exile,
they departed for America; and when they came to form churches here,
they endeavored to incorporate that soul in a body befitting her
dignity. The American church was, in their view, the Church of England,
redeemed and regenerated, holding to her former self a similar relation
to that which the just man made perfect bears to the saint who is still
on earth, and encumbered with his diseased and mortal body.

A church was formed at Salem, on the 6th of August, 1629, when thirty
persons entered into a covenant in writing, and the Rev. Mr. Skelton was
ordained, or instituted, as the pastor, and the Rev. Mr. Higginson as
the teacher; these offices being considered as distinct, and both being
deemed essential to the welfare of a church. The church thus formed was
entirely independent. The Governor of Plymouth, and other members of the
church there, who had been invited to attend the ceremony, were not
permitted to give the right hand of fellowship to the new church, till
an explicit declaration had been made, that this service was not meant
to indicate any right of interference or control. The pastor and teacher
were inducted into office by the vote of the church, and by the
imposition of the hands of the ruling elder, as the organ of the church.
Thus careful were this body to exclude, at the outset, all authority but
that of the Head of the Church. Several of the inhabitants, among whom
Messrs. John and Samuel Brown were the principal men, opposed the new
church, because the liturgy of the Church of England was rejected.[33]
They accordingly formed another society, in which the book of common
prayer was read. The schism was speedily remedied, by a measure which
was much more energetic than just. Mr. John Brown and his brother, the
leaders, were sent to England, and their followers quietly relinquished
their opposition.

A church was formed at Charlestown, July 30, 1630, by Governor Winthrop
and a number of other persons, who signed a covenant, in which they
simply promised to “walk in all our ways according to the rule of the
Gospel, and in all sincere conformity to his holy ordinances, and in
mutual love and respect to each other, so near as God shall give us
grace.”[34] On the 27th of August, the Rev. John Wilson was elected
teacher. “We used imposition of hands,” says Governor Winthrop, “but
with this protestation by all, that it was only as a sign of election
and confirmation, not of any intent that Mr. Wilson should renounce his
ministry he received in England.”[35] Thus careful were they to guard
the independence of the church, while they preserved due respect for the
Church of England, whose ministers, so far as they were pastors and
teachers, they acknowledged and honored.

When the Governor and the greater portion of the colonists removed to
Boston, the church, with the minister, removed thither. It remained
without a house for public worship till August, 1632, when a building
was commenced,[36] on the south side of State street, opposite the spot
where the Branch Bank now stands. It was a humble structure, with a
thatched roof and mud walls.[37] Perhaps, however, the metropolis has
never seen a more devout congregation than that which was accustomed to
assemble there. It well illustrates the piety of the founders, and their
high regard for the ministry, that at the first Court of Assistants,
held on board the Arbella, at Charlestown, August 23, 1630, the first
question propounded was, _How shall the ministers be maintained?_ It was
ordered, that houses be built for them with convenient speed, at the
public charge, and their salaries were established. These were
sufficiently moderate. Mr. Wilson was allowed twenty pounds per annum,
till his wife should arrive, and Mr. Phillips, the minister of
Watertown, was to receive thirty pounds.[38]

The ecclesiastical polity, now commenced, was afterwards moulded into a
more regular and permanent form, by the personal influence of Mr.
Cotton, and by the authority of the platform adopted in 1648. The great
principles which were established were these: each church is
independent, and possesses the sole power of governing itself, according
to the Scriptures; piety and a holy life are the qualifications for
church membership; the officers of a church are pastors, teachers,
ruling elders and deacons, and are to be chosen by the church itself;
the ordination of ministers is to be performed with imposition of hands,
by the ministers of the neighboring churches. These and other
principles, which, with some exceptions, are still held by the
Independent, Congregational and Baptist churches, were joined, with
another article, which was the source of manifold mischiefs to the
colony. It is thus expressed, in the words of Hubbard, (540): “Church
government and civil government may very well stand together, it being
the duty of the magistrate to take care of matters of religion, and to
improve his civil authority for observing the duties commanded in the
first as well as in the second table; seeing the end of their office is
not only the quiet and peaceable life of the subject in matters of
righteousness and honesty, but also in matters of godliness.” 1 Tim. ii.
1, 2.

The ecclesiastical polity being adjusted, the civil government was made
to conform to it.[39] To the excellent founders, religion was the most
precious of all interests, and civil government was, in their view,
useful, no further than it was necessary for the good order of the
community, and the security of their religious privileges. Having
escaped from the grasp of the civil power in England, they resolved,
that in the new state to be formed here, the church should hold the
first place. They wished to erect here a community, which should be
itself a church, governed by the laws of Jesus Christ, flourishing in
the peace and beauty of holiness, and realizing the glorious visions of
the prophets. It was a noble conception, a sublime purpose, of which
none but pure hearted men would have been capable. That they failed in
accomplishing all their plans, was the natural result of human
corruption; but they succeeded in forming a community, more moral, more
easily governed, better educated, more thoroughly under the control of
religious principles, and more truly free, than the world had then seen.
At the General Court, held so early as May 18, 1631, it was ordered,
that no person should be admitted to the privileges of a freeman, unless
he was a member of some church in the colony. This law was, no doubt,
unjust, and the colony was afterwards forced to repeal it. It was, also,
injurious to the interests of religion, for it made church membership an
object of earnest desire, for political purposes, and thus introduced
men without piety into the church. It led to the adoption, to some
extent, of the ruinous principle, that piety is not necessary to church
membership, and it was one of the causes of that unhappy strife, which
issued in the introduction of the half-way covenant.[40] But the law is
characteristic of the founders, and proves their determination to keep
the state subordinate to the church. They also adopted, as the basis of
their civil code, the laws of Moses, so far as they were of a moral
nature, though, as Roger Williams remarked, “they extended their moral
equity to so many particulars as to take in the whole judicial law.”
They punished crimes, not by the laws of England, but by those of Moses.
Idolatry, blasphemy, man stealing, adultery, and some other crimes, not
punishable with death by the laws of the parent country, were made
capital. Every inhabitant was compelled to contribute, in proportion to
his ability, to the support of religion. This adoption of the Mosaic
code, and a constant disposition to seek for precedents in the Old
Testament, will account for many of the measures which have been
attributed to the bigotry of our fathers.

CHAPTER III.

On the 5th of February, 1630–1,[41] as we have already stated, Mr.
Williams arrived in America, where he was to become one of the founders
of a great nation. As a minister of the Gospel, he would naturally seek,
without delay, for an opportunity to fulfil his office. He was, it is
probable, without property, and a sense of duty would concur with the
dictates of prudence, to urge him to inquire for some situation where he
might be useful, while he obtained a maintenance. The church in Boston
were supplied with a pastor, and the great Cotton was expected to become
their teacher. There was, however, another difficulty to which we shall
soon have occasion to recur.

In a few weeks after Mr. Williams’ arrival, he was invited by the church
at Salem to become an assistant to Mr. Skelton, as teacher, in the place
of the accomplished Higginson, who died a few months before. Mr.
Williams complied with the invitation, and commenced his ministry in
that town. But the civil authority speedily interfered, in accordance
with the principle afterwards established in the platform, that “if any
church, one or more, shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the
communion of other churches, or shall walk incorrigibly and obstinately
in any corrupt way of their own, contrary to the rule of the word; in
such case, the magistrate is to put forth his coercive power, as the
matter shall require.”[42]

On the 12th of April, says Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 53) “at a
Court, holden at Boston, (upon information to the Governor, that they of
Salem had called Mr. Williams to the office of teacher,) a letter was
written from the Court to Mr. Endicott to this effect: That whereas Mr.
Williams had refused to join with the congregation at Boston, because
they would not make a public declaration of their repentance for having
communion with the churches of England, while they lived there; and
besides, had declared his opinion that the magistrate might not punish a
breach of the Sabbath, nor any other offence, as it was a breach of the
first table; therefore they marvelled they would choose him without
advising with the Council; and withal desiring him that they would
forbear to proceed till they had conferred about it.”

The first of these charges is made in very indefinite terms.[43] It does
not appear, what was the degree of conformity which the members of the
church had practised in England, nor what degree of criminality was, in
the estimation of Mr. Williams, attributable to their conduct. It is
well known, that some of the Puritans did maintain, till they left
England, a connection with the church, from whose ritual they secretly
dissented, and whose corruptions they deeply deplored. We have already
stated, that Governor Winthrop and his associates had not separated from
the church when they left England, but acknowledged themselves, at the
moment of their departure, as among her children. Many good men
considered this conformity as a pusillanimous and sinful connivance at
evil, tending to sanction and perpetuate the corruptions of the church.
Mr. Cotton himself, being forced, by the intolerance of the hierarchy,
either to submit to their ritual, or to suffer the vengeance of the High
Commission Court, resolved to leave England. He travelled in disguise to
London. “Here,” says Cotton Mather, (Magnalia, b. iii. chap. 1. § 18)
“the Lord had a work for him to do, which he little thought of. Some
reverend and renowned ministers of our Lord in that great city, who yet
had not seen sufficient reason to expose themselves unto persecution for
the sake of non-conformity, but looked upon the imposed ceremonies as
indifferent and sufferable trifles, and weighed not the aspect of the
second commandment upon all the parts and means of instituted worship,
took this opportunity for a conference with Mr. Cotton; being persuaded,
that since he was no passionate, but a very judicious man, they should
prevail with him rather to conform, than to leave his work and his land.
Upon the motion of a conference, Mr. Cotton most readily yielded; and
first, all their arguments for conformity, together with Mr. Byfield’s,
Mr. Whately’s, and Mr. Sprint’s, were produced, all of which Mr. Cotton
answered, unto their wonderful satisfaction. Then he gave his arguments
for his non-conformity, and the reasons why he must rather forego his
ministry, or, at least, his country, than wound his conscience with
unlawful compliance; the issue whereof was, that instead of bringing Mr.
Cotton back to what he had now forsaken, he brought them off altogether
from what they had hitherto practised. Every one of those eminent
persons, Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, and Mr. Davenport, now became all that he
was, and at last left the kingdom for their being so.”

If, then, these distinguished ministers had practised a conformity which
Mr. Cotton esteemed “unlawful,” and which Cotton Mather seems to have
considered as a breach of the second commandment, it is probable, that
many private Christians had done the same. The members of the Boston
church had undoubtedly shared in these “compliances.” But if Mr. Cotton
could not conform, without wounding his conscience, he must have thought
the practice criminal. There is no question, that Mr. Williams was of
the same opinion; and as his temper was more ardent and bold than that
of Mr. Cotton, his opposition to what he must have regarded as highly
censurable, would naturally be strong and decided. It is not very
surprising, therefore, if, on his arrival in America, with a vivid sense
of recent wrong from the persecuting church, he was disinclined to a
cordial union with those who had, in any measure, yielded to her
despotic pretensions, and sanctioned, by any acts of compliance, her
unscriptural requirements. We are not told, precisely, in what terms,
and to what extent, he wished the members of the Boston church to
express their repentance for their conduct. He, perhaps, allowed his
feelings to bias his judgment in this case, and to make him forget his
own principles of liberty of conscience; but the facts to which we have
alluded show, that his objections were not altogether frivolous, nor his
conduct the offspring of bigotry and caprice. It appears, that his
feelings were afterwards allayed; and while at Plymouth, the next year,
he communed with Governor Winthrop and other gentlemen from Boston.[44]

The other allegation, made in the extract from Winthrop, that Mr.
Williams denied the power of the civil magistrate to punish men for
violations of the first table of the law,[45] that is, in other words,
for the neglect, or the erroneous performance, of their duties to God,
is one, which, at this day, needs little discussion. Time has wrought
out a triumphant vindication of this great principle. The doctrine, that
man is accountable to his Maker alone for his religious opinions and
practices, and is entitled to an unrestrained liberty to maintain and
enjoy them, provided that he does not interfere with the rights of
others, and with the civil peace of society, has won for itself, in this
country, at least, a place among the undisputed principles of thought
and action. Ample experience has demonstrated, even in New-England, the
manifold evils which spring from intrusting to civil rulers the power to
legislate for the church, to control the conscience, and to regulate the
intercourse between men and his Creator. We shall have occasion to recur
to this topic. It is sufficient now to say, that Mr. Williams stood on
the firm ground of truth and of enlightened policy, when he denied to
the civil magistrate the right to interfere with the consciences of
men.[46] There is no allegation, that he failed, on this occasion, in
due respect for the constituted authorities; but he claimed the right of
a freeman to speak freely of their principles and measures. His natural
temperament would give warmth and energy to his remonstrance. A calmer
man than he might have been moved, if, when driven from his native land
by intolerance, he found, in the country to which he had fled, the same
principles maintained, the same usurpation of power over the conscience
claimed, as a regular attribute of the civil authority.

It appears, therefore, that the General Court had little cause for their
interference between Mr. Williams and the church at Salem. Their right
to interfere, for any cause, will not now be maintained by any man. That
church, though she was probably aware of the disapprobation and
meditated interference of the Court, seems to have disregarded it, and
on the 12th of April, the same day on which the Court was held, received
Mr. Williams, as her minister.[47] She thus consulted her duty as well
as her true interests. Jesus Christ is the only King and Legislator of
his church. He has given her his statute book, and it is as inconsistent
with her duty, as it ought to be repugnant to her feelings, to permit
any attempt to abridge the rights which her Lord has bestowed on her.
The choice of her pastors and teachers is one of her most sacred rights,
and most important duties. She is bound to exercise this high privilege,
in humble dependence on the teachings of divine wisdom, but with a
resolute resistance of attempts, from any quarter, to control her
election.

Notwithstanding the unwarrantable proceedings of the Court, which must
have been offensive both to the principles and the feelings of Mr.
Williams, we find him, the next month, (the 18th of May, 1631) taking
the usual oath on his admission as a freeman.[48] This fact is worthy of
notice, because it proves, that he was willing to honor the civil
authorities, within their proper sphere, and that he desired to become a
permanent and useful citizen. It shows, too, that he had no objection to
an oath, when administered in a proper manner, and for suitable ends. At
this very Court, the law was made, which excluded from the rights of
freemen every person, who was not a member of some one of the churches.
Whether the difficulty which had already risen respecting Mr. Williams,
had any influence in producing this measure, cannot now be ascertained.

Notwithstanding that the church at Salem had received Mr. Williams, he
was not permitted to remain in peace. “Persecution,” says Dr.
Bentley,[49] “instead of calm expostulation, instantly commenced, and
Williams, before the close of summer, was obliged to retire to
Plymouth.” That this separation from the church at Salem was not a
voluntary one, on her part or on his, may be presumed, from the fact,
asserted by the historian of Salem just quoted, that “he was embraced
with joy at Salem, and throughout all his life supported a high place in
their affections, as a truly godly man.”[50] His return to that town, by
their invitation, two years after, is a satisfactory proof that the
church there felt a confidence in his piety, and an attachment to his
person and ministry.[51]

At Plymouth, Mr. Williams was received with much respect, and became an
assistant to Mr. Ralph Smith, the pastor of the church there. Governor
Bradford speaks of Mr. Williams in honorable terms,[52] and even Morton,
who was not much disposed to speak favorably of him, acknowledges that
he “was well accepted as an assistant in the ministry.”[53]

During Mr. Williams’ residence at Plymouth, Governor Winthrop, with Mr.
Wilson, of Boston, and other gentlemen, visited that town.[54]
Winthrop’s account of the visit is so strongly illustrative of the
manners of those times, that it may be properly inserted.

“1632. September 25. The Governor, with Mr. Wilson, pastor of Boston,
and the two Captains, &c. went aboard the Lyon, and from thence Mr.
Peirce carried them in his shallop to Wessaguscus.[55] The next morning
Mr. Peirce returned to his ship, and the Governor and his company went
on foot to Plymouth, and came thither within the evening. The Governor
of Plymouth, Mr. William Bradford, (a very discreet and grave man) with
Mr. Brewster, the elder, and some others, came forth and met them
without the town, and conducted them to the Governor’s house, where they
were very kindly entertained and feasted every day at several houses. On
the Lord’s day there was a sacrament, which they did partake in; and in
the afternoon Mr. Roger Williams (according to their custom) propounded
a question, to which the pastor, Mr. Smith, spake briefly; then Mr.
Williams prophesied; and after the Governor of Plymouth spake to the
question; after him, the elder; then some two or three more of the
congregation. Then the elder desired the Governor of Massachusetts and
Mr. Wilson, to speak to it, which they did. When this was ended, the
deacon, Mr. Fuller, put the congregation in mind of their duty of
contribution; whereupon the Governor and all the rest went down to the
deacons’ seat, and put into the box, and then returned.” Vol. i. p. 91.

While at Plymouth, Mr. Williams enjoyed favorable opportunities of
intercourse with the Indians, who frequently visited that town. It
appears, too, that he made excursions among them, to learn their manners
and their language, and thus to qualify himself to promote their
welfare. His whole life furnished evidence of the sincerity of his
declaration, in one of his letters, “My soul’s desire was, to do the
natives good.” He became acquainted with Massasoit, or, as he was also
called, Ousamequin, the sachem of the Pokanokets, and father of the
famous Philip. He also formed an intimacy with Canonicus, the
Narraganset sachem. He secured the confidence of these savage chiefs, by
acts of kindness, by presents, and not less, perhaps, by studying their
language. He says, in a letter, written near the close of his life, “God
was pleased to give me a painful, patient spirit, to lodge with them in
their filthy smoky holes, (even while I lived at Plymouth and Salem) to
gain their tongue.”

The effects of this intimacy with the sachems were very important. We
shall see, by his subsequent history, that his success, in purchasing
lands for himself and for the other settlers in Rhode Island, was the
result mainly of his personal influence with the Indians. We discern, in
these preparatory measures, the hand of God, who was designing to employ
Mr. Williams as an instrument in establishing a new colony, and in
preserving New-England from the fury of the savages.

There is reason to believe, that for some time previously to his
banishment, he had conceived the idea of residing among the Indians, and
that in his intercourse with the sachems, some propositions had been
made respecting a cession of land. His strong desire to benefit the
natives was a sufficient inducement; and he had, perhaps, seen such
indications of the state of feeling towards him among the colonists, as
to awaken an apprehension that he would not long be allowed to remain
within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Williams continued about two years at Plymouth. While there, we may
easily believe, he uttered his sentiments on those points which had
occasioned his removal from Salem, as well as on other subjects, in
relation to which his opinions were at variance with those of that age.
They were not acceptable to the principal personages at Plymouth, though
it does not appear that any public expression of disapprobation was made
by the church. His heart was evidently drawn towards Salem, and being
invited to return,[56] to assist Mr. Skelton, whose declining health
unfitted him for his duties, Mr. Williams requested a dismission from
the church at Plymouth. Some of the members were unwilling to be
separated from him, and accompanied him to Salem, after ineffectual
efforts to detain him at Plymouth.[57] But the ruling elder, Mr.
Brewster, prevailed on the church to dismiss him and his adherents. Mr.
Brewster probably disliked his opinions, and feared that he would be
successful in diffusing them at Plymouth. He, therefore, alarmed the
church, by expressing his fears, that Mr. Williams would “run the same
course of rigid separation and anabaptistry, which Mr. John Smith, the
Se-Baptist, at Amsterdam, had done.”[58] Anabaptism was a spectre, which
haunted the imaginations of the early settlers. The word possessed a
mysterious power of inspiring terror and creating odium. It has,
perhaps, been sometimes employed to justify measures, which might else
have wanted the appearance of justice and humanity. It was one of those
terms, which, in the language of the most original writer, perhaps, of
this age—himself liable to the charge of anabaptism[59]—“can be made the
symbol of all that is absurd and execrable, so that the very sound of it
shall irritate the passions of the multitude, as dogs have been taught
to bark, at the name of a neighboring tyrant.”[60]

While Mr. Williams was at Plymouth, his eldest daughter was born there,
in the first week in August, 1633.[61] She was named Mary, after her
mother.

CHAPTER IV.

Returns to Salem—Ministers Meetings—Court again interferes—the rights
of the Indians—his book against the patent—wearing of
veils—controversy about the cross in the colors.

Mr. Williams left Plymouth probably about the end of August, 1633.[62]
He resumed his labors at Salem, as an assistant to Mr. Skelton, though,
for some cause, he was not elected to any office till after Mr.
Skelton’s death. Perhaps the expectation of this event induced the
church to delay the election of Mr. Williams.

Soon after his return to Salem, his watchful love of liberty seems to
have excited him, together with the venerable Mr. Skelton, to express
some apprehension of the tendencies of a meeting, which several
ministers had established, for the ostensible and probably real purpose
of mutual improvement, and consultation respecting their duties, and the
interests of religion. Winthrop thus states, under the date of November,
1633:

“The ministers in the Bay and Saugus did meet once a fortnight, at one
of their houses, by course, where some question of moment was debated.
Mr. Skelton, the pastor of Salem, and Mr. Williams, who was removed from
Plymouth thither, (but not in any office, though he exercised by way of
prophecy) took some exception against it, as fearing it might grow in
time to a presbytery or superintendency, to the prejudice of the
churches’ liberties. But this fear was without cause; for they were all
clear in that point, that no church or person can have power over
another church; neither did they, in their meetings, exercise any such
jurisdiction.” Vol. i. p. 116.

It may be true, that the fears of Mr. Skelton and Mr. Williams were
without cause, and, in our own times, such meetings of ministers are
held, with much advantage to themselves and to the churches, and without
exciting alarm. But before we decide, that Mr. Williams was
unnecessarily apprehensive, and especially before we accuse him of a
turbulent and factious temper, it deserves inquiry, whether his
experience of ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance in England might
not justify the fear, that the frequent consultations of the ministers
were not ominous of good to the independence of the churches and to
liberty of conscience. Mr. Skelton, however, seems to have been the
principal in this opposition.[63] It may have been a good service to the
cause of liberty and of religion. A watchful dread of encroachments on
civil or religious freedom is not useless, in any age. It was a
prominent trait in the character of the colonists, before the
revolution, and it will always be cherished by a free people. It is a
salutary provision, like the sense of fear in the human bosom. It may
sometimes cause an unnecessary alarm, as the watchman may arouse the
city with an unfounded report of danger. But these evils are preferable
to the incautious negligence, which fears not peril, and thus invites
it.

But more important causes of offence to the magistrates and the clergy
were soon found, in the sentiments and conduct of Mr. Williams. So early
as December 27, 1633, we find the General Court again convened to
consult respecting him:

“December 27. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston, and took into
consideration a treatise, which Mr. Williams (then of Salem) had sent to
them, and which he had formerly written to the Governor and Council of
Plymouth, wherein, among other things, he disputed their right to the
lands they possessed here, and concluded that, claiming by the King’s
grant, they could have no title, nor otherwise, except they compounded
with the natives. For this, taking advice with some of the most
judicious ministers, (who much condemned Mr. Williams’ error and
presumption) they gave order, that he should be convented at the next
Court, to be censured, &c. There were three passages chiefly whereat
they were much offended: 1. for that he chargeth King James to have told
a solemn public lie, because, in his patent, he blessed God that he was
the first Christian prince that had discovered this land: 2. for that he
chargeth him and others with blasphemy, for calling Europe Christendom,
or the Christian world: 3. for that he did personally apply to our
present King, Charles, these three places in the Revelations, viz:
[blank.][64]

“Mr. Endicott being absent, the Governor wrote to him to let him know
what was done, and withal added divers arguments to confute the said
errors, wishing him to deal with Mr. Williams to retract the same, &c.
Whereto he returned a very modest and discreet answer. Mr. Williams also
wrote to the Governor, and also to him and the rest of the Council very
submissively, professing his intent to have been only to have written
for the private satisfaction of the Governor, &c. of Plymouth, without
any purpose to have stirred any further in it, if the Governor here had
not required a copy of him; withal offering his book, or any part of it,
to be burnt.

“At the next Court he appeared _penitently_, and gave satisfaction of
his intention and loyalty. So it was left, and nothing done in it.” Vol.
i. p. 122.

The book, which occasioned these transactions, has not been
preserved.[65] We know not in what terms Mr. Williams uttered his
offensive opinions. The doctrine which he maintained, that the charter
from the King of England could not convey to the colonists the right to
occupy the lands of the Indians, without their consent, is, in the
highest degree, honorable to his head and his heart. He clearly saw the
utter absurdity and injustice of the pretension, whether made by the
Pope or by a Protestant monarch, of sovereignty over other countries,
merely on the ground of prior discovery, or of the barbarous and
wandering character of the inhabitants. It may be a useful regulation
among nations, that the first discoverers of a country shall possess a
superior right to intercourse with the inhabitants for trade or other
purposes. But no people, whether Pagans or Christians, can rightfully be
subjected to a sway, to which they have not voluntarily submitted. This
fundamental principle of human rights applies to the Indians. They were
independent tribes, and could, in no sense, be considered as the
subjects of the King of England. The fact, that some of his vessels had
sailed along their coasts, no more gave him a title to be their
sovereign, than the passage of one of their canoes up the Thames would
have transferred to Canonicus or Powhatan a claim to the crown of
England. If the King possessed no jurisdiction over the Indians, he
could not, of course, convey a title to their lands. It was this point
on which Mr. Williams insisted with special earnestness. “His own
account of this matter,” says Mr. Backus, (vol. i. p. 58,) “informs us,
that the sin of the patents which lay so heavy on his mind was, that
therein ‘Christian Kings (so called) are invested with a right, by
virtue of their _Christianity_, to take and give away the lands and
countries of other men.’[66] And he tells us, that this evil so deeply
afflicted his soul, that ‘before his troubles and banishment, he drew up
a letter, not without the approbation of some of the chiefs of
New-England, then tender also upon this point before God, directed unto
the King himself, humbly acknowledging the evil of THAT PART of the
patent, which respects the donation of lands,’” &c.[67] And the
colonists themselves acted, generally, on the very principle which Mr.
Williams advocated. They purchased the lands of the natives, for a
trifling recompense, as it may seem to us, but such as satisfied the
Indians. Cotton Mather states, though he reckons it as a proof of
_civility_, that “notwithstanding the patent which they had for the
country, they fairly purchased of the natives the several tracts of land
which they afterwards possessed.”[68] Dr. Dwight asserts, that
“exclusively of the country of the Pequods, the inhabitants of
Connecticut bought, unless I am deceived, every inch of ground contained
within that colony, of its native proprietors. The people of
Rhode-Island, Plymouth, Massachusetts and New-Hampshire, proceeded
wholly in the same equitable manner. Until Philip’s war, in 1675, not a
single foot of ground was claimed or occupied by the colonists on any
other score but that of fair purchase.”[69] These facts are honorable to
the pilgrims, and assuredly Roger Williams is entitled to some praise
for steadily advocating this policy from the beginning. He, perhaps,
construed the patent with too much rigor. The King did not, it may be,
mean all that his lofty royal style implied. In his patent to the
Plymouth Company, he alludes to the “wonderful plague” which had raged
among the natives, and left the “large and goodly territories deserted
as it were by the natural inhabitants.” He nevertheless calls himself
the “sovereign lord” of the whole continent, and therefore by his
“special grace, mere motion, and certain knowledge,” gives and grants to
the Company a large part of the continent, from sea to sea, without
intimating that any rights belonged to the natives. A warm friend to the
Indians might easily construe such an instrument as a designed and
flagrant usurpation of their rights. We have seen how the colonists of
New-England practised under the patent, and Mr. Cotton, in his reply to
Roger Williams, affirms: “It was neither the King’s intendment, nor the
English planters’, to take possession of the country by murder or by
robbery, but either to take possession of the void places of the
country, by the law of nature, (for _vacuum domicilium cedit occupanti_)
or if we took any lands from the natives, it was by way of purchase and
free consent. We have not our land merely by right of patent from the
King, but that the natives are true owners of all that they possess or
improve. Neither do I know any amongst us, that either then were, or now
are, of another mind.” Bloody Tenet Washed, p. 26.

But this subject deserves a more full consideration than we can here
give it. The suggestions now offered may suffice to exhibit the upright
integrity and sound judgment which drew from Mr. Williams his
declarations in favor of the natives. It seems, that his book discussed
the abstract question, and probably it was called forth by some
expression of the opposite doctrine. It was not intended for the public
eye, but was a private communication to the Governor and other gentlemen
of Plymouth. He could not be charged with a public attack in this book
on the charter. Nor is it certain, that he questioned the authority of
the charter, so far as it could operate without an infringement of the
rights of the Indians. He was, indeed, charged by Mr. Cotton (Hubbard,
210) with insisting that the charter ought to be returned to the King.
This would certainly have been very unwise, but we can hardly suppose
that Mr. Williams would carry his opposition to this unreasonable
length. Winthrop does not intimate that any such opinion was expressed,
and Mr. Cotton may have misunderstood Mr. Williams’ real meaning.

In regard to the passages which were construed as disrespectful to the
King, it may be sufficient to say, that his own words are not reported;
and at a meeting of the Court, in January, the magistrates and the
clergy acknowledged that they had taken unnecessary offence. It is
probable that they misunderstood him. Winthrop says, under date of
January 24, 1633–4: “The Governor and Council met again at Boston, to
consider of Mr. Williams’ letter, &c. when, with the advice of Mr.
Cotton and Mr. Wilson, and weighing his letter, and further considering
of the aforesaid offensive passages in his book, (which being written in
very obscure and implicative phrases, might well admit of doubtful
interpretation,) they found the matters not to be so evil as at first
they seemed. Whereupon they agreed, that, upon his retraction, &c. or
taking an oath of allegiance to the King, &c. it should be passed over.”
Vol. i. p. 123.

The conduct of Mr. Williams on this occasion was, it must be
acknowledged, mild and conciliatory. He offered to burn the offensive
book, though he did not retract his opinions. He wrote to the Court, we
are told, “submissively,” and afterwards appeared before them
“penitently,” and furnished satisfactory evidence of his “loyalty.” We
cannot determine, how far these expressions may be construed to imply an
acknowledgment of error on the part of Mr. Williams; but they are
valuable, as a proof that he was not so obstinate and contumacious as
the world have been taught to regard him.

He was now permitted, for a while, to continue his ministry at Salem,
without interruption from the magistrates. He was popular as a preacher,
and the people at Salem became strongly attached to him. Mr. Skelton
died in August, 1634, and Mr. Williams was soon after invited to become
the teacher of the church. The magistrates sent to the church a request,
that they would not ordain him; but the church persisted, and Mr.
Williams was regularly introduced to the office of teacher.

This “great contempt of authority,” as it was afterwards pronounced to
be by the magistrates and ministers, was not forgotten. We shall soon
see how it was punished.

We may here take notice of two charges against Mr. Williams, which,
trivial as they are, have been often alleged to his disadvantage. It has
been said, that he preached on the use of veils by females, and insisted
that they should wear them in religious assemblies. We have no record of
his real sentiments on this frivolous subject. Dr. Bentley asserts, that
Mr. Endicott had introduced it before Mr. Williams arrived, and that the
latter adopted the notion, rather to gratify Mr. Endicott and Mr.
Skelton, than because he felt any interest in it himself.[70] And if it
were true, that he was the author of the custom, and wasted his time in
establishing it, we should regard it as a venial weakness, springing
from a reverence for the Scriptures, and a desire for the decorum of
public worship. Before we condemn him, we should call to mind, that
other divines of great name in New-England, such as President Chauncy
and John Elliot, preached vehemently against wigs, and that, in 1649,
the magistrates signed a grave protest against the custom among men of
wearing long hair, and requested the clergy to preach against it, “as a
thing uncivil and unmanly, whereby men do deform themselves, and offend
sober and modest men, and do corrupt good manners.”[71]

The other charge is of more importance. It is said, that in consequence
of Mr. Williams’ preaching, Mr. Endicott cut the cross out of the
military colors, as a relic of antichristian superstition. This act was
doubtless unjustifiable, because the colors were established by the
authority of the King, and ought to have been viewed as a merely civil
regulation. But there is no evidence that Mr. Williams advised the
measure. It seems rather to have been a practical application, by Mr.
Endicott, of the doctrine maintained by Mr. Williams on the unlawfulness
of the ceremonies and symbols which had been used in the service of
idolatry and of Popery. The great controversy between the Puritans and
the Prelates in England mainly turned on the use of the surplice, and
the sign of the cross, and other Popish ceremonies, which the English
Church retained. The Puritans would not conform to the church, on
account of these ceremonies, which they regarded as abominable relics of
Popery. It was a principle among them, on which they acted, that “such
rites and ceremonies as had been abused to idolatry, and manifestly
tended to lead men back to Popery and superstition, were no longer
indifferent, but to be rejected as unlawful.”[72]

Mr. Williams probably preached this doctrine at Salem, and Mr. Endicott
deemed it his duty, as a magistrate, to remove from the colors the
cross, which was the favorite symbol of Popery.[73] Dr. Bentley asserts,
that Mr. Williams was the “_innocent_, though the _real_ cause of
it.”[74] Mr. Endicott was summoned before the Court, admonished, and
declared incapable, for one year, of holding any public office, as a
punishment for the act; but neither he, nor the Court, appear to have
attributed any blame to Mr. Williams, which we may, without a want of
charity, suppose they would have done, if there had been any reasonable
pretence.

CHAPTER V.

Proceedings which led to his banishment—freeman’s oath—various charges
against him—sentence—birth of his second child—leaves Salem for
Narraganset Bay—review of the causes of his banishment.

We will now proceed to narrate the measures which issued in the
banishment of Mr. Williams. We shall follow the guidance of Winthrop, as
to the facts, because this truly great man wrote without the angry
temper which most of the early writers on the subject exhibited.

“1634, Nov. 27. The Court was informed, that Mr. Williams, of Salem, had
broken his promise to us, in teaching publicly against the King’s
patent, and our great sin in claiming right thereby to this country, &c.
and for usual terming the churches of England antichristian. We granted
summons to him for his appearance at the next Court.” Winthrop, vol. i.
p. 151.

We are not informed of the terms of Mr. Williams’ promise, here referred
to, and cannot decide how far he had broken it. The epithet which he is
said to have applied to the churches in England, might, in his judgment,
have been well deserved by many of them. He, of course, referred to the
established churches, then practising, as the Puritans believed,
idolatrous ceremonies, and under the direction of wicked men. Mr.
Cotton, in his “Bloody Tenet Washed,” (p. 109) acknowledges it to be a
source of grief to himself and others, “that there is yet so much of
those notorious evils still continuing in the parishes, (in England)
worldliness, ignorance, superstition, scoffing, swearing, cursing,
whoredom, drunkenness, theft, lying; I may add, also, murder, and
malignity against the godly, suffered to thrust themselves into the
fellowship of the churches, and to sit down with the saints at the
Lord’s table.” We may be allowed to think, that Roger Williams was not
remarkably bigoted, if he did call such churches as these antichristian,
and deem it a sin to hold fellowship with them. He obeyed the summons of
the Court:

“1635, Mo. 2, 30.[75] The Governor and Assistants sent for Mr. Williams.
The occasion was, for that he had taught publicly, that a magistrate
ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man, for that we thereby
have communion with a wicked man in the worship of God, and cause him to
take the name of God in vain. He was heard before all the ministers, and
very clearly confuted. Mr. Endicott was at first of the same opinion,
but he gave place to the truth.” Vol. i. p. 157.

We may repeat, here, what, ought to be constantly borne in mind, that
the statements of Mr. Williams’ opinions come, not from himself, but
from his opponents. We need not insist on the liability to mistake, in
cases where a man’s sentiments are thus disjoined from all those
explanations and arguments with which he would himself have accompanied
them. In the present case, we are not informed of the precise views of
Mr. Williams respecting oaths.[76] He had taken the freeman’s oath in
1631. Many others have entertained doubts of the propriety of oaths, in
any case, and our laws allow an individual, who feels these scruples, to
substitute an affirmation. The unlawfulness of all oaths might be
plausibly argued, from the words of our Saviour, Matthew, v. 34, and
from those of the Apostle James, v. 12. On this ground, however, they
would be equally unlawful to all men, and the distinction which Mr.
Williams is said to have made between Christians and unregenerate men
could not be sustained. If, however, an oath were considered, as he
viewed it, as a religious act, implying devout reverence for the Supreme
Being, a fear of His displeasure and desire of His favor, it would not
be easy to show how an irreligious man can sincerely take an oath. Mr.
Williams had probably seen oaths taken in England with such scandalous
levity, and used for purposes so iniquitous, as to awaken in his mind a
strong aversion to their being administered indiscriminately to the
pious and the profane. We may, nevertheless, admit, that he was
unnecessarily scrupulous on this point, without impeaching either his
piety or his judgment. The ministers seem to have been satisfied with
their success in confuting him. It is usual for disputants to claim the
victory. Perhaps if Mr. Williams had recorded the event, he might have
told us of the unimpaired vigor of his arguments. We have reason to
believe, however, that the offensiveness of Mr. Williams’ opinions
respecting oaths consisted not so much in his abstract objections to
their use, as in his opposition to the new oath of fidelity which the
Court thought proper to require of the citizens. Mr. Cotton[77] states
the case thus: “The magistrates and other members of the General Court,
upon intelligence of some Episcopal and malignant practices against the
country, made an order of Court, to take trial of the fidelity of the
people, not by imposing upon them, but by offering to them, an oath of
fidelity, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not
betrust them with place of public charge and command. This oath, when it
came abroad, he (Mr. Williams) vehemently withstood, and dissuaded
sundry from it, partly because it was, he said, Christ’s prerogative to
have his office established by an oath; partly because an oath was part
of God’s worship, and God’s worship was not to be put upon carnal
persons, as he conceived many of the people to be. So the Court was
forced to desist from that proceeding.”

The reasons assigned by Mr. Cotton for Mr. Williams’ opposition to the
oath are, we suspect, not all the reasons which really moved him to this
course. He probably viewed the act of the Court in absolving the
citizens from the oath which they had already taken, and substituting
another, as an illegal assumption of power. It might be understood to
claim for the Court an authority superior to the charter, for it omitted
the clause of the former oath, which required of the subject obedience
to laws which should be “lawfully” made by the Court, and, instead of
it, obliged men to swear to submit to the “_wholesome_” regulations
which might be established. As the charter prohibited the passage of
laws contrary to the laws of England, the first oath bound the citizen
to obey the Court only while they adhered to the charter; but the new
oath required submission to all the “wholesome” acts of the government,
who were, of course, the sole judges of the wholesomeness of their own
measures. Mr. Cotton says, that the oath was only _offered_, not
imposed, but it was, by a subsequent act of the Court, enforced on every
man above the age of sixteen years, on penalty of punishment at the
discretion of the Court.[78]

To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of
liberty, was opposed. He would not renounce an oath which he had taken,
and substitute another, which bound him to obey whatever laws the
magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath,
moreover, was to guard against “Episcopal and malignant practices.” This
gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience; and
Mr. Williams’ principles were totally opposed to any measure which
tended to that result, however specious its professed object might be.

If these views are correct, Mr. Williams’ opposition to oaths in this
case resolves itself into an inflexible adherence to his great doctrine
of unfettered religious liberty; a doctrine which, more than any thing
else, drew upon him the jealousy and dislike of the magistrates and the
clergy.

In July, he was again summoned to Boston.

“1635, Mo. 5, 8. At the General Court, Mr. Williams, of Salem, was
summoned and did appear. It was laid to his charge, that being under
question before the magistracy and churches for divers dangerous
opinions, viz: 1. that the magistrate ought not to punish the breach of
the first table, otherwise than in such cases as did disturb the civil
peace; 2. that he ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man; 3.
that a man ought not to pray with such, though wife, child, &c.; 4. that
a man ought not to give thanks after the sacrament, nor after meat, &c.;
and that the other churches were about to write to the church of Salem
to admonish him of these errors; notwithstanding, the church had since
called him to [the] office of teacher. Much debate was about these
things. The said opinions were adjudged by all, magistrates and
ministers, (who were desired to be present) to be erroneous and very
dangerous, and that the calling of him to office, at that time, was
judged a great contempt of authority. So, in fine, time was given to him
and the church of Salem to consider of these things till the next
General Court, and then either to give satisfaction to the Court, or
else to expect the sentence; it being professedly declared by the
ministers (at the request of the Court to give their advice) that he who
should obstinately maintain such opinions (whereby a church might run
into heresy, apostacy, or tyranny, and yet the civil magistrate could
not intermeddle) were to be removed, and that the other churches ought
to request the magistrates so to do.” Vol. i. p. 162.

The first two of these charges have been considered. It will be
observed, that the Governor has candidly acknowledged, that Mr. Williams
allowed it to be right for the civil magistrate to punish breaches of
the first table, when they disturbed the civil peace. This fact exempts
him from the charge of opposition to the civil authority.

The third charge, if it is a true representation of the opinion of Mr.
Williams, shows that his judgment in this particular was biased, by an
idea of the impropriety of uniting in religious worship with those who
cannot cordially participate in the service. He thus carried to an
extreme a principle, which the state of things in England had frequently
called into exercise. He probably recollected, that the book of common
prayer implied that all present adopted the petitions as their own; and
as he knew that many who pretended to join in the worship were
notoriously profligate, he might be impelled to the opposite error.[79]

The fourth charge seems too frivolous for notice. What right have men to
insist on ceremonies which the Bible does not enjoin, and which are in
themselves indifferent? If, as is not improbable,[80] there was an
attempt to introduce among the churches a uniformity touching these
little observances, it is not wonderful that Mr. Williams resisted them.
He had seen too much of this system in England, to be willing to submit
to it in America.

As the Salem church adhered to Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the
well-known displeasure of the magistrates and the clergy, a singular
mode of punishing them for their contumacy was soon adopted. Three days
after the session of the Court just mentioned, we are told by Winthrop,
that the “Salem men had preferred a petition at the last General Court,
for some land in Marblehead Neck, which they did challenge as belonging
to their town; but, because they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher,
while he stood under question of authority, and so offered contempt to
the magistrates, &c. their petition was refused till, &c. Upon this the
church of Salem write to other churches to admonish the magistrates of
this as a heinous sin, and likewise the deputies; for which, at the next
General Court, their deputies were not received until they should give
satisfaction about the letter.” Vol. i. p. 164.

Here is a candid avowal, that justice was refused to Salem, on a
question of civil right, as a punishment for the conduct of the church
and pastor. A volume could not more forcibly illustrate the danger of a
connection between the civil and ecclesiastical power. The land, in
question, was granted, after Mr. Williams was banished. The postponement
was evidently designed, and probably had some effect, to induce the
people of Salem to consent to their pastor’s removal.

The church at Salem felt this to be a flagrant wrong, and they naturally
wrote to the other churches, to warn them of this dangerous attack upon
their liberty, and to request them to admonish the magistrates, as
members of the churches, of the criminality of their conduct. It is
difficult to see, why the church at Salem were not fully justified in
this procedure.

The health of Mr. Williams failed under the pressure of his trials and
duties. He declared, “that his life was in danger, by his excessive
labors, preaching thrice a week, by labors night and day in the field;
and by travels night and day, to go and come from the Court.” We need
not be surprised, therefore, at the next notice of him by Winthrop,
under the date of August 16:

“Mr. Williams, pastor of Salem, being sick and not able to speak, wrote
to his church a protestation, that he could not communicate with the
churches in the Bay; neither would he communicate with them, except they
would refuse communion with the rest: but the whole church was grieved
herewith.” Vol. i. p. 166.

Solomon has said, that “oppression maketh a wise man mad;”[81] and it is
not wonderful that it should impel a sick man to write such a letter as
the one here alluded to. Mr. Williams felt deeply that he had been
injured, and that the spiritual fellowship between him and the churches
had suffered a melancholy interruption. He therefore declared, that he
could not commune with them, and he insisted that the church in Salem
should refuse such a communion. In this conduct he was doubtless wrong,
yet who will venture to say, that if he had been placed in the situation
of Mr. Williams, he would have maintained a more subdued spirit?

Matters now rapidly approached a crisis. The magistrates punished with
rigor the offence of the Salem church, or rather of Mr. Williams, in
writing the letter to the other churches. Mr. Endicott was committed,
for justifying that letter, and was not discharged, till he acknowledged
his offence. The following extract from the records of the Court shows a
case, which savours much of the English Court of High Commission: “Mr.
Samuel Sharpe is enjoined to appear at the next Particular Court, to
answer for the letter that came from the church of Salem, as also _to
bring the names of those that will justify the same_, or else to
acknowledge his offence, under his own hand, for his own
particular.”[82]

In October, Mr. Williams was called before the Court for the last time:

“At this General Court, Mr. Williams, the teacher of Salem, was again
convented, and all the ministers in the Bay being desired to be present,
he was charged with the said two letters, that to the churches,
complaining of the magistrates for injustice, extreme oppression, &c.
and the other to his own church, to persuade them to renounce communion
with all the churches in the Bay, as full of antichristian pollution,
&c. He justified both these letters, and maintained all his opinions;
and, being offered further conference or disputation, and a month’s
respite, he chose to dispute presently. So Mr. Hooker was chosen to
dispute with him, but could not reduce him from any of his errors. So,
the next morning, the Court sentenced him to depart out of our
jurisdiction within six weeks, all the ministers, save one, approving
the sentence; and his own church had him under question also for the
same cause; and he, at his return home, refused communion with his own
church, who openly disclaimed his errors, and wrote an humble submission
to the magistrates, acknowledging their fault in joining with Mr.
Williams in that letter to the churches against them,” &c. Vol. i. p.
171.

The sentence was in these terms: “Whereas Mr. Roger Williams, one of the
elders of the church of Salem, hath broached and divulged divers new and
dangerous opinions, against the authority of magistrates; as also writ
letters of defamation, both of the magistrates and churches here, and
that before any conviction, and yet maintaineth the same without any
retractation; it is therefore ordered, that the said Mr. Williams shall
depart out of this jurisdiction within six weeks now next ensuing,
which, if he neglect to perform, it shall be lawful for the Governor and
two of the magistrates to send him to some place out of this
jurisdiction, not to return any more without license from the
Court.”[83]

The conduct of the church at Salem is to be ascribed to the severe
measures of the magistrates, rather than to hostility to Mr. Williams.
Many of them accompanied or followed him in his exile. Neal, in his
History of New-England, acknowledges, that when he was banished, “the
whole town of Salem was in an uproar, for he was esteemed an honest,
disinterested man, and of popular talents in the pulpit.”

Mr. Williams received permission to remain at Salem till spring, but
because he would not refrain, _in his own house_, from uttering his
opinions, the Court resolved to send him to England, in order to remove,
as far as possible, the infection of his principles. Happily for
themselves, and for the country, their design was defeated.

“11 mo. January. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston to consider
about Mr. Williams, for that they were credibly informed, that,
notwithstanding the injunction laid upon him (upon the liberty granted
him to stay till the spring,) not to go about to draw others to his
opinions, he did use to entertain company in his house, and to preach to
them, even of such points as he had been censured for; and it was agreed
to send him into England by a ship then ready to depart. The reason was,
because he had drawn above twenty persons to his opinion, and they were
intended to erect a plantation about the Narraganset Bay, from whence
the infection would easily spread into these churches, (the people being
many of them much taken with the apprehension of his godliness.)
Whereupon a warrant was sent to him to come presently to Boston to be
shipped, &c. He returned answer (and divers of Salem came with it,) that
he could not come without hazard of his life, &c. Whereupon a pinnace
was sent with commission to Capt. Underhill, &c. to apprehend him, and
carry him aboard the ship, (which then rode at Nantasket;) but, when
they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days before;
but whither they could not learn.

“He had so far prevailed at Salem, as many there, (especially of devout
women) did embrace his opinions, and separated from the churches, for
this cause, that some of their members, going into England, did hear the
ministers there, and when they came home the churches here held
communion with them.” Vol. i. p. 175.

Mr. Williams had received notice of the design of the Court, and had
left Salem, in quest of a quiet refuge in the neighborhood of
Narraganset Bay. It appears, that Governor Winthrop had privately
advised him to leave the colony, as a measure, which the public peace
required, and by which the personal interests of Mr. Williams might
ultimately be best promoted. The good of the Indians, also, was a motive
which operated on both their minds. Mr. Williams says, in a letter which
has already been quoted: “It pleased the Most High to direct my steps
into this Bay, by the loving private advice of the ever honored soul,
Mr. John Winthrop, the grandfather, who, though he were carried with the
stream for my banishment, yet he tenderly loved me to his last breath.”
The same fact is asserted, in the letter to Major Mason,[84] and the
advice of Governor Winthrop is ascribed to “many high, and heavenly, and
public ends.” The friendship of the Governor was manifested on various
occasions, and he afterwards united with Mr. Williams in the purchase of
the island of Prudence in Narraganset Bay.

The removal, however, if it might on general grounds have been
expedient, was not now optional. Without considering the justice or
injustice of his banishment, there was certainly great hardship in being
forced from his home in the middle of winter. His second daughter was
born in the latter part of October, 1635,[85] and was consequently an
infant less than three months old, while his eldest child was but a
little more than two years of age. The mother and her two infants he
left behind. His house and land at Salem he mortgaged, to raise money
for the supply of his wants.[86] With a heavy heart must this exiled
husband and father, and this affectionate pastor, have parted from his
family and flock, and plunged into the wilderness, to endure the wintry
storms, and to try the hospitality of the savages.

We have thus briefly examined the reasons assigned by the mild and
candid Winthrop for the expulsion of Mr. Williams from Massachusetts. We
have seen, that these reasons related almost entirely to opinions, which
the magistrates thought to be dangerous, and which the clergy opposed as
tending to schism. It is satisfactory to observe, however, that these
opinions did not refer to any of the great principles of the Gospel. The
religious doctrines which Mr. Williams preached before his banishment
were the same as those of Cotton and Hooker. He was not accused, while
at Plymouth or at Salem, of any deviation from the established
principles of the churches, on points of faith, much less was there any
impeachment of his moral character. It is confessed, by the most bitter
of his opponents, that both at Plymouth and at Salem, he was respected
and beloved, as a pious man, and able minister.

What was there, then, it may be inquired, in the opinions of Mr.
Williams, which was so offensive to the rulers in church and state? His
denial of the right to possess the lands of the Indians without their
own consent, needed not to disturb the colonists, for they purchased
their lands from the natives. His ideas of the unlawfulness of oaths,
and of the impropriety of praying with unregenerate persons, and other
harmless notions of this kind, were surely too unimportant to excite the
fears and provoke the ire of the government. We are led to the
conclusion, that the cause of Mr. Williams’ banishment is to be found in
the great principle which has immortalized his name, that THE CIVIL
POWER HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE CONSCIENCE. This noble doctrine,
which the Scriptures clearly teach, and which reason itself proclaims,
was, at that time, viewed, by most men, to be as heterodox, in morals,
as the Copernican theory was considered by the Inquisition to be false
in philosophy; and he who maintained it was liable to the fate of
Galileo. The Papists abhorred it, for it would have subverted the Papal
throne. The English Church rejected it, for it would have wrested from
the hierarchy its usurped authority, and led the Church away from the
throne of an earthly monarch to the footstool of the King of kings, as
her only head and sovereign. The Puritans themselves disowned it, for
they were so firmly convinced of the truth of their doctrines, that they
deemed him, who was so obstinate as not to embrace them, to be worthy of
punishment for acting in opposition to his own conscience.[87] They
refused to conform to the ceremonies of the English Church, but it was
because they believed those ceremonies to be idolatrous, and not because
they denied to men the power to enforce the belief of doctrines and the
practice of rites. They opposed the Prelates, but they believed that a
similar sway might be safely intrusted to their own hands. They resisted
and for a while triumphed over the Lords Bishops, but they forgot that
the despotism of the Lords Brethren, as Blackstone termed them, might be
quite as intolerable. They did not understand the nature of that liberty
which the Gospel bestows. They were misled by the analogies which they
drew from the Mosaic institutions, and felt it to be their duty to
extirpate heresy, with as unsparing rigor, as the Jews were required to
exercise against those who despised or violated their ritual.

The character of the Puritans has been greatly misunderstood on this
point, and there has been much common-place declamation respecting their
bigotry and inconsistency in persecuting others, after having suffered
persecution themselves. But a candid mind, which understands their
principles, will not, while it must lament and condemn their conduct,
use the language of harsh censure. They were so far from believing, that
liberty of conscience in religious concerns ought to be extended to all
men, that they regarded toleration as a crime. They argued, that they
ought to promote truth, and oppose error, by all the methods in their
power. If they were able to suppress false doctrines, it was, they
believed, a solemn duty to God to employ force, if necessary, for their
suppression. They thought, that he who permitted error to be believed
and preached, was chargeable with a participation in the guilt.
Intolerance became, in their view, a paramount duty to God and to the
heretic himself; and the greater their love of God and of truth, the
greater was their zeal to extirpate, with a strong hand, every noxious
weed from the garden of the Lord.[88] It was not, therefore, a bigoted
preference merely for their own views which made them persecute others,
but a conviction that they only embraced the truth, and that all
opposing doctrines were pernicious, and must not be allowed. It was not,
in their judgment, inconsistent to act thus towards others, after having
themselves endured persecution; for they regarded themselves as having
been sufferers for the truth, and they were urged, by these very
sufferings, to be more faithful in upholding that truth, and suppressing
what they deemed to be error. It is due to the Pilgrims to remember,
that they acted from principles, erroneous certainly, and deplorable in
their effects, but sincerely adopted and cherished in hearts which,
nevertheless, glowed with love to God. The grand doctrine of LIBERTY OF
CONSCIENCE was then a portentous novelty, and it was the glory of Roger
Williams, that he, in such an age, proclaimed it, defended it, suffered
for it, and triumphantly established it.

The principles of Roger Williams stood in the attitude of irreconcilable
opposition to the system which the Pilgrims had established in
New-England. They could not blend with it. They came into collision with
it, at every point. We have accordingly seen, that Mr. Williams was
continually at variance with the government, because their measures were
adjusted to their settled policy, but were repugnant to his great
doctrine. There could be no peace between them, unless he yielded, or
they abandoned their system. He was firm, and they were unconvinced.
They possessed the power, and they banished him; not so much to punish
him, as to remove from the colony a man whose doctrines they believed to
be wrong, whose influence they feared, and whom they could neither
intimidate nor persuade to abandon his principles.

It is intimated by Dr. Bentley,[89] that the rivalry of Salem and Boston
had some effect to induce a rigorous treatment of Mr. Williams. He had
great influence in Salem. He had drawn thither some persons from
Plymouth, and it was, perhaps, feared, that his popularity gave an
importance to Salem, which might be prejudicial to the metropolis.

It is due to the principal actors in these scenes, to record the fact,
of which ample evidence exists, that personal animosity had little, if
any, share in producing the sentence of banishment. Towards Mr.
Williams, as a Christian and a minister, there was a general sentiment
of respect. Governor Winthrop was a generous friend to him throughout
his life; and it is asserted by Dr. Bentley, that “had Governor Winthrop
been at liberty to concur with Endicott, and not have been deterred by
the competition of Boston and Salem, Williams would have lived and died
at Salem.”

Mr. Haynes was Governor at the time Mr. Williams was banished, and Mr.
Winthrop lost for a while his salutary influence over the public
councils.[90] He endeavored, at a subsequent period, to procure a repeal
of the sentence of banishment against Mr. Williams; but a more rigid
policy prevailed, and the founder of Rhode-Island continued till his
death an outlaw from Massachusetts.

Mr. Cotton was, at that time, the most powerful man in the commonwealth;
and well did his piety, learning and intrepid love of pure religion
merit the respect and affections of the colonists. Whatever share he may
have had in procuring the banishment of Mr. Williams,[91] it is certain,
that there was no personal feud between them. They had been acquainted
with each other in England, and had alike suffered from the intolerance
of the Prelates. Mr. Cotton sincerely thought Mr. Williams’ principles
wrong, and dangerous to the church and the state. He felt it to be the
duty of the government to protect the colony, by removing from it this
source of peril. In the controversy which subsequently arose between Mr.
Cotton and Mr. Williams, the latter uniformly spoke of Mr. Cotton in the
most respectful terms;[92] a circumstance, which is the more remarkable,
because at that day the style of polemic discussion was less decorous
than it is at the present time, and disputants lavished upon each other,
with unsparing virulence, the bitterest epithets of obloquy. While we
lament, therefore, that a man of so many admirable qualities as Mr.
Cotton, was misled by wrong views of religious liberty, and thus
betrayed into intolerance, we owe it to his honorable fame to remember,
that the best men are imperfect, and that no personal hostility inflamed
his zeal.

We may express the verdict, which, at this distant period, all calm and
fair minds will, it is presumed, pronounce: that Mr. Williams was
unnecessarily scrupulous about some minor points of conduct and of
policy, though these scruples may be candidly traced to the agitated
condition of the public mind in England and America, and to his own
delicacy of conscience; that he may have erred in maintaining his
principles with too little of that meek patience which he who would
effect a reform in the opinions of men must possess, though candor will
admit, that the constant opposition which Mr. Williams encountered might
have irritated a gentler spirit than his; that his behavior to the civil
rulers was not indecorous, unless a firm opposition to what he
considered as wrong in their measures might be viewed as indecorum, for
he yielded to their authority, in every point which his conscience would
allow; that his private character was pure; and that the cause of his
banishment may be found, in his distinguishing doctrine, _that the civil
power has no control over the religious opinions of men_; a doctrine
which no man, in our country, would, at the present day, venture to
deny. Mr. Williams was banished, therefore, because his spirit was too
elevated and enlarged, for the community in which he lived. Like
Aristides, the prominent excellence of his character was the cause of
his banishment.

But the same impartial verdict will do justice to the Pilgrims. They
felt it to be not merely their right, but their duty, to protect their
theocracy from persons, whose opinions or conduct, in their judgment,
disturbed its peace or endangered its purity. They believed, that the
sword of the magistrate was to be used for the defence of the church, as
in the days of Moses and Aaron. To deny this principle, was to subvert
the foundation of their civil and religious institutions; and it became,
in their opinion, a measure of self-preservation, and of paramount duty
to God, to expel Mr. Williams from the colony. That the grounds of this
measure were wrong, will not now be disputed; but we ought to rejoice,
that we can ascribe it to a sincere, though misdirected, desire to
uphold the church, and to advance the honor of God. Were these excellent
men now alive, they would be foremost in lamenting their own error, and
in vindicating those principles of religious liberty, for which Mr.
Williams incurred their displeasure.

And we may on this occasion, as on many others, observe the wonderful
wisdom of Divine Providence, which so controls the mistakes and sins of
men, as to accomplish the most important results. The banishment of Mr.
Williams contributed in the end to his own happiness and fame. Another
colony was established, and thus civilization and religion were
diffused. And we shall soon see how this event, though springing from
wrong views, and producing much immediate suffering, was the means, a
few years after, of that interposition of Mr. Williams between the
colonists and the Indians, which apparently rescued the whites
throughout New-England from total destruction.

CHAPTER VI.

Numbers, condition, language, rights, &c. of the Indians in
New-England.

The history of Roger Williams becomes, from this point, so closely
connected with that of the Indians, as to make it necessary to present a
brief sketch of their situation and character. We must confine our view
to those who inhabited New-England. Mr. Williams himself has furnished
us with valuable aid in this review. His Key to the Indian Languages,
though its chief object was philology, presents many interesting details
respecting the habits and general character of the aborigines.

The territory now comprehended within the limits of New-England was
inhabited by various tribes, the principal of which were the following:

1. The _Pawtuckets_, whose territory extended from Salem, (Mass.) to
Portsmouth, (N. H.,) being bounded by the ocean on the east, and by the
Nipmuck country on the west.

2. The _Massachusetts_, who dwelt chiefly about the Bay, which bears
their name.

3. The _Pokanokets_, who inhabited the territory of the old colony of
Plymouth. This tribe included several subordinate tribes, among whom
were the Wampanoags, the particular tribe of Massassoit and Philip.

4. The _Narragansets_, who inhabited nearly all the territory which
afterwards formed the colony of Rhode-Island, including the islands in
the Bay, Block-Island, and a part of Long-Island.

5. The _Pequods_, who inhabited the southern part of the present State
of Connecticut. The Mohegans have been considered as a part of this
tribe, inhabiting the western and northern parts of Connecticut.

These principal nations included many subordinate and tributary tribes,
among whom may be mentioned the Nipmucks, who were scattered over the
western parts of Massachusetts.

At a period not long preceding the arrival of the English, a pestilence
prevailed among the natives, to so frightful an extent, that some of the
tribes became nearly extinct. The Pawtuckets, who could previously raise
three thousand fighting men, were almost exterminated. The
Massachusetts, who were equally numerous, were so reduced, that they
could not, probably, in 1630, have raised a hundred men. The Pokanokets
were diminished to about five hundred warriors.[93] The Narragansets
suffered little, and the Pequods were uninjured by the pestilence. Each
of these tribes could raise four thousand fighting men.[94] The Pequods
were the most fierce and warlike, and the Narragansets the most
civilized, of the New-England savages.

The Indians, when most numerous, could occupy but a small portion of the
territory. They subsisted chiefly by hunting, a mode of life which is
impracticable except where extensive tracts remain in the wildness of
nature. Their dwellings were usually built in small villages, rudely
constructed of skins or bark, and easily removed, as their caprice or
necessities required. The lands claimed by each tribe were held in
common. Each member roamed over it at his pleasure, and took the game
wherever he could find it. Their agriculture was limited to the
cultivation of Indian corn, tobacco, and a few esculent vegetables, such
as beans and squashes. The agricultural labor was performed by the
women, with little skill, and rude implements. The product must
consequently have been small. Game was not always plentiful, or was
consumed with the improvident voracity of savages. They did not
understand the art of salting provisions for future use. They often
suffered from hunger, especially during the winter. They knew little of
the medical art, and their diseases, though few, were fatal. Their wars
were frequent and sanguinary. Their mode of life was unfavorable to the
rearing of children. For these and other reasons, the native tribes
could never have been very numerous; and if the Europeans had not landed
here, the country over which our free and flourishing States have spread
themselves would, it is probable, have been, at this hour, a wilderness,
the hunting ground of tribes not less savage, and, perhaps, little more
numerous, than those whom our fathers found here.

The origin of the Indians is involved in impenetrable mystery. Their own
traditions shed no light on the subject, and nothing has been found, in
their customs or languages, which could lead to a satisfactory
conclusion. Imagination has been active in tracing their connection with
different nations. The favorite theory of many writers has been, that
they are the descendants of the ten Jewish tribes; but this opinion is
founded on the slight ground of a few coincidences between the customs
of the Jews and those of the Indians, and fancied resemblances in some
of their words to terms in the Hebrew language. Roger Williams wisely
refrains from expressing any opinion on the subject, except by stating
his confidence that the Indians have sprung from Adam and Noah. He
mentions several Indian customs, which resemble Jewish rites, and says,
“others (and myself) have conceived some of their words to hold affinity
with the Hebrew.” But he adds, “I have found a greater affinity of their
language with the Greek tongue.”[95] The natives themselves believed,
that their great god Cautantowit made a man and woman of a stone, but
disliking them, he broke them in pieces, and made another man and woman
of a tree, from whom all mankind have descended.[96] The mounds and
other monuments found in the western States, have been considered as
evidences, that some people, superior to the Indians, once inhabited
that part of the country. But who they were, and why they disappeared,
we shall probably never know. The probability seems to be, that America
was first inhabited by emigrants from Asia, who crossed from the one
continent to the other, at some point near the northwestern extremity of
America. But conjecture is useless. That the Indians have descended from
Adam, no one who reverences the Bible will doubt. That they are of a
kindred nature with other men is proved, both by their virtues and their
vices. Their minds are acknowledged, by all who have known them well, to
be fully equal in strength and acuteness to those of civilized men. That
they are capable of becoming pious Christians, has happily been
demonstrated by many cheering examples.

Their government was very simple. A wild freedom prevailed among them,
and their roving habits did not permit much control. They needed,
however, some rulers in peace, and leaders in war. Each tribe had one or
more chiefs, called sachems, who were, at first, chosen by the tribe, or
who gained the ascendency, by superior wisdom or courage. Some of these
sachems inherited and transmitted their power, by hereditary right; but
it is probable, that the incumbent owed his authority more to his
personal qualities than to his birth.[97] The sachems held nominally the
supreme power, and received tribute, but they were controlled by the
wisdom of the aged men, and by the fierce energy of the young warriors.
“The sachems,” says Roger Williams,[98] “although they have an absolute
monarchy over the people, yet they will not conclude of aught that
concerns all, either laws, or subsidies, or wars, unto which the people
are averse, and by gentle persuasion cannot be brought.” There were
subordinate chiefs, sometimes called sagamores, who held a limited
authority over portions of the tribes. All important questions were
discussed in councils, where eloquence was as fervid and efficacious,
probably, as in the more polished assemblies of Greece.

The physical characteristics of the Indians were common to all the
tribes,—a bronze or copper color; straight, coarse, black hair, hazel
eyes, high cheek bones, and an erect form.[99] They possessed firm, well
compacted bodies, capable of enduring the greatest hardships and
fatigues, and regardless of cold, while travelling in the severity of
winter.[100] They were very active, and could run vast distances with
astonishing speed and endurance.[101] They could subsist for many days
on a little parched corn, pounded into meal. “This,” says Roger
Williams, “is a very wholesome food, which they eat with a little water,
hot or cold. I have travelled with near two hundred of them at once,
near one hundred miles through the woods, each man carrying a little
basket of this at his back, and sometimes in a hollow leather girdle
about his middle, sufficient for a man for three or four days. With this
ready provision, and their bow and arrow, are they ready for war and
travel at a moment’s warning. With a spoonful of this meal and a
spoonful of water from the brook, have I made many a good dinner and
supper.”[102] When they had leisure, however, and a plentiful supply of
food, they would compensate themselves for their abstinence, by eating
enormous quantities. Their cookery was simple, their meat or fish being
boiled or roasted, and eaten without salt or bread. Indian corn, boiled,
either whole or when ground, was a common dish.[103] Their only drink
was water, until Europeans introduced among them the devouring curse of
spirituous liquors. Tobacco was in general use, as a remedy for the
toothache, and as a stimulant, of which they were as fond as their
civilized successors.

Their diseases were few, but neglect or injudicious treatment made them
very destructive. The chief remedy was sweating, in a cave or cell, made
hot with heated stones. In this cell the patient remained an hour or
more, and then plunged into a river. Roger Williams expended much time
and money in administering to the sick among the Indians, and he
expressed his confidence, that millions of the natives had perished for
want of suitable aid. Infectious diseases sometimes seized them, and
made terrific ravages. The living fled, and whole towns were deserted.
The powaws, or priests, pretended to much skill in curing diseases; but
their medical practice consisted mainly of hideous bellowings,
incantations, and other fantastic ceremonies.

Their domestic habits were not favorable to happiness or virtue. The
marriage relation was formed with little care, and was dissolved at the
pleasure of the husband. A man might have as many wives as he chose, and
was able to purchase from their parents. The women were treated with
rigor. They were forced to perform the labors of agriculture, and to
carry the provisions and packs of every kind, in their huntings and
marches. The parents permitted their children to grow up without
restraint, and the children were undutiful, and often cruel to their
parents.

The Indians were hospitable to strangers. They were grateful for
benefits, and were firm friends; but their resentment of injuries was
fierce and implacable. They pursued an enemy with the malignity of
fiends, and they usually murdered their captives, with prolonged and
shocking tortures. They met death, even when thus inflicted, with the
utmost composure, disdaining to exhibit any symptoms of fear or pain,
and often provoking their tormentors by scornful taunts. They were
treacherous, prone to lying, and indolent, except when war or hunting
roused them to action. They were fond of sports, and like the Germans,
as described by Tacitus, they were addicted to gaming.

They had no commerce, except the sale of corn, skins, and some other
articles, to the Europeans. Their only money consisted of shells, sewed
together on strips of cloth, and thus forming belts of various lengths,
and different degrees of beauty, according to the taste of the maker.
This money, as described by Roger Williams, “was of two sorts: one
white, which they make of the stem or stock of the periwinkle, which
they call meteauhock, when all the shell is broken off; and of this
sort, six of their small beads (which they make with holes to string the
bracelets) are current with the English for a penny. The second is
black, inclining to blue, which is made of the shell of a fish which the
English call hens, poquauhock,[104] and of this sort three make an
English penny.” The white money was called wampum, which signified
white. The other was called suckauhock, a word signifying black. Both
kinds seem to have been called wampum, or wampumpeag. The Narraganset
Indians were reputed the most skilful coiners of wampum, and the most
ingenious manufacturers of pendants, bracelets, stone tobacco pipes, and
earthen vessels for cooking and other domestic uses.[105] They were, as
a cause, or perhaps as a consequence, more civilized and less warlike
than their neighbors.[106] The Pequods insulted them, with the
contemptuous title of a nation of women. It is a coincidence worthy of
remark, that Rhode-Island, where this primitive nation of manufacturers
resided, is distinguished as the place where the manufacture of cotton
was commenced in this country, and where this, and its kindred arts,
have been cultivated with great success. The history of Rhode-Island,
however, shows that her sons have not been deficient in martial
qualities. If the sarcasm of the Pequods was deserved by the
Narragansets, it has no application to those who now occupy the
beautiful islands, the streams, the hills and the plains, from which
this hapless tribe have disappeared forever.

The wars of the Indians were frequent. They were conducted in a
desultory manner, with all the arts of savage cunning. Their weapons
were bows and arrows, clubs, and rude spears. Their arrows were headed
with sharp, triangular pieces of stone, many of which are found at the
present day. After the arrival of the English, the arrow heads were made
of brass, and an iron hatchet being added to the club, formed the
dreaded tomahawk. The Indians soon learned the value of fire arms.
Though the sale of muskets and of powder to the Indians was forbidden by
the colonists, yet the natives, obtaining a supply from the Dutch, and
from unprincipled traders, speedily rivalled the Europeans in the
skilful use of these instruments of death.

The religion of the Indians was vague and shadowy. They had no images,
but they worshipped a number of deities. Roger Williams said, that he
had heard the names of thirty-seven gods, to whom they rendered some
religious homage. They acknowledged, however, one superior being, named
Cautantowit, as the creator of men, and the giver of their corn and
other temporal benefits. They believed that Cautantowit resided in the
southwest,[107] in a delightful region, to which the souls of good men
went after death, and enjoyed fruitful fields, placid streams, abundant
game, and every thing else which an Indian’s imagination could conceive
as necessary to happiness. The souls of wicked men, as they believed,
would wander, without rest.[108] The separate existence and immortality
of the soul, and an endless state of retribution, according to the deeds
done in the body, were prominent doctrines in the narrow creed of these
rude savages. These doctrines are found among almost all nations; and
their prevalence can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing that
they are derived from the original revelation, and preserved, by
tradition, as well as by their accordance with the reason and instincts
of mankind.

The Indians had priests, who directed their worship. This consisted in
little more than occasional prayers, dances and feasts. Their religion
had little influence over their minds, as an incentive to virtue, or as
a source of consolation. They lived in gross darkness, and died without
hope. Though Eliot, Roger Williams, and others, labored for their
spiritual welfare, with some success,[109] yet the great mass of the
tribes went into eternity without a knowledge of the Saviour. It is
melancholy to reflect, that multitudes of these immortal beings died, in
all their darkness, after the glorious Gospel had begun to shed its
radiance over these hills and vallies. Our fathers desired and attempted
their conversion, but their efforts were baffled, by many adverse
causes. Let us, at this late day, endeavor to lead the feeble remnants
of these departed nations to the great Bishop of souls.

The languages of the Indians are among the wonders of philology. They
have been studied, with ardor and success, by many scholars in our own
country, and by a few scientific men abroad.[110] These languages,
instead of being rude and scanty, as might be inferred from the
character of the Indians, are found to be astonishingly regular and
copious, rich in forms, and possessing a facility of combination, and a
nice discrimination in their inflections, which are scarcely surpassed
even by the ancient Greek.[111] Mr. Du Ponceau, of Philadelphia, who has
studied the native dialects with great diligence and with philosophical
acumen, says, “I confess that I am lost in astonishment at the
copiousness and admirable structure of their languages; for which I can
only account by looking up to the Great First Cause.”[112] He says, of
the Delaware language, “it would rather appear to have been formed by
philosophers in their closets, than by savages in the wilderness.”

The languages and dialects spoken on the continent of America, have been
estimated by the authors of the Mithridates, at the astonishing number
of _twelve hundred and fourteen_.[113] A large proportion of these,
however, are only variations of a few parent languages, just as the
English language is varied in different counties in England by
peculiarities, which are scarcely intelligible in other parts of the
island. The French language is, in the same way, corrupted by the
_patois_ of different sections of the country. Unwritten languages are,
of course, still more liable to variations, which, in time, would make a
distinct dialect.

All the native languages of North America have been reduced to four
classes: 1. The Karalit, or language of Greenland, and the Esquimaux. 2.
The Delaware. 3. The Iroquois. 4. The Floridian, comprehending the body
of languages spoken on the whole southern frontier of the United
States.[114]

The dialects spoken in New-England are believed to have been varieties
of the Delaware language.[115] Roger Williams affirms of the Narraganset
tongue, that “with this I have entered into the secrets of those
countries wherever English dwell, about two hundred miles, between the
French and Dutch plantations. There is a mixture of this language north
and south from the place of my abode about six hundred miles; yet,
within the two hundred miles aforesaid, their dialects do exceedingly
differ, yet not so but (within that compass) a man may by this help
converse with thousands of natives all over the country.”[116] The
Massachusetts language, into which Eliot translated the Bible, was
radically the same tongue as the Narraganset.

Roger Williams published the first vocabulary of an Indian language. His
book attracted attention, when first published, in 1643, and it is still
much valued. We shall have occasion to recur to it. Eliot wrote a
Grammar of the Massachusetts language. The son of President Edwards
wrote a brief account of the Mohegan language. The Hon. Josiah Cotton, a
descendant of the great John Cotton, compiled a vocabulary of the
Massachusetts dialect. These and other valuable papers on the native
languages, have been published in the Collections of the Massachusetts
Historical Society. They are worthy of the attention of every man who
loves to study the human mind, and who feels an interest in the
character of the Indians.

We will now offer a few remarks on a subject which has already been
touched, the rights of the Indians, and the treatment which they
received from the colonists. It is a topic of deep interest, which
affects the character of our fathers, and to which recent events and the
present condition of the surviving Indians have attracted earnest
attention.

The right of the natives to hold the possession and control of all the
territory on this continent has been a subject of dispute. The general
principles applicable to this case, as expounded by Vattel, are
these:[117] God has given the earth to the human race, and every man is
entitled to a portion of its surface, sufficient for the comfortable
support of himself and family. The actual occupancy of such a portion
gives to the occupant a title which no man can rightfully disturb. But
no one has an original right to appropriate to himself more than he
needs, because he may thus deprive others, who possess equal rights with
himself, of their appropriate share. Nor can he justly adopt a mode of
subsistence, which will necessarily require so large an extent of
territory, as to deprive his fellow men of their proportion, and either
prevent the increase of the human race, or produce in other places an
accumulation of masses of men, too great to be comfortably sustained.
That the cultivation of the earth was designed by the Creator to be the
chief means of subsistence to the human family, cannot be doubted;
because the increase of the race was certainly his purpose,[118] and
agriculture is the only mode by which a dense population could every
where be supported. It follows, that a man has no right to claim for
himself a vast tract of forest, because he chooses to subsist by
hunting. If all other men cannot have a similar tract, he must, himself,
become a cultivator, and thus subsist on a small portion of land. If a
man had appropriated to himself a large territory, which, by proper
cultivation, would furnish subsistence for many others, those others, if
their necessities required, would have a right to claim their share, and
to enforce their claim.

These principles, in their application to a primitive society, just
taking possession of a new territory, seem to be indisputable. They are
the principles on which the land of Canaan was divided among the Jews,
by the authority of God himself, and on which the colonists in this
country generally proceeded, in dividing the territory which they
acquired from the Indians.

In the progress of society, however, the balance soon becomes disturbed.
Other modes of subsistence than agriculture are adopted, and various
causes produce an accumulation of wealth in the hands of some men, while
others are reduced to indigence. The peace of society requires, that the
rich should be protected in their lawful possessions; though every
civilized nation still acts on the principle, that every member of the
community is entitled to a subsistence. He ought to earn it by his
labor, but if sickness, or want of employment, or other reasonable
causes, prevent, he is entitled to assistance from the community, and
the rich are taxed for his support. The most strenuous opposer of poor
laws will not deny, that a man, who cannot maintain himself, has a right
to aid from his fellow citizens. Thus the original law of nature comes
into operation, and the inequalities which arise are, in some measure,
compensated. But a fundamental principle of civilized society is, that
every man is to be protected in the enjoyment of the property which he
lawfully acquires. He may use it as he pleases, if he does not injure
others; and he cannot be deprived of it, or of any part of it, without
his own consent.

It is not easy to see, why the same principle should not be applied to
the Indians. They had regular, though simple, governments, and the
territories of each tribe were defined by boundaries sufficiently
precise for their purposes. They had the best of all titles to their
lands, actual possession. Why, then, might not the Indian claim to be
protected in the enjoyment of his property? Why might he not make use of
that property as he pleased, while he did not trespass on the rights of
others? If the law of nations did not reach him, was he out of the pale
of the great law of justice and reason? If it were said, that he had no
right to appropriate to himself miles of forest, for a hunting ground,
he might reply, that he had as good a right as an English nobleman has
to appropriate to himself a vast space, for parks and fish ponds; and,
indeed, a better right, by the law of nature, for every other Indian
could enjoy as much land as himself, while the nobleman must see
hundreds around him in abject poverty.

But it has been said, that the Creator could not have designed this vast
and beautiful region to be exclusively inhabited by a few thousands of
savage hunters; and, therefore, if the old world should become crowded
with inhabitants, a portion of them would have a right to remove to
America, and occupy a portion of it, as a part of the great inheritance
of the human race. The Indians would consequently be bound to allow them
a sufficient space; and if the numbers of both parties should so
increase as to make hunting impracticable, the Indians ought to become
cultivators.

If this theory were admitted as sound, the practical application of it
would not be easy. The absolute necessity of emigration from the old
world has not, perhaps, occurred, and yet this case must be made out, to
justify an occupancy of a part of the Indian territory, without the
consent of the natives. Immense tracts of uncultivated land exist in
Europe, and even in England. Why would it not be as just for a company
of settlers to fix their dwellings in a nobleman’s park, cut down his
trees, and plant their corn, as to do the same on the lands of an
Indian? If it were alleged, that the Indian had more land than he
needed, the same might be said, perhaps, of the nobleman. At any rate,
it might be asked, who was the proper judge, how much land an Indian
needed?

But, looking at the actual state of things, at the settlement of this
country, the necessities of the Pilgrims were sufficiently great, to
make it the duty of the Indians to receive them hospitably, and allow
them a portion of their lands. Where the country was deserted by the
natives, the colonists might, undoubtedly, take possession. But wherever
the Indians actually occupied the territory, even for the purposes of
hunting, they were, clearly, the proprietors; and though it was
doubtless their duty to cede to the Europeans a sufficient portion for
their maintenance, yet they could not justly be forced to perform this
duty. The settlers were bound to be satisfied with a sufficient amount
of land for their comfortable support by agriculture and by the arts of
civilized life. But the Indians retained an inviolable right to so much
territory as they deemed necessary for their own use. Their title was
beyond dispute. No power on earth could lawfully dispossess them.

We may conclude, then, that the Indians were the lawful proprietors of
all the lands which they occupied. They were independent nations, and
had a right to regulate their governments, and use their territory, as
they pleased, while they respected the rights of others. They
consequently could not be lawfully subjected to the sway of any other
nation, without their own consent. No charters from popes or kings could
give a right to take possession of the Indian territory. The Indians
were nevertheless under an obligation to receive distressed Europeans,
who sought their coasts, and to sell them land. They were, too, bound by
the great law of God, which requires men to aspire after moral and
physical perfection. This law obliged them to become civilized, and to
adopt those modes of life which would enable their territory to support
the greatest possible number of inhabitants. Hence arose another
obligation to admit Europeans among them, who were capable of
instructing and elevating them to the rank of civilized, educated,
Christian nations. The duties of the settlers were, to make a reasonable
compensation for the land ceded; to respect the rights of the natives;
to treat them with uniform kindness; to teach them the arts of
civilization; and, above all, to inculcate the principles and the
practice of the Christian religion.

It is pleasing to observe, in the history of the New-England colonists,
that the duties of both parties were, to so great an extent, fulfilled.
The Indians, in most cases, received the white men with generous
hospitality; they sold them land, on easy terms; many tribes remained
their firm friends; and some of the natives became converts to the
Christian faith. The colonists, on the other hand, purchased their lands
from the Indians, for such a compensation as satisfied the natives, and
was a fair equivalent at that time.[119] They treated the Indians,
generally, with justice, and they made many zealous efforts for their
conversion. That some of the proceedings of the colonists towards the
Indians were not strictly equitable nor kind, must be admitted. Our
fathers were too prone to view them rather as heathens than as men. They
recurred too often to the Jewish history, for imaginary analogies; and
drew unauthorized inferences from the conduct of the Jews towards
idolatrous nations, whom God, the sovereign ruler, commanded them to
destroy. In their wars with the natives, the colonists were sometimes
unjustifiably severe; but it is due to their memory to say, that those
wars were commenced by the savages themselves, from jealousy of the
advancing power of the whites, rather than from the experience of actual
injury. We must consider, too, that when the struggle came, it was, on
the part of the whites, a contest for life and death, with an enemy
vastly more numerous, and whose modes of warfare were treacherous,
cruel, and terrific in the highest degree to the scattered and feeble
settlements.[120]

A candid reader of our early colonial history, while he observes many
things which he deeply regrets and condemns, must nevertheless admit,
that the conduct of our fathers towards the Indians was, in general,
worthy of their high character, as wise and pious, yet imperfect men,
who were placed in circumstances which severely tried their principles,
and amid difficulties, which required the utmost wisdom and courage.
When we consider the diabolical cruelty with which the Spaniards treated
the unhappy natives of South America, we must turn, with, emotions of
grateful pleasure, to the history of our own land, and rejoice, that our
fathers were men, for whom their descendants have little occasion to
blush, or to apologize.

The kings of England, whatever language they employed in their patents
and charters, treated the Indians, in practice, as separate nations, and
entered into treaties with different tribes. The government of the
United States have done the same, and, except in one humiliating
instance, have pursued towards the natives a just and humane policy. The
treaties so formed have been pronounced, by the highest legal authority
in this country, to be binding on our government, and the rights of the
Indians, as distinct nations, though under the protection of the United
States, have thus been judicially recognised.[121]

That the Indian tribes in New-England melted away, must awaken
melancholy feelings. But it cannot be maintained, that their
disappearance was occasioned mainly by the treatment or the neglect
which they experienced from the colonial governments. These governments
could not wholly prevent unprincipled individuals from inflicting wrongs
on the natives, which tended to exasperate them. They could not entirely
exclude the introduction of ardent spirits, the most deadly and active
agent in the destruction of the aborigines. Though they sent
missionaries, and printed Bibles, and erected schools, for the religious
and literary instruction of the natives, they could not reclaim any
considerable proportion of them from their savage habits. As the whites
increased, the game disappeared, and as the Indians did not alter their
habits, they became destitute, and their numbers diminished. They saw,
at length, the alternative, of utter ruin or the expulsion of the
English, and they determined to attempt the latter. But it was too late.
They fought, with desperation, and filled the land with frightful
distress and bloodshed. But the superior skill of the whites prevailed,
and the death of the formidable Philip terminated forever the power of
the Indians in New-England. We may admit, that the savages were impelled
by some motives of patriotism and love of liberty. We may respect and
pity them. But surely we cannot lament that they failed; that their
exterminating warfare did not accomplish its purpose; that the tomahawk
did not, after butchering the last father in the field, smite the last
infant in the cradle; that the flames did not lay in ashes every
dwelling of civilized man and every temple of God; and that barbarism
did not resume its dominion over the hills and vallies of New-England.
No man, if he could do it by waving some potent wand, would bid all this
teeming population, this wide spread happiness, this wonderful triumph
of civilization, freedom and religion, disappear, like a gorgeous
vision, and restore this whole land to the condition in which the
Pilgrims found it, or even place it in the situation in which it would
have been, at this moment, if no civilized man had landed on these
shores. Human happiness has been immeasurably increased by the
settlement of this continent. Christianity has extended her conquests;
and no thoughtful man can doubt, that the landing of the Pilgrims, and
the subsequent history of this country, have been controlled by Him, who
accomplishes his great designs of mercy to the universe, by means which
often involve individual suffering, and sometimes produce national ruin.

Let us feel our obligation to treat the feeble remnants of the tribes
who yet remain with generous kindness. Let us recompense them for
whatever wrongs their fathers may have received. Let us, now that they
are weak, and we are strong, be scrupulously attentive to their rights,
and seek to promote their highest temporal and eternal welfare. Without
the friendship of their fathers, at the beginning, ours must have
perished. Let the children of the white man prove their gratitude, by
saving from ruin the helpless descendants of the savage.

CHAPTER VII.

Mr. Williams proceeds to Seekonk—crosses the river, and founds the
town of Providence.

About the middle of January, 1635–6,[122] Mr. Williams left Salem, in
secrecy and haste. It is not certain, that any one accompanied him,
though a number of persons were with him a short time afterwards. He
proceeded to the south, towards the Narraganset Bay. The weather was
very severe, and his sufferings were great. In a letter written
thirty-five years afterwards, he said: “I was sorely tossed for one
fourteen weeks, in a bitter winter season, not knowing what bread or bed
did mean;” and he added, that he still felt the effects of his exposure
to the severity of the weather.[123]

He appears to have visited Ousamequin, the sachem of Pokanoket, who
resided at Mount Hope, near the present town of Bristol (R. I.) From him
he obtained a grant of land now included in the town of Seekonk, in
Massachusetts, on the east bank of Pawtucket (now Seekonk) river.[124]
This territory was within the limits of the Plymouth colony, but Mr.
Williams recognised the Indians only as the proprietors, and bought a
title from the sachem. Ousamequin doubtless granted his request with
pleasure, as a return for the services and presents which he had
formerly received from Mr. Williams. If, as we have supposed, the exile
was obliged to visit the sachem, and make these arrangements, the
journey, on foot, increased that exposure to the severity of the
elements, of which he complains.

He was, moreover, unprovided with a dwelling. Mr. Cotton (in his Bloody
Tenet washed, p. 8.) says, “that some of his friends went to the place
appointed by himself beforehand, to make provision of housing, and other
necessaries for him against his coming.” This statement however, must be
incorrect. Mr. Williams’ departure from Salem was sudden and unexpected;
and his assertion, just quoted, that he did not know “what bread or bed
did mean,” for fourteen weeks, must be understood as excluding the idea
of such a preparation as Mr. Cotton mentions. Mr. Williams, too, says,
“I first pitched, and began to build and plant at Seekonk.”[125] He had
no house, it would seem, till he built one.

For the means of subsistence, he must have been dependent on the
Indians. At that season, hunting and fishing were impracticable, if he
had possessed the proper instruments. The earth was covered with snow,
and he had not even the poor resource of roots. He may refer to his
situation at this time, in the following lines, alluding to the Indians:

“God’s Providence is rich to his,
Let none distrustful be;
In wilderness, in great distress,
These ravens have fed me.”[126]

The spot, in Seekonk, where he reared his habitation, is believed, on
good authority, to have been at Manton’s Neck, near the cove, a short
distance above the Central Bridge.[127]

Here he probably hoped, that he might live in peace. He was soon joined
by several friends, if they did not at first accompany him. His wife and
children were still at Salem.

But Seekonk was not to be his home. In a short time, to use his own
language, “I received a letter from my ancient friend, Mr. Winslow, the
Governor of Plymouth, professing his own and others’ love and respect to
me, yet lovingly advising me, since I was fallen into the edge of their
bounds, and they were loath to displease the Bay, to remove to the other
side of the water, and there, he said, I had the country free before me,
and might be as free as themselves, and we should be loving neighbors
together.”

This advice was apparently prudent and friendly, prompted by a desire of
peace, and by a kind regard to Mr. Williams. It does not seem to deserve
the harsh comments which have sometimes been made on it. Mr. Williams
himself does not speak of it in a tone of reproach. He immediately
resolved to comply with the advice. He accordingly embarked in a canoe,
with five others,[128] and proceeded down the stream. As they approached
the little cove, near Tockwotten, now India Point, they were saluted, by
a company of Indians, with the friendly interrogation, “_What cheer?_” a
common English phrase, which they had learned from the colonists.[129]
At this spot, they probably went on shore, but they did not long remain
there.[130] They passed round India Point and Fox Point, and proceeded
up the river on the west side of the peninsula, to a spot near the mouth
of the Moshassuck river. Tradition reports, that Mr. Williams landed
near a spring, which remains till this day.[131] At this spot, the
settlement of Rhode-Island commenced:

“O call it holy ground,
The soil where first they trod,
They have left unstained, what there they found,
FREEDOM TO WORSHIP GOD.”[132]

To the town here founded, Mr. Williams, with his habitual piety, and in
grateful remembrance of “God’s merciful Providence to him in his
distress,” gave the name of PROVIDENCE.

There has been much discussion respecting the precise period at which
this memorable event occurred. There is a perplexing confusion in the
statements of different writers. We shall be excused, if we examine the
subject with some minuteness. Callender, in his Century Sermon, (p. 18)
says, that it was “in the spring of the year 1634–5.” Governor Hopkins,
in his History of Providence,[133] places it “some time in the year
1634.” Hutchinson (vol. i. p. 41) assigns the same year. Later writers
have naturally been led into the same mistake. Backus (vol. i. p. 70)
states, that in January, 1636, Mr. Williams left Massachusetts, which is
the right date, according to the modern mode of computing time, though,
by the style, which then prevailed, it was 1635.

But the period of his banishment is fixed decisively by the records of
Massachusetts, and by Winthrop’s Journal. His sentence of banishment was
passed, November 3, 1635.[134] In January following, according to
Winthrop (vol. i. p. 175) the Court resolved to send him to England, and
the messengers found, that he had departed from Salem three days before
their arrival.

In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says, “The next year after my
banishment, the Lord drew the bow of the Pequod war against the
country.” This war commenced in July, 1636, with the murder of Oldham.
This fact corroborates the preceding statement.

The time of his leaving Seekonk for Providence cannot be accurately
determined, but we may approach very near to the true date.

Governor Winslow, of Plymouth, who advised him to leave Seekonk, entered
on his official duties in March, 1635–6. This was the only year that he
held the office of Governor, between 1633 and 1644.[135] Mr. Williams
must, therefore, have been at Seekonk, subsequently to the date of
Governor Winslow’s accession to office.

In Mr. Williams’ letter to Major Mason, he says, that he “began to build
and plant at Seekonk.” He did not begin to plant, we may presume, till
the middle of April, if so early.[136] In the same letter, he speaks of
his removal as occasioning his “loss of a harvest that year,” from which
remark we may reasonably infer, that the corn had attained a
considerable growth before he left Seekonk, and consequently that he did
not cross the river till the middle, perhaps, of June.

On the 26th of July, a letter was received from Mr. Williams, by
Governor Vane, informing him of the murder of Mr. Oldham, by the Indians
of Block-Island.[137] This letter was written at Providence, and it
proves, that Mr. Williams had removed thither previously to the 26th of
July.

We may safely conclude, that he left Seekonk, not far from the middle of
June, 1636. The exact day will never, it is probable, be
ascertained.[138]

There is one circumstance, which, perhaps, misled Mr. Callender and
Governor Hopkins respecting the year of Mr. Williams’ arrival. In a
deed, signed by himself and wife, and dated December 20, 1661, he used
these words: “Having, in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four,
and in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-five, had several
treaties with Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the
Narragansets, and in the end purchased of them the lands and meadows
upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two
sachems having, by a deed under their hands, two years after the sale
thereof, established and confirmed the bounds of these lands.”

The statement, that he had held several treaties with the Narraganset
sachems, in 1634 and 1635, presents some difficulty. But we have already
seen, that while at Plymouth and at Salem, he held some intercourse with
these chiefs. In a manuscript letter, already quoted, he says:

“I spared no cost towards them, and in gifts to Ousamequin and all his,
and to Canonicus and all his, tokens and presents, many years before I
came in person to the Narraganset; and therefore when I came, I was
welcome to Ousamequin and to the old prince Canonicus, who was most shy
of all English to his last breath.”

It is probable, therefore, that the “treaties” which he mentions, as
having been held in 1634 and 1635, were propositions concerning lands,
made by him, perhaps, to the chiefs, through Indians, whom he saw at
Boston or Salem, and by whom he was in the habit of sending to them
presents. We have already intimated a conjecture, that for some time
before his banishment, he had entertained the thought of a settlement in
the Indian country. If so, it was natural for him to enter into
negotiations for lands. But these propositions, whatever they were, were
not concluded in the years which he mentions. He says, that “_in the
end_,” he purchased the lands at Providence, and that the deed was dated
two years after the purchase. We accordingly find, that the deed was
dated “at Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called
March, in the second year of the plantation, or planting at Moshassuck,
or Providence.” The year is not mentioned in the instrument, but it is
known to have been 1637–8.[139] This deed corresponds with Mr. Williams’
statement, and refers to the year 1636 as the time of his actual
purchase, and also as that of his arrival.

We will add another fact, to strengthen a position, which has, perhaps,
been sufficiently established. A parchment deed, now in the possession
of Moses Brown, is dated the “14th day of the second month, in the 5th
year of our situation, or plantation, at Moshassuck, or Providence, and
in the 17th year of King Charles, &c. 1641.”[140] This deed also points
to the year 1636, as the date of the first settlement of Providence.

In June, of this year, the settlement of Hartford (Con.) was begun. Rev.
Messrs. Hooker and Stone, who had been settled at Newtown, (now
Cambridge) removed, with their whole church, and founded the city of
Hartford. A fort had been built, the preceding year, at Saybrook, at the
mouth of the river Connecticut, and small settlements had been commenced
at Weathersfield and Windsor.

CHAPTER VIII.

Purchase of lands from the Indians—division of the lands among the
settlers.

The spot where Mr. Williams and his companions landed was within the
jurisdiction of the Narraganset Indians.[141] The sachems of this tribe
were Canonicus, and his nephew Miantinomo. The former was an old man,
and he probably associated with him his young nephew, as better fitted
to sustain the toils and cares of royalty. Their residence is said by
Gookin to have been about Narraganset Bay, and on the island of
Canonicut.

The first object of Mr. Williams would naturally be, to obtain from the
sachems a grant of land for his new colony. He probably visited them,
and received a verbal cession of the territory, which, two years
afterwards, was formally conveyed to him by a deed. This instrument may
properly be quoted here:[142]

“At Narraganset, the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, the
second year of the plantation or planting at Moshassuck, or Providence;
Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of
Narraganset, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands
and meadows upon the two fresh rivers, called Moshassuck and
Wanasquatucket, do now, by these presents, establish and confirm the
bounds of these lands, from the river and fields of Pawtucket, the great
hill of Notaquoncanot, on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug, on
the west.[143] We also, in consideration of the many kindnesses and
services he hath continually done for us, both with our friends of
Massachusetts, as also at Connecticut, and Apaum, or Plymouth, we do
freely give unto him all that land from those rivers reaching to
Pawtuxet river; as also the grass and meadows upon the said Pawtuxet
river. In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands.”

The mark (a bow) of CANONICUS.
The mark (an arrow) of MIANTINOMO.

In the presence of

The mark of SOHASH.
The mark of ALSOMUNSIT.

“1639. Memorandum. 3d month, 9th day, this was all again confirmed by
Miantinomo. He acknowledged, that he also [illegible][144] and gave up
the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for
our use of cattle.

Witness hereof,

ROGER WILLIAMS,
BENEDICT ARNOLD.”

The lands thus ceded to Mr. Williams he conveyed to twelve men, who
accompanied, or soon joined, him, reserving for himself an equal part
only. Before we narrate the particulars of this transaction, a few
remarks are necessary.

It appears from the tenor of the deed, and from other evidence, that the
original sale included only the lands mentioned in the first part of the
deed. These are said by the sachems to have been “sold” to Mr. Williams.
The grass and meadows on Pawtuxet river are said to be given to him, in
consideration of his services.

An interesting question, which occasioned much debate in the early times
of the colony, claims consideration here. Were the lands, ceded by the
sachems, so conveyed, that they became the property of Roger Williams
himself, and might he, with justice and honor, have sold or retained
them, as he pleased? An answer to this question will throw light on his
subsequent conduct.

The conveyance in the deed is made to him alone. The title,
consequently, was vested in him, so far as the instrument went. But this
fact does not decide the point. It was a subject of accusation against
him, that the conveyance was not made to him and _his associates_. Did
he, then, act on behalf of others, as well as for himself?

If his own solemn and often repeated assertions are worthy of credit, he
obtained the lands by his own money and influence, and might have held
them as his property.

He argues the case at large, in his letter to the Commissioners, in
1677, to whom he was accused of unfair conduct respecting the lands.

He asserts, in the first place, “It is not true, that I was employed by
any, was supplied by any, or desired any to come with me into these
parts. My soul’s desire was, to do the natives good, and to that end to
learn their language, (which I afterwards printed) and therefore desired
not to be troubled with English company.” He adds, that “out of pity, he
gave leave to several persons to come along in his company.” He makes
the same statement in his deed of 1661:—“I desired it might be for a
shelter for persons distressed for conscience. I then considering the
condition of divers of my distressed countrymen, I communicated my said
purchase unto my loving friends, [whom he names] who then desired to
take shelter here with me.”

It seems, then, that his original design was to come alone, probably to
dwell among the Indians, and do them good; but he altered his plan, and
resolved to establish a refuge for those who might flee from
persecution. The project was his own, and worthy of his generous and
liberal mind. He certainly was not employed, as an agent, to purchase
lands for others. He uses another argument: “I mortgaged my house in
Salem (worth some hundreds) for supplies to go through, and, therefore,
was it a single business.”

Having thus shown that he acted for himself, and on his own
responsibility, he states, that the lands were procured from the sachems
by his influence alone. He enumerates several advantages which he
enjoyed in this negotiation: “1. A constant, zealous desire to dive into
the natives’ language. 2. God was pleased to give me a painful, patient
spirit to lodge with them in their filthy, smoky holes, (even while I
lived at Plymouth and Salem) to gain their tongue. 3. I spared no cost
towards them, and in gifts to Ousamequin, yea, and all his, and to
Canonicus, and all his, tokens and presents, many years before I came in
person to the Narraganset, and when I came, I was welcome to Ousamequin,
and to the old prince Canonicus, who was most shy of all English, to his
last breath. 4. I was known by all the Wampanoags and the Narragansets
to be a public speaker at Plymouth and Salem, and, therefore, with them,
held as a sachem. 5. I could debate with them (in a great measure) in
their own language. 6. I had the favor and countenance of that noble
soul, Mr. Winthrop, whom all Indians respected.”

He proceeds to state, respecting Canonicus, that “it was not thousands
nor tens of thousands of money could have bought of him an English
entrance into this Bay.”

In the deed, already quoted, he says, “By God’s merciful assistance, I
was the procurer of the purchase, not by monies nor payment, the natives
being so shy and jealous, that monies could not do it, but by that
language, acquaintance and favor with the natives, and other advantages,
which it pleased God to give me; and also bore the charges and venture
of all the gratuities, which I gave to the great sachems, and other
sachems round about us, and lay engaged for a loving and peaceable
neighborhood with them, to my great charge and travel.”[145]

These facts prove, that the lands were granted to Mr. Williams, as a
personal favor, as an expression of gratitude on the part of the
sachems, and as a remuneration for presents, which they had been
receiving from him for several years. Mr. Williams, then, was entitled
to make the assertion, which is contained in his touching letter to the
town of Providence, in 1654: “I have been blamed for parting with
Moshassuck, and afterwards Pawtuxet, (which were mine own, as truly as
any man’s coat upon his back) without reserving to myself a foot of
land, or an inch of voice, more than to my servants and strangers.”[146]

Mr. Williams was thus the legal proprietor of the lands which were ceded
to him, and he might have remained so, if he had pleased. He had a clear
title from the Indians, and he had, a few years later certainly,
sufficient influence with the rulers in England, to obtain a recognition
of his rights, and a confirmation of his authority. He might, doubtless,
have been, like William Penn, the proprietary of his colony, and might
have exercised a control over its government. He would, we may easily
believe, have exercised his authority as wisely and beneficially as the
great legislator of Pennsylvania. The peace of his settlement and his
own comfort would, perhaps, have been promoted, if he had retained this
power awhile, instead of committing it to the whole company of settlers,
among whom, from the nature of the colony, as a refuge for “all sorts of
consciences,” some heterogeneous and discordant tempers might be
expected to find admission. That he was blamed for this conduct, we know
from his letter to the town of Providence, already quoted;[147] and as
that letter was written soon after his return from England, we may
infer, that the censure came from leading men there.

But he chose to found his colony on pure democratic principles; as a
commonwealth, where all civil power should be exercised by the people
alone, and where God should be the only ruler over the conscience.

We will now relate the facts respecting his division of the lands among
his associates.

The persons who accompanied him, at his first landing, were William
Harris, John Smith, Joshua Verin, Thomas Angell and Francis Wickes.
Several others joined him at various times, previously to October 8,
1638, on which day, Mr. Williams executed an instrument, of the
following tenor.[148]

“_Providence, 8th of the 8th month, 1638_, (_so called._)

“Memorandum, that I, Roger Williams, having formerly purchased of
Canonicus and Miantinomo, this our situation, or plantation, of New
Providence,[149] viz. the two fresh rivers, Wanasquatucket and
Moshassuck, and the ground and meadows thereupon; in consideration
of thirty pounds received from the inhabitants of said place, do
freely and fully pass, grant and make over equal right and power of
enjoying and disposing of the same grounds and lands unto my loving
friends and neighbors, Stukely Westcott, William Arnold, Thomas
James, Robert Cole, John Greene, John Throckmorton, William Harris,
William Carpenter, Thomas Olney, Francis Weston, Richard Waterman,
Ezekiel Holliman, and such others as the major part of us shall
admit into the same fellowship of vote with us:—As also I do freely
make and pass over equal right and power of enjoying and disposing
of the lands and grounds reaching from the aforesaid rivers unto the
great river Pawtuxet, with the grass and meadows thereupon, which
was so lately given and granted by the aforesaid sachems to me.
Witness my hand,

ROGER WILLIAMS.”[150]

On the 20th of December, 1661, the following deed was executed. It is
inserted here, because it is an interesting document, and it throws much
light on the transactions which we are considering.

“Be it known unto all men by these presents, that I, Roger Williams, of
the town of Providence, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, having,
in the year one thousand six hundred thirty-four, and in the year one
thousand six hundred thirty-five, had several treaties with Canonicus
and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, and in the end
purchased of them the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers called
Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket, the two sachems having, by a deed, under
their hands, two years after the sale thereof, established and confirmed
the bounds of these lands from the rivers and fields of Pawtucket, the
great hill of Notaquoncanot on the northwest, and the town of Mashapaug
on the west, notwithstanding I had the frequent promise of Miantinomo,
my kind friend, that it should not be land that I should want about
these bounds mentioned, provided that I satisfied the Indians there
inhabiting. I having made covenant of peaceable neighborhood with all
the sachems and natives round about us, and having, of a sense of God’s
merciful Providence unto me in my distress, called the place Providence,
I desired it might be for a shelter for persons distressed for
conscience. I then considering the condition of divers of my distressed
countrymen, I communicated my said purchase unto my loving friends, John
Throckmorton, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely Westcott, John
Greene, Senior, Thomas Olney, Senior, Richard Waterman, and others, who
then desired to take shelter here with me, and in succession unto so
many others as we should receive into the fellowship and society of
enjoying and disposing of the said purchase; and besides the first that
were admitted, our town records declare, that afterwards we received
Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, Senior, William Wickenden,
Robert Williams, Gregory Dexter, and others, as our town book declares;
and whereas, by God’s merciful assistance, I was the procurer of the
purchase, not by monies nor payment, the natives being so shy and
jealous that monies could not do it, but by that language, acquaintance
and favor with the natives, and other advantages, which it pleased God
to give me, and also bore the charges and venture of all the gratuities,
which I gave to the great sachems and other sachems and natives round
about us, and lay engaged for a loving and peaceable neighborhood with
them, to my great charge and travel; it was therefore thought fit by
some loving friends, that I should receive some loving consideration and
gratuity, and it was agreed between us, that every person, that should
be admitted into the fellowship of enjoying land and disposing of the
purchase, should pay thirty shillings unto the public stock; and first,
about thirty pounds should be paid unto myself, by thirty shillings a
person, as they were admitted; this sum I received, and in love to my
friends, and with respect to a town and place of succor for the
distressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge the said sum and payment as
full satisfaction; and whereas in the year one thousand six hundred and
thirty-seven,[151] so called, I delivered the deed subscribed by the two
aforesaid chief sachems, so much thereof as concerneth the
aforementioned lands, from myself and from my heirs, unto the whole
number of the purchasers, with all my power, right and title therein,
reserving only unto myself one single share equal unto any of the rest
of that number; I now again, in a more formal way, under my hand and
seal, confirm my former resignation of that deed of the lands aforesaid,
and bind myself, my heirs, my executors, my administrators and assigns,
never to molest any of the said persons already received, or hereafter
to be received, into the society of purchasers, as aforesaid; but that
they, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, shall at all
times quietly and peaceably enjoy the premises and every part thereof,
and I do further by these presents bind myself, my heirs, my executors,
my administrators and assigns, never to lay any claim, nor cause any
claim to be laid, to any of the lands aforementioned, or unto any part
or parcel thereof, more than unto my own single share, by virtue or
pretence of any former bargain, sale or mortgage whatsoever, or
jointures, thirds or entails made by me, the said Roger Williams, or of
any other person, either for, by, through or under me. In witness
whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, the twentieth day of
December, in the present year one thousand six hundred sixty-one.

“ROGER WILLIAMS, (Seal.[152])

“Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of us, Thomas Smith,
Joseph Carpenter. Memorandum, the words, of the purchase, were
interlined before these presents were sealed. I, Mary Williams, wife
unto Roger Williams, do assent unto the premises. Witness my hand, this
twentieth day of December, in this present year one thousand six hundred
sixty-one.

The mark of (M. W.) MARY WILLIAMS.[153]

“Acknowledged and subscribed before me,

“WILLIAM FIELD, _Assistant_.

“Enrolled, April the 6th, 1662, pr. me,

“THOMAS OLNEY, Junr., _Town Clerk_.”

From this document, it appears, that the twelve persons to whom the
lands, on the Moshassuck and Wanasquatucket rivers, were conveyed by Mr.
Williams, did not pay him any part of the thirty pounds, which he
received; but that the sum of thirty shillings was exacted of every
person who was afterwards admitted, to form a common stock. From this
stock, thirty pounds were paid to Mr. Williams, for the reasons
mentioned in the instrument last quoted.[154]

For the lands on the Pawtuxet river, however, Mr. Williams received
twelve-thirteenths of twenty pounds, from the twelve persons named in
the deed of October 8, 1638. On the same day, the following instrument
was executed:—

“It is agreed, this day abovesaid, that all the meadow grounds at
Pawtuxet, bounding upon the fresh river, on both sides, are to be
impropriated unto those thirteen persons, being now incorporated
together in our town of Providence, viz.: Ezekiel Holliman, Francis
Weston, Roger Williams, Thomas Olney, Robert Cole, William Carpenter,
William Harris, John Throckmorton, Richard Waterman, John Greene, Thomas
James, William Arnold, Stukely Westcott; and to be equally divided among
them, and every one to pay an equal proportion to raise up the sum of
twenty pounds for the same; and if it shall come to pass, that some, or
any one, of these thirteen persons aforesaid, do not pay or give
satisfaction of his or their equal proportion of the aforesaid sum of
twenty pounds, by this day eight weeks, which will be the 17th day of
the 10th month next ensuing, then they or he shall leave their or his
proportion of meadow grounds unto the rest of those thirteen persons, to
be at their disposing, who shall make up the whole sum of twenty pounds,
which is to be paid to Roger Williams.”

This money was punctually paid on the 3d of December following, and was
acknowledged as follows:—

“According to former agreement, I received of the neighbors abovesaid,
the full sum of £18 11_s._ 3_d._ Per me,

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

He thus retained an equal share in the lands on the Pawtuxet river,
which were very valuable to the new settlers, on account of the natural
meadows along its banks. These lands were afterwards the occasion of a
protracted contention.

From the facts which we have stated, it appears, that Mr. Williams
generously admitted the first twelve proprietors of the Providence
purchase to an equal share with himself, without exacting from them any
remuneration. The thirty pounds which he received were paid by
succeeding settlers, at the rate of thirty shillings each. But this sum
of thirty pounds was not paid to him, as an equivalent for the land. It
was, as he calls it, a “loving gratuity,” and was intended to remunerate
him for the presents which he had given to the Indians, and for the
expenses which he had incurred in procuring the lands. But he affirmed,
that all which he received was far less than he expended.[155] The same
may be said respecting the money paid for the Pawtuxet lands.

The conduct of Mr. Williams, in these transactions, must be acknowledged
to have been highly honorable, disinterested and liberal. He held the
title to the whole territory, and he might, apparently, have amassed
wealth and gratified ambition, by retaining the control of the town, and
selling the lands, to be held of him as the proprietor. But he renounced
all plans of power and emolument; he placed himself on an equality with
the other settlers, and surrendered the territory to the whole body of
freemen, among whom he claimed no other influence than that which sprung
from his personal character. The sum which he received was not even a
remuneration for his actual expenses in procuring the territory.

It does not diminish this praise, that the settlers were obliged to
satisfy the claims of many individual Indians. The grant from the
sachems might, perhaps, have been considered as a full title; but the
justice and humanity of Roger Williams and his friends, led them to make
compensation to the natives who occupied the territory. The whole sum
paid to Mr. Williams and to the Indians, for Providence and Pawtuxet,
was stated by William Harris, in 1677, to have been one hundred and
sixty pounds.

CHAPTER IX.

Settlement of the town of Providence—Whatcheer—islands of Prudence,
Patience and Hope.

Our account of the division of the lands has led us onward to a period
more than two years after Mr. Williams’ arrival. Some time must have
been spent in his negotiations with the sachems; but he certainly
erected a house soon after his landing, for in a letter, written within
a short time from that event, he says, “Miantinomo kept his barbarous
court lately at my house,” and in his letter to Major Mason, he
mentions, that he entertained General Stoughton, at his house, in May,
1637, when the Massachusetts troops were on their march against the
Pequods.

It is probable, that Mrs. Williams and her two children came from Salem
to Providence, in the summer of 1636, in company with several persons,
who wished to join their exiled pastor.[156]

The family of Mr. Williams was now dependent on his exertions for
support. No supplies could be derived from Massachusetts. The natives
were unable to afford much aid. It is probable, that Mr. Williams had
nearly expended all his funds, in the support of his family during his
absence, and in the negotiations with the Indians. Of his poverty,[157]
there is evidence, in a touching incident, mentioned in his letter to
Major Mason. It is alike honorable to all the parties: “It pleased the
Father of Spirits to touch many hearts, dear to him, with many
relentings; amongst which, that great and pious soul, Mr. Winslow,
melted, and kindly visited me at Providence, and put a piece of gold
into the hands of my wife, for our supply.”

In a deed, which was enrolled January 29, 1667, Mr. Williams says, that
he planted, with his own hands, at his first coming, the two Indian
fields, Whatcheer and Saxifrax Hill, which he had purchased of the
natives. Thus was he forced, as at many other times, to resort to manual
labor for his subsistence. In his reply to Mr. Cotton, (p. 38) he says:
“It is not unknown to many witnesses, in Plymouth, Salem and Providence,
that the discusser’s time hath not been spent (though as much as any
others whosoever) altogether in spiritual labors and public exercises of
the word; but day and night, at home and abroad, on the land and water,
at the hoe, at the oar, for bread.” But he sustained all his labors and
hardships with a patient spirit, and with a steadfast adherence to his
principles.

His house was, undoubtedly, erected near the spot where he landed, and a
few rods eastward of the celebrated spring.[158] Here the wanderer found
a resting place. This was his home, for more than forty years. Here he
died, and near the site of his dwelling his ashes were deposited.

It would be an interesting effort of the imagination, to contrast the
situation of Providence at the time of the settlement, with the present
condition of that beautiful and flourishing town. Where now are busy
streets, and ample warehouses, and elegant mansions, and a population of
nearly 20,000 souls, were, at that time, dense forests, and a few
scattered Indian families. How astonishing is the change! Roger Williams
himself, with all his vigor of imagination, and his ardent temperament,
could not have anticipated the expansion of his little settlement to its
present amplitude, beauty and strength. The glorious vision could not
have visited his mind; but he acted under the power of that prophetic
faith, which assured him of success, in his efforts for the welfare of
men. He looked beyond the present, to the bright future, and was
confident, that his principles, though then misunderstood and rejected,
would ultimately triumph.

In the course of two years, Mr. Williams was joined by a number of
friends from Massachusetts, with whom, as we have seen, he shared the
lands which he had obtained. The community, thus formed, were invested
with the power of admitting others to the privileges of citizenship.
Their number was soon increased, by emigrants from Massachusetts, and
from Europe.[159] It was the design of Mr. Williams, that his colony
should be open to all persons who might choose to reside there, without
regard to their religious opinions. He was careful, nevertheless, to
provide for the maintenance of the civil peace. Every inhabitant was
required to subscribe the following covenant:

“We, whose names are here underwritten, being desirous to inhabit in the
town of Providence, do promise to submit ourselves, in active or passive
obedience, to all such orders or agreements as shall be made for public
good of the body, in an orderly way, by the major consent of the present
inhabitants, masters of families, incorporated together into a township,
and such others whom they shall admit unto the same, _only in civil
things_.”

This simple instrument, which combines the principles of a pure
democracy, and of unrestricted religious liberty, was the basis of the
first government in Providence. It was undoubtedly drawn up by Roger
Williams. It bears the impress of his character, and it was the germ of
those free institutions, under which Rhode-Island has flourished till
the present day.

The government of the town was thus placed in the hands of the
inhabitants; and the legislative, judicial and executive functions were
exercised, for several years, by the citizens in town meeting. Two
deputies were appointed, from time to time, whose duties were, to
preserve order, to settle disputes, to call town meetings, to preside in
them, and to see that their resolutions were executed.[160] But the
power of the deputies was very limited, and their term of office short.
A form of government so simple could not exist, except in a small
community, and among men whose moral principles were pure, and their
habits peaceful. Winthrop was mistaken, when he asserted of the settlers
at Providence, that they “would have no magistrates.”[161] If they had
not the usual forms, they had the essence of magistracy.

The settlers applied themselves to agriculture, for subsistence. An
intelligent antiquarian, of Providence, whose opinions are authority on
all points touching its early history, says,[162] that the first
inhabitants settled “on such places as were most convenient, and planted
their corn on the old Indian fields, as they could agree among
themselves. When their number had increased, they laid out what is now
the Main street, on the east side of the river, and divided the land
eastward of the street, into lots of six acres each, being of equal
breadth, and extending back to what is now Hope street. There were
eventually one hundred and two of these six acre lots, extending from
Mile End Brook, which enters the river a little north of Fox Point, to
Harrington’s Lane, on the north, which lane is now the dividing line
between Providence and North Providence. Each proprietor had one of
these six acre lots, and on which he built his house. How they were
located, whether by lot or draft, or by choice, I am not informed; but
it is probable that the first comers had their choice, as the six acre
lot of Roger Williams was the place where he first landed, and had built
his house.[163] The street, now Bowen street, leading from Main to
Benefit street, divides that part of his lot nearly in the middle. The
object of locating themselves so near together was for security and
mutual aid against the Indians, and in conformity to the practice in
Europe. Each proprietor, besides his town lot, as it was called, took up
out land, upland and meadows, by grant of the whole in proprietors’
meeting. These grants were entered on the records. None of them, at
first, took up sufficient for a farm in one place. Each one, besides his
_upland_, as it was termed, or planting land, had, in another place, and
frequently quite distant, his proportion of meadow land. This was
necessary, because there was no hay seed known or in use. They had no
grass for winter fodder, but bog or salt meadow, or thatch, and each
must have his share of this, or his cattle would perish, or browse in
the woods in winter.”

Roger Williams, in addition to his six acre town lot, had a lot in the
neighborhood of Whatcheer cove. The deed, already quoted, may be
appropriately introduced here, as a document which belongs to the
history of Roger Williams and of the town:

“Whereas, by the good Providence of God, I, Roger Williams, purchased
this plantation of the natives, partly by the favors which I had long
before with the sachems gotten at my cost and hazard, and partly with my
own monies, paid them, in satisfaction for the settling of the said
plantation, in the midst of the barbarians round about us; and whereas
for the name of God and public good, and especially for the receiving of
such as were troubled elsewhere about the worship of God, I freely
parted with my whole purchase unto the township, or commonalty, of the
then inhabitants, and yet reserved to myself the two Indian fields,
called Whatcheer and Saxifrax Hill, as having peculiarly satisfied the
owners of those fields for them, besides my general purchase of the
whole from the sachems, and also planted both those fields at my first
coming as my own peculiar with mine own hands, and whereas the town of
Providence by their deputies, then called five Disposers, William Field
was one, long since laid out unto me the aforesaid field called
Whatcheer, and adjoined my six acre lot unto it, making up together
twelve acres by the eighteen foot pole, and I having forgotten my
bounds, the town deputies, William Field and Arthur Fenner, have since
laid out and measured the said twelve acres unto me by the eighteen foot
pole as aforesaid. These are to certify unto all men, that I, the said
Roger Williams, have, for a full satisfaction already received from
James Ellis, of Providence, sold and demised unto the said James Ellis,
the said twelve acres aforesaid, bounded on the east by the river, on
the west by a highway between the said twelve acres and the land of
Nicholas Power deceased, on the north by a highway lying between the
said twelve acres and William Field’s land, and on the south by Mr.
Benedict Arnold’s land; the aforesaid twelve acres I do by these
presents demise and alienate from myself, my heirs, executors, &c. to
the aforesaid James Ellis, his heirs, executors, &c. with all the
appertenances and privileges thereof.

Witness my hand and seal,

ROGER WILLIAMS. (_An arrow._)

In the presence of us witnesses, Arthur Fenner, William Field,
enrolled the 29th day of January, in the year 1667.

Pr. me, SHADRACH MANTON, _Town Clerk_.”

This field, Whatcheer, was afterwards sold to Arthur Fenner, Esquire,
and is now occupied, as the family seat of the Hon. James Fenner,
formerly Governor of Rhode-Island.

We may mention here, that Mr. Williams obtained the island of
_Prudence_, from the Indians, and held it as a joint proprietor with
Governor Winthrop, of Massachusetts. The following letter relates to
this transaction:[164]

“_The last of the week, I think the 28th of the 8th._

“Sir,

“The bearer, Miantinomo, resolving to go on his visit, I am bold to
request a word of advice from you, concerning a proposition made by
Canonicus and himself to me some half year since. Canonicus gave an
island in this bay to Mr. Oldham, by name Chibachuwese, upon condition,
as it should seem, that he would dwell there near unto them. The Lord
(in whose hands all our hearts are) turning their affections towards
myself, they desired me to remove thither and dwell nearer to them. I
have answered once and again, that for the present I mind not to remove;
but if I have it from them, I would give them satisfaction for it, and
build a little house and put in some swine, as understanding the place
to have store of fish and good feeding for swine. Of late I have heard,
that Mr. Gibbons, upon occasion, motioned your desire and his own of
putting some swine on some of these islands, which hath made me since
more desire to obtain it, because I might thereby not only benefit
myself, but also pleasure yourself, whom I more desire to pleasure and
honor. I spoke of it now to this sachem, and he tells me, that because
of the store of fish, Canonicus desires that I would accept half, (it
being spectacle-wise, and between a mile or two in circuit, as I guess)
and he would reserve the other; but I think, if I go over, I shall
obtain the whole. Your loving counsel, how far it may be inoffensive,
because it was once (upon a condition not kept,) Mr. Oldham’s. So, with
respective salutes to your kind self and Mrs. Winthrop, I rest,

“Your worship’s unfeigned, in all I may,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“For his much honored Mr. Governor, these.”

Governor Winthrop retained his moiety of the island, and gave it, in his
will, to his son Stephen.[165]

Mr. Williams also owned the islands _Patience_ and _Hope_. The names of
the three islands are indicative of his mind. William Harris said, in
1677, in a somewhat reproachful tone, that these islands were “all put
away.” Mr. Williams sold them, perhaps, as he certainly did some other
portions of his property, to maintain himself and family, during his
long and unrequited toils, in England, for the welfare of the colony. To
a native of Rhode-Island, these islands should be interesting monuments
of the virtues and services of her founder.

Having thus stated the manner in which the settlement at Providence was
commenced, we must now return to the period of the first arrival of Mr.
Williams, and narrate briefly his agency in averting the imminent danger
of a general league among the natives for the destruction of the
colonists.

CHAPTER X.

Mr. Williams prevents the Indian league—war with the Pequods—their
defeat and ruin.

The Pequods were, as we have already remarked, the most warlike tribe of
Indians in New-England, and the most hostile to the colonists, not
perhaps so much from a greater degree of ferocity, as from a clearer
foresight of the effects which the natives had reason to apprehend from
the increase of the whites.

In 1634, Captains Stone and Norton, of Massachusetts, with eight other
Englishmen, were murdered by the Indians, in a small trading vessel, on
Connecticut river. It is not certain, that the murderers were Pequods,
but they fled to this tribe for protection, and divided with them the
property which they had plundered. The Pequods thus became responsible
for the crime; and the magistrates of Massachusetts sent to them
messengers to demand satisfaction, but without success. The Pequods
afterwards sent messengers, with gifts, to Massachusetts, exculpating
the tribe from the guilt of the murder. The Governor and Council, after
a conference of several days, and a consultation, as usual, with the
principal ministers, concluded with them a treaty of peace and
friendship.[166]

But no treaty could appease the jealous hostility of the Pequods. In
July, 1636, a short time after Mr. Williams’ removal to Providence, a
party of Indians murdered Mr. John Oldham, near Block-Island, whither he
had gone from Massachusetts, in a small barque, for purposes of trade.
The murderers fled to the Pequods, by whom they were protected. It was
suspected, however, that the murder was contrived by some of the
Narragansets and Nianticks; and there was evidently some disposition
among these tribes and the Pequods to form a league for the destruction
of the English.

The first intelligence of the murder of Mr. Oldham, and of the proposed
league, was communicated by Mr. Williams, in a letter to Governor Vane,
at Boston, a few days after the event. With a spirit of forgiveness and
philanthropy, which honors his memory, he promptly informed those who
had so recently expelled him from the colony, of the peril which now
threatened them. It may be alleged, that self-preservation impelled him
to appeal to Massachusetts for assistance to defeat a project, which, if
accomplished, would have overwhelmed himself and his colony in ruin. But
his influence with the Indians was so great, that it is probable he
might have secured his own safety and that of his companions. The merit
of his generous mediation ought not to be sullied, because his own
welfare was at the same time advanced. Violent passions often make men
forget or disregard their own interests. A vindictive spirit might have
been willing to hazard its own safety, for the pleasure of ample
vengeance on the authors of its wrongs.

The Massachusetts government, on the 24th of August, sent by water an
armed force of eighty volunteers, under the command of John Endicott,
Esq. with instructions to “put to death the men of Block-Island, but to
spare the women and children, and to bring them away, and to take
possession of the island; and from thence to go to the Pequods, to
demand the murderers of Captain Stone and other English, some thousand
fathoms of wampum, for damages, and some of their children as hostages,
which, if they should refuse, they were to obtain it by force.”[167]
These stern orders were not strictly executed; yet many Indians were
killed, a large number of wigwams were burnt, at Block-Island and on
Connecticut river, some corn was destroyed, and other damage was done.
The troops returned to Boston, on the 14th of September, without the
loss of a man.

This expedition had little effect, except to exasperate the natives. Mr.
Endicott was the object of many censures for returning, without striking
a severer blow. But his force was small, the winter was approaching, and
prudence, undoubtedly, required his return.

The Pequods became more decidedly hostile. They killed several white
persons, and made strenuous efforts to induce the powerful Narraganset
tribe to forget their mutual animosity, and join with them in a war of
extermination against the English. “There had been,” says Hutchinson,
(vol. i. p. 60) “a fixed, inveterate enmity, between the two tribes; but
on this occasion the Pequods were willing to smother it, their enmity
against the English being the strongest of the two: and although they
had never heard the story of Polypheme and Ulysses, yet they artfully
urged, that the English were come to dispossess them of their country,
and that all the Narragansets could hope for from their friendship, was
the favor of being the last devoured: whereas, if the Indians would
unite, they might easily destroy the English, or force them to leave the
country, without being exposed themselves to any hazard. They need not
come to open battles; firing their houses, killing their cattle, and
lying in wait for them as they went about their ordinary business, would
soon deprive them of all means of subsisting. But the Narragansets
preferred the present pleasure of revenge upon their mortal enemies, to
the future happiness of themselves and their posterity.”

The chief merit of preventing this league, and thus, perhaps, saving the
whites from destruction, is due to Mr. Williams. The magistrates of
Massachusetts solicited his mediation with the Narragansets. They did
not ask it in vain. Mr. Williams instantly undertook the service, and
with much toil, expense and hazard, he succeeded in defeating the
endeavors of the Pequods to win over the Narragansets to a coalition
against the English. Mr. Williams, in his letter to Major Mason, has
incidentally related his agency in this affair. It is due to him, to
quote here his own simple and energetic words:

“Upon letters received from the Governor and Council at Boston,
requesting me to use my utmost and speediest endeavors to break and
hinder the league labored for by the Pequods and Mohegans against the
English, (excusing the not sending of company and supplies by the haste
of the business) the Lord helped me immediately to put my life into my
hand, and, scarce acquainting my wife, to ship myself alone, in a poor
canoe, and to cut through a stormy wind, with great seas, every minute
in hazard of life, to the sachem’s house. Three days and nights my
business forced me to lodge and mix with the bloody Pequod ambassadors,
whose hands and arms, methought, reeked with the blood of my countrymen,
murdered and massacred by them on Connecticut river, and from whom I
could not but nightly look for their bloody knives at my own throat
also. God wondrously preserved me, and helped me to break to pieces the
Pequods’ negotiation and design; and to make and finish, by many travels
and charges, the English league with the Narragansets and Mohegans
against the Pequods.”

In consequence of Mr. Williams’ agency, the Narraganset sachem,
Miantinomo, came to Boston, on the 21st of October, 1636, with two sons
of Canonicus, besides another sachem, and about twenty attendants. He
was received with much parade, and a treaty of perpetual peace and
alliance was concluded, in which it was stipulated, that neither party
should make peace with the Pequods without the consent of the
other.[168] Governor Winthrop mentions a circumstance, which is highly
honorable to Mr. Williams, because it proves the confidence which was
reposed in him, both by the Indians and by the government of
Massachusetts. The treaty was written in the English language, and as it
was found difficult to make the Indians understand the articles
perfectly, “we agreed,” says Winthrop, “to send a copy of them to Mr.
Williams, who could best interpret them to them.” This measure was
probably adopted, at the suggestion of the Indians, who knew that Mr.
Williams was their friend, and would neither himself deceive them, nor
connive at any attempt at deception on the part of others. It is a
proof, also, of the integrity of the Massachusetts rulers, on this
occasion, that they were willing to submit their proceedings to the
scrutiny of a man, whom they knew to be a steadfast advocate of the
rights of the Indians.

The Pequods, though disappointed in their attempts to secure the
alliance of the Narragansets, resolved to maintain the conflict single
handed. They probably thought, that it was better policy to make one
desperate effort to overpower the English, though aided by the
Narragansets, than to wait for the gradual approach of that ruin, which
they had the forecast to apprehend from the multiplication of the
colonists. It was a bold though a hopeless effort. Their undisciplined
bravery and simple weapons were unequal to a contest with the military
skill and the fire-arms of the English.

The following letter from Mr. Williams to Governor Winthrop was written
at some time between August, 1636, and May, 1637.[169]

“_New Providence, this 2d day of the week._

“Sir,

“The latter end of the last week, I gave notice to our neighbor princes
of your intentions and preparations against the common enemy, the
Pequods. At my first coming to them, Canonicus (morosus æque ac barbarus
senex) was very sour, and accused the English and myself for sending the
plague amongst them, and threatening to kill him especially.

“Such tidings (it seems) were lately brought to his ears by some of his
flatterers and our ill-willers. I discerned cause of bestirring myself,
and staid the longer, and at last (through the mercy of the Most High) I
not only sweetened his spirit, but possessed him, that the plague and
other sicknesses were alone in the hand of the one God, who made him and
us, who being displeased with the English for lying, stealing, idleness
and uncleanness, (the natives’ epidemical sins,) smote many thousands of
us ourselves with general and late mortalities.

“Miantinomo kept his barbarous court lately at my house, and with him I
have far better dealing. He takes some pleasure to visit me, and sent me
word of his coming over again some eight days hence.

“They pass not a week without some skirmishes, though hitherto little
loss on either side. They were glad of your preparations, and in much
conference with themselves and others, (fishing, de-industria, for
instructions from them) I gathered these observations, which you may
please (as cause may be) to consider and take notice of:

“1. They conceive, that to do execution to purpose on the Pequods, will
require not two or three days and away, but a riding by it and following
of the work to and again the space of three weeks or a month; that there
be a falling off and a retreat, as if you were departed, and a falling
on again within three or four days, when they are returned again to
their houses securely from their flight.

“2. That if any pinnaces come in ken, they presently prepare for flight,
women and old men and children, to a swamp some three or four miles on
the back of them, a marvellous great and secure swamp, which they called
Ohomowauke, which signifies owl’s nest, and by another name,
Cappacommock, which signifies a refuge, or hiding place, as I conceive.

“3. That, therefore, Niantick (which is Miantinomo’s place of
rendezvous) be thought on for the riding and retiring to of vessel or
vessels, which place is faithful to the Narragansets, and at present
enmity with the Pequods.

“4. They also conceive it easy for the English, that the provisions and
munition first arrive at Aquetneck, called by us Rhode-Island, at the
Narraganset’s mouth, and then a messenger may be despatched hither, and
so to the Bay, for the soldiers to march up by land to the vessels, who
otherwise might spend long time about the Cape, and fill more vessels
than needs.

“5. That the assault would be in the night, when they are commonly more
secure and at home, by which advantage the English, being armed, may
enter the houses and do what execution they please.

“6. That before the assault be given, an ambush be laid behind them,
between them and the swamp, to prevent their flight, &c.

“7. That to that purpose, such guides as shall be best liked of be taken
along to direct, especially two Pequods, viz. Wequash and
Wuttackquiackommin, valiant men, especially the latter, who have lived
these three or four years with the Narragansets, and know every pass and
passage among them, who desire armor to enter their houses.

“8. That it would be pleasing to all natives, that women and children be
spared, &c.

“9. That if there be any more land travel to Connecticut, some course
would also be taken with the Wunnashowatuckoogs, who are confederates
with and a refuge to the Pequods.

“Sir, if any thing be sent to the princes, I find that Canonicus would
gladly accept of a box of eight or ten pounds of sugar, and indeed he
told me he would thank Mr. Governor for a box full.

“Sir, you may please to take notice of a rude view how the Pequods lie:

[Here follows a rude map of the Pequod and Mohegan country.]

“Thus, with my best salutes to your worthy selves and loving friends
with you, and daily cries to the Father of mercies for a merciful issue
to all these enterprises, I rest,

“Your worship’s unfeignedly respective

“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“For his much honored Mr. Governor, and Mr. Winthrop, Deputy Governor,
of the Massachusetts, these.”

The Pequods now prosecuted the war with all the cruelty of savages. They
murdered several individuals, whom they found at work in the fields, or
surprised on the rivers; and some of them they put to death with
barbarous tortures. They attacked the fort at Saybrook, at the mouth of
Connecticut river. They thus spread alarm through the colonies.
Massachusetts, Plymouth and Connecticut immediately agreed to invade the
Indian territory, with their joint forces, and attempt the entire
destruction of the Pequods. Massachusetts accordingly sent 120 men,
under General Stoughton, with Mr. Wilson, of Boston, as their chaplain,
an indispensable attendant of a military expedition in those days. They
marched by the way of Providence, and were hospitably entertained, at
that place, by Mr. Williams. His own account of the transaction may be
properly quoted: “When the English forces marched up to the Narraganset
country, against the Pequods, I gladly entertained at my house, in
Providence, the General Stoughton and his officers, and used my utmost
care, that all his officers and soldiers should be well accommodated
with us.”[170] He accompanied the troops to Narraganset, where, by his
influence, he established a mutual confidence between them and the
Indians. He then returned to Providence, and acted through the war as a
medium of intercourse between the government of Massachusetts, the army
and the Indians.

Major Mason, with seventy-seven men from Connecticut and Massachusetts,
and several hundred Narraganset and other Indians,[171] attacked the
Pequods, in May, 1637, at Mistick fort, near a river of that name, in
the county of New-London, a few miles east of Fort Griswold. In this
fort, five or six hundred Pequods, men, women and children, had taken
refuge, and had fortified it, as well as their skill would permit, with
palisadoes, which offered but a feeble defence, and presented no
obstacle to musketry. They made a desperate resistance, but as they were
armed only with bows, tomahawks and English hatchets, they killed and
wounded but a few of the assailants, while the English troops poured in
a destructive fire, and then rushed into the fort, sword in hand. The
slaughter was dreadful, the warriors falling by the bullet and the
sword, and the old men, women and children perishing in the flames. The
action lasted an hour, and terminated in the burning of the fort, and
the death of all its inmates, except a few prisoners.

A considerable number of the Pequods were soon after killed in a battle
in a great swamp. The tribe was extinguished. Sassacus, the Pequod
sachem, fled to the Mohawks, by whom he was murdered. Such of the
Pequods as were not killed, were either sent to Bermuda, and sold for
slaves, or mingled with the Narragansets and other tribes.[172] Thus the
brave and powerful Pequods disappeared forever, and such was the terror
which this victory spread among the savages, that they refrained from
open hostilities for nearly forty years. A day of thanksgiving was kept
by all the churches in Massachusetts, in commemoration of the victory,
from which their soldiers had returned, without the loss of a man killed
in battle. The account given by Winthrop is characteristic of those
times: “The captains and soldiers who had been in the late service were
feasted, and after the sermon, the magistrates and elders accompanied
them to the door of the house where they dined.” Miantinomo, the
Narraganset sachem, visited Boston, in November, to negotiate with the
government, and acknowledged that all the Pequod country and
Block-Island belonged to Massachusetts, and promised that he would not
meddle with it without their leave.

We have seen the part which Mr. Williams took in this war, and may
ascribe to him no small share in producing its favorable termination.
Some of the leading men in Massachusetts felt, that he deserved some
acknowledgment of gratitude for his services. He says, in his letter to
Major Mason, that Governor Winthrop “and some other of the council
motioned, and it was debated, whether or no I had not merited, not only
to be recalled from banishment, but also to be honored with some mark of
favor. It is known who hindered, [alluding, it is supposed, to Mr.
Dudley] who never promoted the liberty of other men’s consciences.”

His principles, however, were not then viewed with more favor than at
the time of his banishment; and the fear of their contagious influence
overcame the sentiment of gratitude for his magnanimous conduct and
invaluable services during the war. It was not himself, so much as his
doctrines, which his opponents disliked. To those doctrines they were
conscientiously hostile; and they were not the only men who have thought
that they did God service, by stifling the generous emotions of the
heart, in obedience to the stern dictates of a mistaken sense of duty.

The following letter from Mr. Williams may be properly quoted here. It
is supposed to have been written on the 20th of August, 1637. It relates
to the affairs of the Indians, and shows that the division of the Pequod
captives, and other causes, occasioned some distrust and irritation
between the English and the Narragansets. Mr. Williams endeavored to
preserve peace and foster friendship among all parties.

“_New Providence, 20th of the 6th._

“Much honored Sir,

“Yours by Yotaash (Miantinomo’s brother) received. I accompanied him to
the Narragansets, and having got Canonicus and Miantinomo, with their
council, together, I acquainted them faithfully with the contents of
your letter, both grievances and threatenings; and to demonstrate, I
produced the copy of the league, (which Mr. Vane sent me) and with
breaking of a straw in two or three places, I showed them what they had
done.

“In sum their answer was, that they thought they should prove themselves
honest and faithful, when Mr. Governor understood their answers; and
that (although they would not contend with their friends,) yet they
could relate many particulars, wherein the English had broken (since
these wars) their promises, &c.

“First, then, concerning the Pequod squaws, Canonicus answered, that he
never saw any, but heard of some that came into these parts, and he bade
carry them back to Mr. Governor; but since he never heard of them till I
came, and now he would have the country searched for them. Miantinomo
answered, that he never heard of but six, and four he saw which were
brought to him, at which he was angry, and asked why they did not carry
them to me, that I might convey them home again. Then he bid the natives
that brought them to carry them to me, who, departing, brought him word
that the squaws were lame, and they could not travel. Whereupon, he sent
me word that I should send for them. This I must acknowledge, that this
message I received from him, and sent him word that we were but few
here, and could not fetch them nor convey them, and therefore desired
him to send men with them, and to seek out the rest. Then, saith he, we
were busy ten or twelve days together, as indeed they were, in a strange
kind of solemnity, wherein the sachems ate nothing but at night, and all
the natives round about the country were feasted. In which time, saith
he, I wished some to look to them, which, notwithstanding, at this time,
they escaped; and now he would employ men instantly to search all places
for them, and within two or three days to convey them home. Besides, he
professed that he desired them not, and was sorry the Governor should
think he did. I objected, that he sent to beg one. He answered, that
Sassamun, being sent by the Governor with letters to Pequod, fell lame,
and, lying at his house, told him of a squaw he saw, which was a
sachem’s daughter, who, while he lived, was his (Miantinomo’s) great
friend. He therefore desired, in kindness to his dead friend, to beg
her, or redeem her.

“Concerning his departure from the English, and leaving them without
guides, he answered, first, that they had been faithful, many hundreds
of them, (though they were solicited to the contrary;) that they stuck
to the English in life or death, without which they were persuaded that
Uncas and the Mohegans had proved false, (as he fears they will yet) as
also that they never had found a Pequod; and therefore, saith he, sure
there was some cause. I desired to know it. He replied in these words,
Chenock eiuse wetompatimucks? that is, did ever friends deal so with
friends? I urging wherein, he told me this tale: that his brother,
Yotaash, had seized upon Puttaquppuunch, Quame, and twenty Pequods, and
threescore squaws; they killed three and bound the rest, watching them
all night, and sending for the English, delivered them to them in the
morning. Miantinomo (who, according to promise, came by land with two
hundred men, killing ten Pequods in their march,) was desirous to see
the great sachem whom his brother had taken, being now in the English
houses; but, saith he, I was thrust at with a pike many times, that I
durst not come near the door. I objected, he was not known. He and
others affirmed he was, and asked if they should have dealt so with Mr.
Governor. I still denied that he was known, &c. Upon this, he saith, all
my company were disheartened, and they all, and Cutshamoquene, desired
to be gone; and yet, saith he, two of my men (Wagonckwhut and Maunamoh)
were their guides to Sesquankit from the river’s mouth.

“Sir, I dare not stir coals, but I saw them too much disregarded by
many, which their ignorance imputed to all, and thence came the
misprision, and blessed be the Lord things were no worse.

“I objected, they received Pequods and wampum without Mr. Governor’s
consent. Canonicus replied, that although he and Miantinomo had paid
many hundred fathom of wampum to their soldiers, as Mr. Governor did,
yet he had not received one yard of beads nor a Pequod. Nor, saith
Miantinomo, did I, but one small present from four women of Long-Island,
which were no Pequods, but of that isle, being afraid, desired to put
themselves under my protection.

“By the next I shall add something more of consequence, and which must
cause our loving friends of Connecticut to be very watchful, as also, if
you please, their grievances, which I have labored already to answer, to
preserve the English name; but now end abruptly, with best salutes and
earnest prayers for your peace with the God of peace and all men. So
praying, I rest,

“Your worship’s unfeigned
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“All loving respects to Mrs. Winthrop and yours, as also to Mr. Deputy,
Mr. Bellingham, theirs, and Mr. Wilson, &c.

“For his much honored Mr. Governor, these.”

CHAPTER XI.

Settlement on Rhode-Island commenced—Mrs. Hutchinson—settlement at
Pawtuxet.

The little colony at Providence was rapidly increased by the arrival of
persons from the other colonies and from Europe, attracted thither by
the freedom which the conscience there enjoyed. So tenaciously was this
principle held, that the town disfranchised one of its citizens, for
refusing to allow his wife to attend meeting as often as she
wished.[173] This act has been censured, as a deviation from their
principles, because it inflicted a civil punishment on a man, for
conduct which he might allege to have sprung from conscientious
scruples. But this inconsistency, if it was such, was an error on the
right side. The woman might have failed in duty to her husband, by an
obstinate contempt of his just authority, and a disregard of his
reasonable wishes. But the inhabitants of Providence were right in
adhering to the great principle, that our duties to God are paramount to
all human obligations; and that the right to worship him, in the manner
which we deem most acceptable to him, is not, and cannot be,
surrendered, even by the marriage covenant.

A settlement was made, in 1637–8, at Portsmouth, on the north side of
the island which gives name to the State. The settlers were, like Mr.
Williams and his companions, exiles or emigrants from Massachusetts. The
cause of their removal may be traced to the singular ferment which arose
in Massachusetts, on account of Mrs. Hutchinson.

This lady, with her husband, came to Boston, from England, in 1636. She
possessed talents, which she appears to have felt no reluctance to
display. She was treated with great respect by Mr. Cotton, and by other
distinguished individuals, particularly by Governor Vane. It was the
custom of the members of the church to meet every week, to repeat Mr.
Cotton’s sermons, and converse on religious doctrines. Mrs. Hutchinson
commenced a meeting of the females, in which she repeated the sermons,
with her own comments. Her eloquence was admired, and her meetings were
thronged. Her vanity was inflamed, and she proceeded to announce
opinions and doctrines, which soon became the topic of conversation, and
the source of vehement contentions throughout the colony. Parties were
formed, among the ministers as well as the people; Mr. Cotton himself
being inclined to the side of Mrs. Hutchinson, while most of the
ministers and magistrates opposed her. The opinions ascribed to her
related to such points as the nature of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost
in the person of the believer, and the connection between sanctification
and justification. From these opinions others, still more heretical,
were supposed to flow, and, as usually happens, the inferences which men
chose to form were considered as substantial errors actually held by
Mrs. Hutchinson.[174]

The alarm spread through the colony. The ministers thronged to Boston,
to confer with Mr. Cotton and others. Long discussions ensued, without
effect, and at length it was resolved to try the virtue of a general
synod. It was accordingly held at Newtown, (now Cambridge) on the 30th
of August, 1637, and was attended not only by all the ministers and
messengers of the churches, but by the magistrates. Three weeks were
spent in debates, during which the mild spirit of Winthrop often
interposed to soften the asperity of controversy. The synod collected,
with great industry, all the erroneous opinions then to be found in the
country, amounting to eighty-two, and finished its session, by
condemning these errors, and pronouncing its judgment on certain points
of church discipline.[175]

The effect of the synod was the usual one, of increasing the pertinacity
with which the different parties held their opinions. Mrs. Hutchinson
continued her lectures, and nearly all the members of the Boston church
became her converts. She forsook the public assemblies, and set up a
meeting in her own house. She accused the greater part of the ministers
in the country as preachers of error. The civil power now interposed, to
apply the remedy for heresy, which has often been used, when argument
had failed. Mrs. Hutchinson was summoned before the General Court, and
many of the ministers. She was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to be
banished. The church excommunicated her, though she is said to have
recanted her errors. Rev. Mr. Wheelwright, her brother-in-law, who had
publicly espoused her cause, was likewise banished.

The Court proceeded to a more extraordinary measure. Nearly sixty
citizens of Boston, and a number in other towns, were required to
surrender their arms and ammunition to a person appointed by the Court,
under a penalty of ten pounds; and were forbidden, under the same
penalty, to buy or borrow any arms or ammunition until further orders.
The pretence, as set forth in the act,[176] was a fear, that the
principles which they had learned of Mrs. Hutchinson and Mr. Wheelwright
might impel them to disturb the peace of the community, as certain
persons in Germany had done. Though anabaptism is not named, it is easy
to perceive, that this dreadful phantom, which so haunted the
imaginations of our ancestors, was, on this, as on other occasions, made
the apology for oppressive measures. That it was a mere pretext, in this
case, we have the best reason to believe, for Winthrop[177] honestly
attributes the act of disarming these men, to the part which most of
them had taken in a remonstrance to the General Court against its
measures in relation to Mr. Wheelwright. The act itself proves the same
point, for it provides, that if any of them would acknowledge their
guilt in signing the “seditious libel,” they should be exempted from its
operation. The General Court was as jealous of its prerogatives as King
James I.; and to prevent these individuals from expressing their
disapprobation by acts more energetic than a remonstrance, the Court
thought it prudent to deprive them of offensive weapons. By an act,
passed at the same session, a severe punishment was decreed for those
persons who should speak evil of the judges or magistrates.

These transactions have been recited, not only from their connection
with the settlement of Rhode-Island, but because they furnish ample
illustrations of the multiform mischiefs which ensue from an
interference by the civil magistrate in the affairs of the church. Had
Mrs. Hutchinson been permitted, without notice, to expound and prophecy
as she pleased, it is probable that her zeal would have soon spent
itself, if unsupplied with fuel by her vanity. Or if she had been left
to the salutary discipline of the church, as she would now be, no
serious effects would have followed. But the injudicious excitement
among the clergy, and still more, the improper conduct of the
magistrates, gave importance to the affair, and produced a convulsion in
the Commonwealth, which would have ruined a community less intelligent
and pious, and the perils of which may be inferred from the act of the
General Court, disarming a portion of its citizens. The Court, having
assumed the office of inquisitors into the religious opinions of men,
was forced, by a regard to consistency, to prosecute its measures to the
end, and punish the heretics by disfranchisement and expulsion from the
Commonwealth. Thus were the affections of many of the inhabitants
alienated from each other, and from the government, and the colony was
deprived of a large number of its citizens.

But God, whose high prerogative it is to educe good from evil, made this
unhappy feud in Massachusetts the occasion of establishing a new
settlement on Rhode-Island. Many of the individuals who had been
disarmed, and others who were banished, removed from Massachusetts. Some
of them went to Connecticut, others to New-Hampshire, and several to
Providence. But a number of persons, among whom was John Clarke, a
learned physician, agreed to migrate together, and requested him and
some others to select a suitable place. They accordingly proceeded to
New-Hampshire, in the autumn or winter of 1637, the preceding summer
having been so warm as to induce them to seek a more northerly position.
But the severity of the winter in New-Hampshire turned their thoughts
towards a more genial clime. Mr. Clarke and his associates accordingly
proceeded southward, with a design to settle on Long-Island, or on
_Delaware Bay_. But at Providence, they were kindly received by Mr.
Williams, who advised them to form a settlement at Sowams (now called
Barrington, a few miles from Providence) or at Aquetneck,[178] (now
called Rhode-Island.) But as they had resolved to remove beyond the
limits both of Plymouth and of Massachusetts, Mr. Williams, Mr. Clarke,
and two others went to Plymouth, to ascertain whether they claimed
either of these places. They were treated with respect at Plymouth, and
were informed, that Sowams was claimed by that colony, but that
Aquetneck was out of their jurisdiction.

They returned to Providence, and on the 7th of March, 1637–8, the
following instrument was drawn up, and signed by nineteen individuals,
all but two of whom were named in the act to disarm certain citizens of
Massachusetts:

“We, whose names are underwritten, do swear, solemnly, in the presence
of Jehovah, to incorporate ourselves into a body politic, and as he
shall help us, will submit our persons, lives and estates unto our Lord
Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, and to all those
most perfect and absolute laws of his, given us in his holy word of
truth, to be guided and judged thereby.

THOMAS SAVAGE,
WILLIAM DYER,
WILLIAM FREEBORNE,
PHILIP SHERMAN,
JOHN WALKER,
RICHARD CARDER,
WILLIAM BAULSTONE,
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Sen.
HENRY BULL,
RANDALL HOLDEN,
WILLIAM CODDINGTON,
JOHN CLARKE,
WILLIAM HUTCHINSON,
JOHN COGGESHALL,
WILLIAM ASPINWALL,
SAMUEL WILBORE,
JOHN PORTER,
EDWARD HUTCHINSON, Jr.
JOHN SANFORD.”

By the friendly assistance of Mr. Williams, Aquetneck and other islands
in the Narraganset Bay, were purchased of the sachems, Canonicus and
Miantinomo, on consideration of forty fathoms of white beads. The deed
of cession was signed by the sachems, March 24, 1637–8.[179]

The natives who resided at Aquetneck soon after agreed, on receiving ten
coats and twenty hoes, to remove before the next winter.[180]

On the beautiful island, the adventurers commenced their settlement,
under the simple compact which we have quoted. The northern part of the
island was first occupied, and called Portsmouth. The number of the
colonists being increased during the summer, a portion of the
inhabitants removed the next spring, to the southwestern part of the
island, where they commenced the town of Newport. Both towns, however,
were considered as belonging to the same colony. In imitation of the
form of government which existed for a time among the Jews, the
inhabitants chose Mr. Coddington to be their magistrate, with the title
of Judge; and a few months afterwards, they elected three elders,[181]
to assist him. This form of government continued till March 12, 1640,
when they chose Mr. Coddington, Governor; Mr. Brenton, Deputy Governor;
and Messrs. Easton, Coggeshall, William Hutchinson, and John Porter,
assistants; Robert Jefferies, Treasurer, and William Dyer, Secretary.
This form of government continued, till the charter was obtained. The
fertility of the soil, and the pleasantness of the climate, soon
attracted many people to the settlement, and the island in a few years
became so populous, as to send out colonists to the adjacent
shores.[182]

To this settlement, Mr. Hutchinson, with his family, removed from
Massachusetts. There is no evidence that Mrs. Hutchinson occasioned any
disturbance at Rhode-Island. Her husband was elected one of the
assistants, in 1640. He died in 1642, and his wife, for some reason not
satisfactorily explained, removed to the neighborhood of New-York, where
she was killed by the Indians, the next year, with all the members of
her family, amounting to sixteen persons, except one daughter, who was
carried into captivity.

It is proper to mention in this place, with special honor the important
aid of Mr. Williams in founding this settlement. With that prompt
humanity, which always distinguished him, he used all his influence on
behalf of this band of exiles; and it was, without question, his
intimacy and favor with the sachems which procured the cession of
Aquetneck. He himself asserted this fact, in a letter written in 1658:

“I have acknowledged (and have and shall endeavor to maintain) the
rights and properties of every inhabitant of Rhode-Island in peace; yet
since there is so much sound and noise of purchase and purchasers, I
judge it not unseasonable to declare the rise and bottom of the planting
of Rhode-Island in the fountain of it. It was not price nor money that
could have purchased Rhode-Island. Rhode-Island was obtained by love; by
the love and favor which that honorable gentleman, Sir Henry Vane, and
myself, had with that great sachem Miantinomo, about the league which I
procured between the Massachusetts English, &c. and the Narragansets, in
the Pequod war. It is true, I advised a gratuity to be presented to the
sachem and the natives; and because Mr. Coddington and the rest of my
loving countrymen were to inhabit the place, and to be at the charge of
the gratuities, I drew up a writing in Mr. Coddington’s name, and in the
names of such of my loving countrymen as came up with him, and put it
into as sure a form as I could at that time (amongst the Indians) for
the benefit and assurance of the present and future inhabitants of the
island. This I mention, that as that truly noble Sir Henry Vane hath
been so great an instrument in the hand of God for procuring of this
island from the barbarians, as also for procuring and confirming of the
charter, so it may by all due thankful acknowledgment be remembered and
recorded of us and ours, which reap and enjoy the sweet fruits of so
great benefits, and such unheard of liberties amongst us.” Backus, vol.
i. p. 91.

“In another manuscript,” (says Mr. Benedict, vol. i. p. 459) he tells
us, “The Indians were very shy and jealous of selling the lands to any,
and chose rather to make a grant of them to such as they affected; but
at the same time, expected such gratuities and rewards as made an Indian
gift oftentimes a very dear bargain.” “And the colony in 1666,” says Mr.
Callender, “averred, that though the favor Mr. Williams had with
Miantinomo was the great means of procuring the grants of the land, yet
the purchase had been dearer than of any lands in New-England.”

Mr. Williams’ conduct on this occasion was worthy of his character, and
entitled him to more gratitude than he seems to have received from some
of the objects of his good offices.

About this time, a number of the inhabitants of Providence, among whom
was Mr. Benedict Arnold, removed to Pawtuxet, a place four miles south
of Providence, and included within the territory ceded to Mr. Williams.
These individuals were doubtless induced to fix their residence there,
by the luxuriant meadows on the banks of the river, which furnished
pasture for their cattle.

CHAPTER XII.

Condition of Providence—execution of three murderers of an
Indian—birth of Mr. Williams’ eldest son.

We have seen Mr. Williams, though burdened by the toils and privations
of a new settlement, generously devoting his time and property to rescue
his countrymen from destruction by the Pequods; and assisting to
establish a new colony at Rhode-Island. His own settlement at Providence
was, in the mean while, increasing. The measures adopted in
Massachusetts, in relation to Mrs. Hutchinson and her adherents, made
Providence a welcome place of refuge to some of the fugitives. The
temper of Massachusetts towards the settlement is shown in an act of the
General Court, March 12, 1637–8, virtually prohibiting any of the
inhabitants of Providence from coming into Massachusetts.[183]

This act operated with much severity, for the colonists were dependent
on Boston for supplies from abroad. Mr. Williams complained, that he had
suffered the loss of many thousand pounds, in his “trading with English
and natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief mart and port of
New-England.”[184] The writer of the History of Providence attributes
the want of written memorials of the first settlers to the scarcity of
paper, observing, that “the first of their writings that are to be
found, appear on small scraps of paper, wrote as thick, and crowded as
full as possible.” This scarcity of an article, which could be procured
from Europe only, would be a natural consequence of an exclusion from
the only port nearer than New-York, which vessels from abroad then
visited. But articles of still greater necessity could not be obtained
in the colonies, and the inconvenience, if not suffering, occasioned by
such an exclusion, can scarcely be imagined in the present age.

But no injuries to himself or his fellow colonists could provoke Mr.
Williams to refuse his good offices with the Indians. About June, 1638,
the following letter was written by him to Governor Winthrop:[185]

“Sir,

“I perceive, by these your last thoughts, that you have received
many accusations and hard conceits of this poor native Miantinomo,
wherein I see the vain and empty puff of all terrene promotions, his
barbarous birth or greatness being much honored, confirmed and
augmented (in his own conceit) by the solemnity of his league with
the English, and his more than ordinary entertainment, &c. now all
dashed in a moment in the frowns of such in whose friendship and
love lay his chief advancement.

“Sir, of the particulars, some concerning him only, some Canonicus
and the rest of the sachems, some all the natives, some myself.

“For the sachems, I shall go over speedily, and acquaint them with
particulars. At present, let me still find this favor in your eyes,
as to obtain an hearing, for that your love hath never denied me,
which way soever your judgment hath been (I hope, and I know you
will one day see it,) and been carried.

“Sir, let this barbarian be proud, and angry, and covetous, and
filthy, hating and hateful, (as ourselves have been till kindness
from heaven pitied us, &c.) yet let me humbly beg belief, that for
myself, I am not yet turned Indian, to believe all barbarians tell
me, nor so basely presumptuous as to trouble the eyes and hands of
such (and so honored and dear) with shadows and fables. I commonly
guess shrewdly at what a native utters, and, to my remembrance,
never wrote particular, but either I know the bottom of it, or else
I am bold to give a hint of my suspense.

“Sir, therefore, in some things at present, (begging your wonted
gentleness toward my folly) give me leave to show you how I clear
myself from such a lightness.

“I wrote lately (for that you please to begin with) that some
Pequods (and some of them actual murderers of the English, and that
also after the fort was cut off,) were now in your hands. Not only
love, but conscience forced me to send, and speedily, on purpose, by
a native, mine own servant. I saw not, and spake not with
Miantinomo, nor any from him. I write before the All-Seeing Eye. But
thus it was. A Narraganset man (Awetipimo) coming from the Bay with
cloth, turned in (as they use to do) to me for lodging. I questioned
of Indian passages, &c. He tells me Uncas was come with near upon
forty natives. I asked what present he brought. He told me that
Cutshamoquene had four fathom and odd of him, and forty was for Mr.
Governor. I asked him how many Pequods. He told me six. I asked him
if they were known. He said Uncas denied that there were any
Pequods, and said they were Mohegans all. I asked if himself knew
any of them. He answered he did, and so did other Indians of
Narraganset. I asked if the murderer of whom I wrote, Pamatesick,
were there. He answered he was, and (I further inquiring) he was
confident it was he, for he knew him as well as me, &c.

“All this news (by this providence) I knew before ever it came to
Narraganset. Upon this I sent, indeed fearing guilt to my own soul,
both against the Lord and my countrymen. But see a stranger hand of
the Most and Only Wise. Two days after, Uncas passeth by within a
mile of me (though he should have been kindly welcome.) One of his
company (Wequaumugs) having hurt his foot, and disabled from travel,
turns in to me; whom lodging, I question, and find him by father a
Narraganset, by mother a Mohegan, and so freely entertained by both.
I further inquiring, he told me he went from Mohegan to the Bay with
Uncas. He told me how he had presented forty fathom (to my
remembrance) to Mr. Governor (four and upwards to Cutshamoquene,)
who would not receive them, but asked twice for Pequods. At last, at
Newton, Mr. Governor received them, and was willing that the Pequods
should live, such as were at Mohegan, subject to the English sachems
at Connecticut, to whom they should carry tribute, and such Pequods
as were at Narraganset to Mr. Governor, and all the runaways at
Mohegan to be sent back. I asked him how many Pequods were at
Narraganset. He said but two, who were Miantinomo’s captives, and
that at Niantick with Wequash Cook were about three score. I asked,
why he said the Indians at Narraganset were to be the Governor’s
subjects. He said, because Niantick was sometimes so called,
although there hath been of late no coming of Narraganset men
thither. I asked him if he heard all this. He said that himself and
the body of the company stayed about Cutshamoquene’s. I asked how
many Pequods were among them. He said six. I desired him to name
them, which he did thus: Pametesick, Weeaugonhick, (another of those
murderers) Makunnete, Kishkontuckqua, Sausawpona, Qussaumpowan,
which names I presently wrote down, and (pace vestra dixerim) I am
as confident of the truth as that I breathe. Again, (not to be too
bold in all the particulars at this time) what a gross and monstrous
untruth is that concerning myself, which your love and wisdom to
myself a little espy, and I hope see malice and falsehood, (far from
the fear of God) whispering together? I have long held it
will-worship to doff and don to the Most High in worship; and I wish
also, that in civil worship, others were as far from such a vanity,
though I hold it not utterly unlawful in some places. Yet surely,
amongst the barbarians (the highest in the world,) I would rather
lose my head than so practise, because I judge it my duty to set
them better copies, and should sin against my own persuasions and
resolutions.

“Sir, concerning the islands Prudence and (Patmos, if some had not
hindered) Aquetneck, be pleased to understand your great mistake:
neither of them were sold properly, for a thousand fathom would not
have bought either, by strangers. The truth is, not a penny was
demanded for either, and what was paid was only gratuity, though I
chose, for better assurance and form, to call it sale.

“And, alas! (though I cannot conceive you can aim at the sachems)
they have ever conceived that myself and Mr. Coddington (whom they
knew so many years a sachem at Boston) were far from being rejected
by yourselves, as you please to write, for if the Lord had not hid
it from their eyes, I am sure you had not been thus troubled by
myself at present. Yet the earth is the Lord’s and the fulness
thereof. His infinite wisdom and pity be pleased to help you all,
and all that desire to fear his name and tremble at his word in this
country, to remember that we are all rejected of our native soil,
and more to mind the many strong bands, with which we are all tied,
than any particular distastes each against the other, and to
remember that excellent precept, Prov. 25, If thine enemy hunger,
feed him, &c. for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, and
Jehovah shall reward thee; unto whose mercy and tender compassions I
daily commend you, desirous to be more and ever,

“Your worship’s unfeigned and faithful,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“Sir, mine own and wife’s respective salutes to your dear companion
and all yours; as also to Mr. Deputy, Mr. Bellingham, and other
loving friends.

“I am bold to enclose this paper, although the passages may not be
new, yet they may refresh your memories in these English Scotch
distractions, &c.

“For his much honored and beloved Mr. Governor of Massachusetts,
these.”

In August, 1638, his aid was again solicited by Massachusetts. Winthrop
says, under that date, “Janemoh, the sachem of Niantick, had gone to
Long-Island, and rifled some of those Indians which were tributaries to
us. The sachems complained to our friends of Connecticut, who wrote us
about it, and sent Captain Mason, with seven men, to require
satisfaction. The Governor of the Massachusetts wrote also to Mr.
Williams, to treat with Miantinomo about satisfaction, or otherwise to
bid them look for war. Upon this Janemoh went to Connecticut, and made
his peace, and gave full satisfaction for all injuries.”[186]

About this time, an event occurred, which deserves to be related, both
on account of Mr. Williams’ connection with it, and because it is in a
high degree honorable to the justice and integrity of the colonists, in
their transactions with the natives.

Four young men, of Plymouth, who were servants, having absconded from
their masters, attacked an Indian, at Pawtucket, near Providence, but
within the limits of Plymouth colony. After inflicting upon him a mortal
wound, they robbed him of a quantity of wampum, and fled to Providence.
Here they were received by Mr. Williams, with his usual hospitality, he
being then ignorant of their character and their crime, and supposing
that they were, as they pretended, travellers to Connecticut. He
furnished them with letters and a guide; but after their departure, he
was informed of the atrocious act which they had perpetrated. He
immediately despatched messengers to apprehend them, and went himself,
with two or three others, in search of the wounded Indian. They carried
him to Providence, and endeavored to preserve his life; but in vain. The
murderers fled to Newport, where, in consequence of information from Mr.
Williams, they were arrested. Mr. Coddington being absent, they were
sent to Providence. Mr. Williams was at a loss to determine, whether
they ought to be tried at Newport, where they were taken, or at
Plymouth, to which they belonged. He accordingly wrote to Governor
Winthrop, to ask his advice. The following letter, written about August,
1638, contains, among other things, an account of these
transactions:[187]

“Much honored Sir,

“The bearer lodging with me, I am bold to write an hasty
advertisement concerning late passages. For himself, it seems he was
fearful to go farther than forty miles about us, especially
considering that no natives are willing to accompany him to Pequod
or Mohegan, being told by two Pequods (the all of Miantinomo’s
captives which are not run from him) what he might expect, &c.

“Sir, Capt. Mason and Thomas Stanton, landing at Narraganset, and at
Miantinomo’s denouncing war within six days against Janemoh, for
they say that Miantinomo hath been fair in all the passages with
them, Janemoh sent two messengers to myself, requesting counsel. I
advised him to go over with beads and satisfy, &c.

“He sent four Indians. By them Mr. Haynes writes me, that they
confess fifteen fathom there received at Long-Island. Thereabout
they confessed to me (four being taken of Pequods by force, and
restored again,) as also that the islanders say fifty-one fathom,
which sum he demanded, as also that the Niantick messengers laid
down twenty-six fathom and a half, which was received in part, with
declaration that Janemoh should within ten days bring the rest
himself, or else they were resolved for war, &c. I have therefore
sent once and again to Janemoh, to persuade himself to venture, &c.
Canonicus sent a principal man last night to me, in haste and
secrecy, relating that Wequash had sent word that if Janemoh went
over he should be killed, but I assure them the contrary, and
persuade Canonicus to importune and hasten Janemoh within his time,
ten days, withal hoping and writing back persuasions of better
things to Mr. Haynes, proffering myself, (in case that Janemoh
through fear or folly fail) to take a journey and negotiate their
business, and save blood, whether the natives’ or my countrymen’s.

“Sir, there hath been great hubbub in all these parts, as a general
persuasion that the time was come of a general slaughter of natives,
by reason of a murder committed upon a native within twelve miles of
us, four days since, by four desperate English. I presume
particulars have scarce as yet been presented to your hand. The last
5th day, toward evening, a native, passing through us, brought me
word, that at Pawtucket, a river four miles from us toward the Bay,
four Englishmen were almost famished. I sent instantly provisions,
and strong water, with invitation, &c. The messengers brought word,
that they were one Arthur Peach, of Plymouth, an Irishman, John
Barnes, his man, and two others come from Pascataquack, travelling
to Connecticut; that they had been lost five days, and fell into our
path but six miles. Whereas they were importuned to come home, &c.
they pleaded soreness in travelling, and therefore their desire to
rest there.

“The next morning they came to me by break of day, relating that the
old man at Pawtucket had put them forth the last night, because that
some Indians said, that they had hurt an Englishman, and therefore
that they lay between us and Pawtucket.

“I was busy in writing letters and getting them a guide to
Connecticut, and inquired no more, they having told me, that they
came from Plymouth on the last of the week in the evening, and lay
still in the woods the Lord’s day, and then lost their way to
Weymouth, from whence they lost their way again towards us, and came
in again six miles off Pawtucket.

“After they were gone, an old native comes to me and tells me, that
the natives round about us were fled, relating that those four had
slain a native, who had carried three beaver skins and beads for
Canonicus’ son, and came home with five fathom and three coats; that
three natives which came after him found him groaning in the path;
that he told them that four Englishmen had slain him. They came to
Pawtucket and inquired after the English, which when Arthur and his
company heard, they got on hose and shoes and departed in the night.

“I sent after them to Narraganset, and went myself with two or three
more to the wounded in the woods. The natives at first were shy of
us, conceiving a general slaughter, but, (through the Lord’s mercy)
I assured them that Mr. Governor knew nothing, &c. and that I had
sent to apprehend the men. So we found that he had been run through
the leg and the belly with one thrust. We dressed him and got him to
town next day, where Mr. James and Mr. Greene endeavored, all they
could, his life; but his wound in the belly, and blood lost, and
fever following, cut his life’s thread.

“Before he died, he told me, that the four English had slain him,
and that, (being faint and not able to speak) he had related the
truth to the natives who first came to him, viz. that they, viz. the
English, saw him in the Bay and his beads; that sitting in the side
of a swamp a little way out of the path (I went to see the place,
fit for an evil purpose) Arthur called him to drink tobacco, who
coming and taking the pipe of Arthur, Arthur run him through the leg
into the belly, when, springing back, he, Arthur, made the second
thrust, but missed him, and his weapon run into the ground; that
getting from them a little way into the swamp, they pursued him,
till he fell down, when they missed him, and getting up again, when
he heard them close by him, he run to and again in the swamp, till
he fell down again, when they lost him quite; afterwards, towards
night, he came and lay in the path, that some passenger might help
him as aforesaid.

“Whereas they said, they wandered Plymouth way, Arthur knew the
path, having gone it twice; and besides Mr. Throckmorton met them
about Naponset river in the path, who, riding roundly upon a sudden
by them, was glad he had past them, suspecting them. They denied
that they met Mr. Thockmorton.

“The messenger that I sent to Narraganset, pursuing after them,
returned the next day, declaring that they showed Miantinomo’s
letters to Aquetneck (which were mine to Connecticut) and so to
Aquetneck they past, whither I sent information of them, and so they
were taken. Their sudden examination they sent me, a copy of which I
am bold to send your worship enclosed.

“The islanders (Mr. Coddington) being absent, resolved to send them
to us, some thought, by us to Plymouth, from whence they came. Sir,
I shall humbly crave your judgment, whether they ought not to be
tried where they are taken. If they be sent any where, whether not
to Plymouth. In case Plymouth refuse, and the islanders send them to
us, what answers we may give, if others, unjustly shift them unto
us. I know that every man, quatenus man, and son of Adam, is his
brother’s keeper or avenger; but I desire to do bonum bene, &c.

“Thus, beseeching the God of heaven, most holy and only wise, to
make the interpretation of his own holy meaning in all occurrences,
to bring us all by these bloody passages to a higher price of the
blood of the Son of God, yea of God, by which the chosen are
redeemed, with all due respects to your dear self and dear
companion, I cease.

“Your worship’s most unworthy,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“This native, Will, my servant, shall attend your worship for
answer.

“My due respect to Mr. Deputy, Mr. Bellingham, &c.”

Governor Winthrop advised him to send the prisoners to Plymouth. He
complied, and three of them (the fourth having effected his escape) were
there tried for murder. They confessed the crime, and were hung at
Plymouth, in the presence of Mr. Williams, and many of the natives. Two
died penitents, especially Arthur Peach, an Irishman, “a young man (says
Governor Winthrop) of good parentage and fair condition, and who had
done very good service against the Pequods.”

The following letter of Mr. Williams belongs to this period. It was
addressed to Governor Winthrop:[188]

“Much honored Sir,

“Through the mercy of the Most High, I am newly returned from a
double journey to Connecticut and Plymouth. I shall presume on your
wonted love and gentleness, to present you with a short relation of
what issue it pleased the Lord to produce out of them, especially
since your worship’s name was in some way engaged in both.

“I went up to Connecticut with Miantinomo, who had a guard of
upwards of one hundred and fifty men, and many sachems, and his wife
and children with him. By the way (lodging from his house three
nights in the woods) we met divers Narraganset men complaining of
robbery and violence which they had sustained from the Pequods and
Mohegans, in their travel from Connecticut; as also some of the
Wunnashowatuckoogs (subject to Canonicus) came to us and advertised,
that two days before, about six hundred and sixty Pequods, Mohegans
and their confederates, had robbed them, and spoiled about
twenty-three fields of corn, and rifled four Narraganset men amongst
them; and also that they lay in way and wait to stop Miantinomo’s
passage to Connecticut, and divers of them threatened to boil him in
a kettle.

“This tidings being many ways confirmed, my company, Mr. Scott, (a
Suffolk man,) and Mr. Cope, advised our stop and return back; unto
which I also advised the whole company, to prevent bloodshed,
resolving to get up to Connecticut by water, hoping there to stop
such courses. But Miantinomo and his council resolved, (being then
about fifty miles, half way, on our journey,) that not a man should
turn back, resolving rather all to die, keeping strict watch by
night, and in dangerous places a guard by day about the sachems,
Miantinomo and his wife, who kept the path, myself and company
always first, and on either side of the path forty or fifty men to
prevent sudden surprisals. This was their Indian march.

“But it pleased the Father of mercies, that (as we since heard) we
came not by, till two days after the time given out by Miantinomo,
(by reason of staying for me until the Lord’s day was over) as also
the Lord sent a rumor of great numbers of the English, in company
with the Narragansets, so that we came safe to Connecticut.

“Being arrived, Uncas had sent messengers that he was lame, and
could not come. Mr. Haynes said it was a lame excuse, and sent
earnestly for him, who at last came, and being charged by Mr. Haynes
with the late outrages, one of his company said, they were but an
hundred men. He said he was with them, but did not see all was done,
and that they did but roast corn, &c. So there being affirmations
and negations concerning the number of men and the spoil, not having
eye-witnesses of our own, that fell, as also many other mutual
complaints of rifling each other, which were heard at large to give
vent and breathing to both parts.

“At last we drew them to shake hands, Miantinomo and Uncas, and
Miantinomo invited (twice earnestly) Uncas to sup and dine with him,
he and all his company (his men having killed some venison;) but he
would not yield, although the magistrates persuaded him also to it.

“In a private conference, Miantinomo, from Canonicus and himself,
gave in the names of all the Pequod sachems and murderers of the
English. The names of the sachems were acknowledged by Uncas, as
also the places, which only I shall be bold to set down:

“Nausipouck, Puttaquappuonckquame his son, now on Long-Island.

“Nanasquiouwut, Puttaquappuonckquame his brother, at Mohegan.

“Puppompogs; Sassacus his brother, at Mohegan.

“Mausaumpous, at Niantick.

“Kithansh, at Mohegan.

“Attayakitch, at Pequod or Mohegan.

“These, with the murderers, the magistrates desired to cut off, the
rest to be divided, and to abolish their names. An inquisition was
made, and it was affirmed from Canonicus, that he had not one.
Miantinomo gave in the names of ten or eleven, which were the
remainder of near seventy, which at the first subjected themselves,
of which I advertised your worship, but all again departed or never
came to him; so that two or three of these he had with him; the rest
were at Mohegan and Pequod.

“Uncas was desired to give in the names of his. He answered, that he
knew not their names. He said, there were forty on Long-Island; and
that Janemoh and three Niantick sachems had Pequods, and that he
himself had but twenty. Thomas Stanton told him and the magistrates,
that he dealt very falsely; and it was affirmed by others, that he
fetched thirty or forty from Long-Island at one time. Then he
acknowledged, that he had thirty, but the names he could not give.
It pleased the magistrates to request me to send to Niantick, that
the names of their Pequods might be sent to Connecticut; as also to
give Uncas ten days to bring in the number and names of his Pequods
and their runaways, Mr. Haynes threatening also (in case of failing)
to fetch them.

“Sir, at Plymouth, it pleased the Lord to force the prisoners to
confess, that they all complotted and intended murder; and they
were, three of them, (the fourth having escaped, by a pinnace, from
Aquetneck,) executed in the presence of the natives who went with
me. Our friends confessed, that they received much quickening from
your own hand. O that they might also in a case more weighty,
wherein they need much, viz. the standing to their present
government and liberties, to which I find them weakly resolved.

“They have requested me to inquire out a murder five years since
committed upon a Plymouth man, (as they now hear) by two Narraganset
Indians, between Plymouth and Sowams. I hope, (if true) the Lord
will discover it.

“Sir, I understand there hath been some Englishman of late come
over, who hath told much to Cutshamoquene’s Indians (I think
Auhaudin) of a great sachem in England, (using the King’s name) to
whom all the sachems in this land are and shall be nothing, and
where his ships ere long shall land; and this is much news at
present amongst the natives. I hope to inquire out the man.

“Mr. Vane hath also written to Mr. Coddington and others on the
island of late, to remove from Boston, as speedily as they might,
because some evil was ripening, &c. The most holy and mighty One
blast all mischievous buds and blossoms, and prepare us for tears in
the valley of tears, help you and us to trample on the dunghill of
this present world, and to set affections and cast anchor above
these heavens and earth, which are reserved for burning.

“Sir, I hear, that two malicious persons, (one I was bold to trouble
your worship with not long since) Joshua Verin, and another yet with
us, William Arnold, have most falsely and slanderously (as I hope it
shall appear) complotted together (even as Gardiner did against
yourself) many odious accusations in writing. It may be, they may
some way come to your loving hand. I presume the end is to render me
odious both to the King’s Majesty, as also to yourselves. I shall
request humbly your wonted love and gentleness (if it comes to your
worship’s hand) to help me with the sigh of it, and I am confident
yourself shall be the judge of the notorious wickedness and
malicious falsehoods contained therein, and that there hath not
passed aught from me, either concerning the maintaining of our
liberties in this land, or any difference with yourselves, which
shall not manifest loyalty’s reverence, modesty and tender
affection.

“The Lord Jesus, the sun of righteously[189] shine brightly and
eternally on you and yours, and all that seek him that was
crucified. In him I desire ever to be,

“Your worship’s most unfeigned,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“All respective salutations to kind Mrs. Winthrop, Mr. Deputy, Mr.
Bellingham, and theirs.”

In September, 1638, Mr. Williams’ eldest son was born, to whom his
father gave the name of Providence. He is said to have been the first
English male child, who was born there.

We may here appropriately mention, the establishment of Harvard College.
The great and good men who presided over the councils of Massachusetts
felt, that learning and religion are the firmest pillars of civil
liberty. In their weakness, they resolved to establish a college. In
October, 1636, during the Pequod war, the General Court appropriated for
the purpose, four hundred pounds, equal to the whole sum raised by
taxation, in one year, in the whole colony, for the support of the civil
government. Rev. John Harvard, who died September 14, 1638, left to the
college nearly eight hundred pounds, being half of his property. The
General Court gave to the college his honored name, and called that part
of Newtown where it had been erected, Cambridge.

During the year, 1638, the colony at New-Haven was commenced, by
Theophilus Eaton, John Davenport, and others, who purchased the land of
the Indians, and laid the foundation of the city of New-Haven. The
colony bore the same name, until 1665, when it was united with that
which had been commenced at Hartford, and assumed the common name of
Connecticut.

In May, of this year, an arbitrary order was issued in England, to
prevent emigration to America. Eight ships, which were on the point of
sailing for New-England, were stopped. By this order, Oliver Cromwell,
Sir Arthur Hazlerig, John Hampden, and others, were prevented from
coming to America. The King had afterwards abundant reason to lament his
interference to detain these men, who so largely contributed to subvert
his throne.[190] It is a matter of curious speculation, what would have
been the course and fortunes of Cromwell, if he had reached our shores.
How different might have been the history of England, for the next fifty
years.

CHAPTER XIII.

Baptism of Mr. Williams—establishment of the First Baptist Church in
Providence—Mr. Williams soon leaves the church.

Having related the principal facts, which can now be ascertained,
concerning the settlement of Providence and Newport, it is proper to say
something of ecclesiastical affairs. We must lament, in vain, that so
little is known on this subject. We have no account, from Mr. Williams
or his friends, of the manner in which the public worship of God was
maintained, and the first church formed at Providence. The notices which
may be gleaned from writers, who, for various reasons, were not disposed
to look on the new colony with a favorable eye, must, obviously, be
received with caution.

We might be sure, from the known character of Mr. Williams, and of his
companions, that they would meet together for the public worship of God.
Mr. Williams was acknowledged, at Plymouth and Salem, to be an able
minister, and he would, of course, preach to those who might choose to
hear him, at Providence. We learn from Winthrop,[191] that he was
accustomed to hold meetings, both on the Sabbaths, and on week days. It
does not appear, that there was, at first, any organization into a
distinct church; though, perhaps, those who had been members of the
church in Salem, regarded themselves as still a church, and Mr. Williams
as their pastor.[192] They were, at first, few in number, and were
obliged to provide dwellings and subsistence for themselves and their
families. They were not able to erect a house of worship, and tradition
states, that in pleasant weather they met in a grove. On other
occasions, they probably convened, either at the house of Mr. Williams,
or at some other private habitation; and, undoubtedly, enjoyed, in their
humble assemblies, the presence of Him, who is nigh to all who fear Him,
and who prefers “above all temples, the upright heart and pure.”[193]

It should be remembered, that the colony was a refuge for all who
pleased to reside there; and that, as Winthrop states, “at their first
coming, Mr. Williams and the rest did make an order, that no man should
be molested for his conscience.” The inhabitants were consequently free
to worship God as they thought proper. They were not all united in
opinion on religious subjects. Mr. Williams may have judged it to be
most conducive to the peace and welfare of his little colony, to erect,
at first, no distinct church, but to gather the inhabitants into one
assembly for worship; until the number should have so increased, as to
enable them to form separate churches, and maintain public worship
conformably to their own views.

After the lapse of two or three years, the colony had increased, by the
accession of emigrants from England, as well as from the other colonies.
Some of these are said by Hubbard, (336) to have been inclined to the
principles of the Baptists. By what means Mr. Williams’ mind was drawn
to a consideration of baptism, we do not know. He was accused, before
his banishment, of preaching doctrines “tending to anabaptistry;”[194] a
charge which was meant to impute to him principles subversive of civil
order, rather than heterodox notions concerning the rite of baptism. It
does not appear, that he had then adopted any views on this point,
opposed to the practice of the churches in Massachusetts; for if he had
then insisted on immersion, and rejected the baptism of infants, these
opinions would certainly have been placed prominently among the reasons
for his banishment.

That his principles tended to “anabaptistry,” using this word as
referring to the principles now held by the Baptists, is doubtless true.
His views of the distinction between the Mosaic institutions and the
christian church; his reverence for the supreme authority of Jesus
Christ; his appeals to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and
practice, and to the New Testament as the statute book of the Christian
church; his assertion and defence of the independent right, and
imperative obligation, of every individual to search the oracles of God,
and follow their teachings, without dictation or restraint from other
men; his bold and uniform proclamation of the unfettered liberty of
conscience, in those concerns which pertain to the intercourse between
God and the soul, will doubtless be acknowledged by the Baptists, to
have had a strong tendency to lead Mr. Williams to adopt their
distinctive views of the Christian ordinances.

Nor will it be considered, by other men, as a very strange vagary of an
unstable mind, that a clergyman, educated in the Church of England,
should adopt the opinion, that immersion is the only scriptural baptism,
when that church had taught him, in her offices, that baptism must be so
administered, except in cases of weakness or disease. Nor ought Mr.
Williams to be severely censured for denying that infants are proper
subjects of this ordinance, when it is recollected, that the first
President of Harvard University, (Dunster,) held the same opinion; and
the second President (Chauncy) so far followed in the same course, as to
insist, that baptism should be administered, to infants and adults, by
immersion only.[195] Mr. Williams will, at least, be viewed as
excusable, by those who agree with a learned Pedobaptist of our own
times, that “it is a plain case, there is no express precept respecting
infant baptism in our sacred writings.”[196] If Mr. Williams could not
find infant baptism in the Scriptures, his rejection of it was a natural
result of his principles, and may candidly be ascribed to his
single-hearted deference to the authority of the Bible; though his
reputation for ingenuity may suffer, because he was unable “to make out
the proof in another way.”

We are not, therefore, reduced to the necessity of adopting Governor
Winthrop’s account of Mr. Williams’ change of opinion. That account
attributes the blame to an artful woman, a sister of the great
heresiarch of those times, Mrs. Hutchinson.[197] We may, not
unreasonably, suppose, that Mr. Williams, on further study of the
Scriptures, and finding that several of the colonists had embraced
Baptist principles, was himself convinced, that he had not been
baptized. He accordingly resolved to obey the Saviour’s command, and
unite in a church, with such persons as might be willing to join him.

A difficulty now presented itself. They had been educated in the
Episcopal church, and were accustomed to regard the clergy with respect,
as the only legal administrators of the Christian ordinances. Mr.
Williams himself seems to have strongly felt this difficulty; and his
scruples on this point, probably, had some effect on his subsequent
conduct. He had not himself been immersed, and it seemed a reasonable
conclusion, that he could not, with propriety, baptize his brethren,
till he had received baptism. There was no other minister in
New-England, who would have baptized him, if he had made an application,
and his banishment from Massachusetts had been suspended.

The most obvious expedient, in their circumstances, was adopted. Mr.
Ezekiel Holliman[198] was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who then
baptized the administrator and ten others.[199] This event occurred in
March, 1638–9. Thus was founded the first Baptist church in America, and
the second, as it is stated, in the British empire.[200] The church was
soon after increased by the addition of twelve other persons.

The validity of this baptism of Mr. Williams and his companions having
been disputed, it may be proper to examine this point.

The spirit of the Scriptures, if not their letter, assigns to the
ministers of the Gospel the duty of administering the ordinances of the
church. Expediency obviously requires an adherence to this general
principle. But the language of the Bible is not so decisive on this
point, as to make it certain, that a layman might not, in cases where a
minister could not be obtained, administer the ordinances. It is known,
that in the earliest ages of the church, while there was a general
observance of the principle, that the administration of the ordinances
belongs to ministers, laymen were occasionally permitted to baptize.
Mosheim says: “At first, all who were engaged in propagating
Christianity, administered this rite; nor can it be called in question,
that whoever persuaded any person to embrace Christianity, could baptize
his own disciple.”[201] Tertullian says, “Laymen have power to baptize,
which yet, for the sake of order, they ought only to use in cases of
necessity.”[202] Ambrose says: “That at the beginning, laymen were
permitted to preach and baptize, in order to increase the number of
Christians.”[203] Augustine affirms, “that it is a very small fault, or
none at all, for laymen to baptize, in cases of urgent necessity.”[204]
Jerome speaks of it as a thing certain, that “laymen may lawfully
baptize, when there is urgent necessity for it.”[205] There were, it is
true, at a very early period, erroneous views of the indispensable
necessity of baptism to salvation, which led to various unauthorized
practices. But the principle, that laymen might lawfully baptize, in
certain exigencies, seems to have been early admitted, and it was
formally sanctioned by a decree of the Council of Eliberis.[206]

But the reason of the case is of more weight than the decisions of
councils. It sometimes happens, that persons become Christians, without
the direct labors of a minister. If, for example, by the agency of the
Scriptures and tracts, which missionaries are now sending into the
Chinese empire, a number of persons in a neighborhood should become
converts, would it not be their privilege and their duty, if they were
sufficiently instructed respecting the nature of the church and of its
ordinances, to appoint one of their number to baptize the rest, to form
themselves into a church, and to partake of the Lord’s Supper? Must
these believers wait, till a missionary could come to baptize them, and
to organize a church? The great ends for which the church and its
ordinances were appointed,—the spiritual edification of believers, and
the spread of truth,—would require that these Christians should enjoy
them. If it were indispensable, that the administrator be a minister,
there would, in such a case, be no insuperable difficulty. The duty of
the converts to assemble, to pray, and to exhort each other, would be
clear. Their voluntary agreement thus to meet, to maintain mutual
watchfulness, and to enjoy the ordinances of the Gospel, would
constitute them a church. They might call one of their number,
possessing, in their judgment, suitable gifts, to the office of the
ministry, and this election by the church would be the only human
sanction which such a minister would need, to authorize him to preach
the Gospel, and to administer the ordinances.[207] This position cannot
be denied, without resorting to the doctrine of a regular apostolical
succession. If the church has no power to originate a ministry, by
investing with the sacred office those to whom, in her judgment, the
Saviour has given the inward vocation, the ministry might become
extinct. Those who insist on an apostolical succession, are obliged to
trace their ministry through the channel of the papal clergy. They are
forced to admit, that the Pope is a true bishop, and the Catholic
community a Christian church. Archbishop Laud confessed, that “it is
through her that the bishops of the Church of England, who have the
honor to be capable of deriving their calling from St. Peter, must
deduce their succession.”[208] If the race of English prelates had
become extinct, as might have happened, had Cromwell’s life been
prolonged a few years, the Church of England would have been reduced to
the embarrassing dilemma, of consecrating bishops by her own authority,
and thus dissolving the charm of succession, or of sending an humble
embassy to Rome, to crave from his Holiness the communication, anew, of
the mysterious virtue.

If, then, a company of believers in China might, in accordance with the
spirit of the New Testament, appoint an administrator of the ordinances,
the little band of Baptists at Providence were fully authorized to do
it.[209] No minister could have been obtained, in America, to baptize
Mr. Williams. The case was one of obvious necessity, and the validity of
the baptism cannot be denied, without rejecting the fundamental
principle, on which dissenting churches rest, that all the
ecclesiastical power on earth resides ultimately in the church, and that
she is authorized to adopt any measures, not repugnant to the
Scriptures, which may be necessary for her preservation and prosperity.
Whatever the New Testament has positively prescribed, must of course be
strictly obeyed.

In regard to those whom Mr. Williams baptized, there can be no dispute.
He was a clergyman of the Church of England, and Pedobaptists must
admit, that immersion, administered by him, was Christian baptism. Their
own ministers not unfrequently administer the rite in this manner, and
the persons thus baptized are received as regular members of their
churches.[210]

At what time, and under what circumstances, Mr. Williams left the
church, has been a vexed question among writers. Callender, (p. 56,)
expresses a doubt, whether Mr. Williams ever belonged to the church, and
adds: “The most ancient inhabitants now alive, some of them above eighty
years old, and who personally knew Mr. Williams, and were well
acquainted with many of the original settlers, never heard that Mr.
Williams formed the Baptist church there, but always understood, that
Mr. Brown, Mr. Wickenden, Mr. Dexter, Mr. Olney, Mr. Tillinghast, &c.
were the first founders of that church.” But Mr. Callender was under a
mistake, and, according to Mr. Backus,[211] he was afterwards convinced
of his error. The records of the church, as quoted by Mr. Benedict (vol.
i. p. 476,) assert, that “Mr. Williams held his pastoral office about
four years, and then resigned the same to Mr. Brown and Mr. Wickenden,
and went to England, to solicit the first charter.” This statement,
also, is incorrect.

Winthrop (vol. i. p. 307,) says, under the date of June or July, 1639:
“At Providence, matters went on after the old manner. Mr. Williams and
many of his company a few months since were in all haste re-baptized;
and denied communion with all others; and now he was come to question
his second baptism, not being able to derive the authority of it from
the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of England, (whom he
judged to be ill authority) so as he conceived God would raise up some
apostolic power. Therefore he bent himself that way, expecting (as was
supposed) to become an apostle; and having a little before refused
communion with all, save his own wife, now he would preach to and pray
with all comers. Whereupon some of his followers left him and returned
back from whence they went.”

According to this paragraph, Mr. Williams left the church about three or
four months after its formation. This fact is confirmed by a letter of
Richard Scott, inserted in George Fox’s “Firebrand Quenched.” Scott says
of Roger Williams, “I walked with him in the Baptist way, about three or
four months, in which time he broke from the society, and declared at
large the grounds and reason of it, that their baptism could not be
right, because it was not administered by an apostle. After that, he set
up a way of seeking with two or three that had dissented with him, by
way of preaching and praying; and there he continued a year or two, till
two of the three left him.”[212]

Mr. Scott was at Providence, when the church was formed, and there can
be no doubt, that he soon became a member of it, though he afterwards
joined the Quakers. The “three or four months” which he mentions must,
on this supposition, be estimated as commencing at, or near, the
formation of the church, and consequently Mr. Williams must have left it
in June or July, 1639, as Winthrop states.

Of his reasons for this step, we are not clearly informed. The motives
assigned by those who disapproved his conduct, are loosely stated, and
must be received with caution. The principal reason, as stated by
Winthrop, Scott, and others, was, that Mr. Williams doubted the validity
of the baptism which he and his associates had received, because it was
not “administered by an apostle,” or because he could not “derive the
authority of it from the apostles, otherwise than by the ministers of
England, whom he judged to be ill authority.”

Of Mr. Williams’ real views at this time, we have no explanation by
himself; but if we may judge from his writings a few years later, he
denied, that any ministry now exists, which is authorized to preach the
Gospel to the impenitent, or to administer the ordinances. He believed,
that these functions belonged to the apostolic race of ministers, which
was interrupted and discontinued, when the reign of Antichrist
commenced, and which will not, as he thought, be restored, till the
witnesses shall have been slain, and raised again. (Rev. 11: 11.) In his
“Bloody Tenet,” printed in 1644, several passages occur, in which he
intimates, that the true church and ministry are now lost. The following
paragraph may be quoted, both as an illustration of his views and as a
proof of his liberal charity: He speaks of “thousands and ten thousands,
yea, the whole generation of the righteous, who, since the falling away
(from the first primitive Christian state or worship) have and do err
fundamentally concerning the true matter, constitution, gathering and
governing of the Church; and yet far be it from any pious breast to
imagine, that they are not saved, and that their souls are not bound up
in the bundle of eternal life.”—(p. 20.) He says, in his “Hireling
Ministry none of Christ’s,” published in 1652: “In the poor small span
of my life, I desired to have been a diligent and constant observer, and
have been myself many ways engaged, in city, in country, in court, in
schools, in universities, in churches, in Old and New England, and yet
cannot, in the holy presence of God, bring in the result of a satisfying
discovery, that either the begetting ministry of the apostles or
messengers to the nations, or the feeding and nourishing ministry of
pastors and teachers, according to the first institution of the Lord
Jesus, are yet restored and extant.” (p. 4.)

The only ministry, which, in his opinion, now exists, is that of
prophets, i. e. ministers, who explain religious truths, and bear
witness against error. In a passage of the same work, he says: “Ever
since the beast Antichrist rose, the Lord hath stirred up the ministry
of prophecy, who must continue their witness and prophecy, until their
witness be finished, and slaughters, probably near approaching,
accomplished.”

We shall have occasion to disclose his opinions more fully in a
subsequent chapter. The passages which we have quoted were not printed
till a few years after he left the church, but there can be no doubt,
that they explain his conduct on that occasion. His mind, like the minds
of many other good men, became blinded “by excess of light,” while
gazing at the glorious visions of the Apocalypse; and he formed the
conclusion, that in the disastrous antichristian apostacy, the true
ministry and the whole exterior organization of the church went to ruin,
from which, however, as he believed, they shall be restored, and the
Saviour’s kingdom shall come on earth.

We need not pause, now, to show, that his views were erroneous. We must
deeply regret, that he formed them; but we can have no doubt of his
sincerity. A temperament like his impelled him to hasty decisions, but
his love of truth held a supreme sway over his mind. No considerations
could deter him from adopting, and carrying into instant practice,
whatever he believed to be true. Nothing but clear conviction could
induce him to relinquish what he considered as right. His principle of
action on this subject is beautifully expressed in a passage of his
Bloody Tenet: “Having bought truth dear, we must not sell it cheap, not
the least grain of it, for the whole world; no not for the saving of
souls, though our own most precious, least of all for the bitter
sweetening of a little vanishing pleasure.”

We may conclude, then, that he left the church, not because he had any
doubts respecting the nature of baptism; nor because he had been
baptized by a layman; but because he believed, that no man is now
authorized to administer the ordinances, and that no true church can
exist, till the apostolic ministry shall be restored. With these views,
he could not conscientiously remain connected with any church, nor
regard his baptism as valid.

Winthrop states, that he expected, “as was _supposed_, to become an
apostle.” This supposition is not entitled to much weight. It is
certain, however, that he believed the restoration of the church and its
ministry to be not far distant, and he might reasonably hope, should he
live to witness this glorious event, to be honored with a vocation to
this high ministry.

The statement of Winthrop, that “having a little before refused
communion with all, _save his own wife_, now he would preach to and pray
with all comers,” deserves a passing remark. The phrase, “a little
before,” apparently refers to the time of Mr. Williams’ residence at
Salem. But Morton, (p. 153) and Hubbard, who copies him, (p. 207)
assert, that “he withdrew all private religious communion from any that
would hold communion with the church there; insomuch as he would not
pray nor give thanks at meals _with his own wife_, nor any of his
family, because they went to the church assemblies.” Here Winthrop’s
statement respecting Mr. Williams’ wife is directly opposed to that of
Morton and Hubbard. It is probable, that they were all under a mistake.

The disputed point, whether Mr. Williams was the first pastor of the
church, or not, does not appear to present a material difficulty. He
would, we may suppose, as a matter of course, be the pastor of the
church while he remained in connection with it. He was the only ordained
minister at Providence, and though there may have been no formal
election, we cannot reasonably doubt, that he was considered as the
pastor. Richard Scott accuses him, in his letter, of a disposition to
manage every thing according to his own pleasure; a charge, which,
coming from an adversary, may imply no more than that Mr. Williams was
the head of the church. When he left it, he ceased, of course, to be its
pastor. He was succeeded by the Rev. Chad Brown, though not, as it
appears, till after an interval of two years; for the records of the
church assert, that he was not ordained till the year 1642.[213] We may
easily suppose, that as Mr. Williams’ connection with the church was
very short, Mr. Brown was considered as the first pastor, even by his
contemporaries, and that this impression was transmitted to their
descendants. It was not unnatural, moreover, for the church to be
willing to recognise Mr. Brown as the first pastor, rather than a man
who soon left them, and who refused to acknowledge them, or any other
body of men, to be a true church. It is possible, that other causes had
some influence in the case. It is certain, however, that Mr. Brown has
been generally believed to have been the first pastor of the
church.[214] He was, unquestionably, the first regular and permanent
pastor, and may be regarded as one of the chief founders. It is not
probable that he contended for the honor while he lived, and we may be
sure that there was no strife, on this point, between him and Roger
Williams, who speaks of him, in a letter written in 1677, as “a wise and
godly soul, now with God.”

We have thus stated the facts, concerning Mr. Williams’ conduct, so far
as we have been able to ascertain them. We see that he acted from
erroneous views, in leaving the church, and we lament that he was thus
misled into a course injurious to religion and to his own spiritual
welfare. But we see nothing which impeaches his religious character; and
his future life furnished abundant evidence of his piety towards God,
and of his love to men. He adopted no errors, except his views
respecting the ministry and the organization of the church. The great
truths of the Gospel he steadfastly believed. His life exhibited their
efficacy, and his heart felt their consoling power.

The church continued in existence, after Mr. Williams left it. The
statement of Richard Scott, that “_he broke from the society_,” implies,
that the society itself or church remained. The Rev. Chad Brown became
its pastor, and a succession of good men have continued to labor for the
Lord, in that church, till the present day. The church has experienced
some of the usual vicissitudes to which all things on earth are liable;
but it has never ceased to exist, and for the most part it has enjoyed
great prosperity.

No meeting-house was built till about 1700, when the Rev. Pardon
Tillinghast, the pastor, erected a house at his own expense.[215] This
long delay to build a meeting-house may be, in part, explained, by the
poverty of the inhabitants, and by the diversity of religious opinions
which prevailed among them. But we can scarcely acquit the church of
some deficiency in zeal and liberality. We must presume, however, that
they had a stated place of worship. Their numbers were, at this period,
small, and they had, perhaps, sufficient humility to be content with
very primitive accommodations. To Him whom they worshipped, the sincere
offerings of pious hearts were acceptable, however humble the place from
which they ascended.

Of the religious doctrines of this church, Mr. Benedict (vol. i. p. 486)
says: “It was first formed on the Particular or Calvinistic plan. In
process of time, they became what our English brethren would call
General Baptists, and so continued for the most part more than a hundred
years. From the commencement of Dr. Manning’s ministry, they have been
verging back to their first principles, and now very little of the
Arminian leaven is found among them.”

These facts show, that Mr. Cotton and his grandson, Cotton Mather, were
mistaken, when they affirmed of the church at Providence, that they
“broke forth into anabaptism, and then into antibaptism and familism,
and now finally into no church at all.”[216] Perhaps Mr. Cotton would
not acknowledge, that the congregation of Baptists at Providence
deserved the name of a church. Mr. Williams and his wife, with several
others of the members, were excommunicated from the church at Salem, of
which they were retained as members till they were baptized.[217] A
Baptist church, thus constituted, could not be viewed with much favor by
Mr. Cotton and his friends. A church, which was formed this year at
Newport, though Congregational in form, and orthodox, it is presumed, in
its doctrines, is mentioned, in a tone of censure, by Winthrop, and
after him, by Hubbard, (339) as having been gathered in a “very
disordered way, for they took some excommunicated persons, and others
who were members of the church of Boston, and not dismissed.”[218] The
leaders, both in church and state, in Massachusetts, were not then in a
mood to be pleased with any thing which occurred in Rhode-Island. It
would have been well if this feeling had expired with the first age. But
local prejudice is almost as durable as the natural features of a
country. Bœotia incurred, among the Greeks, a contempt, which the fame
of Pindar, Hesiod and Epaminondas could not soften.[219] Nazareth seems
to have acquired a similar distinction among the Jews.[220] Rhode-Island
may regret, yet cannot greatly wonder, that her sisters have sometimes
remembered the circumstances of her origin, better than the purity of
her principles and the steadiness of her patriotism. Many, since Mr.
Cotton, have been inclined to doubt, whether there was any true religion
in Rhode-Island, and to believe, with Winthrop, that there was no good
government. But let her not be moved. Time is brightening the fame of
her founder, and the reflected lustre will attract the eyes of men to a
fairer contemplation of her character.

CHAPTER XIV.

Affairs of the Indians—birth of Mr. Williams’ fourth child—disputes at
Providence about boundaries—Committee of Arbitration—account of
Samuel Gorton.

Little is known of transactions, during two or three subsequent years,
which can shed light on the conduct or character of Mr. Williams.
Winthrop[221] mentions one circumstance, that shows the confidence which
the Indians reposed in the founder of Rhode-Island, and the invincible
opposition to him that was maintained in Massachusetts. Rumors were
circulated, that the Indians were again forming plots against the
colonists; that Miantinomo, the Narraganset sachem, had sent a large
present of wampum to the Mohawks, inviting them to an alliance against
the English, and that the Mohawks had complied with the invitation. The
government of Massachusetts took the precaution to strengthen the
military defences of the towns, and to send an officer, with three men
and an interpreter, to Miantinomo, to ascertain his real dispositions.
He denied all hostile intentions against the colonists, and, says
Winthrop, “promised to come to Boston (as he was desired) if Mr.
Williams might come with him, (but that we had denied.”)

It is pleasing to observe the readiness of this savage chief to visit
those who evidently distrusted him, provided that Mr. Williams might
accompany him, in whose knowledge of his language, and firm friendship,
he felt a confidence proportioned to the suspicions which savages feel
towards all whom they have not thoroughly tried. And it is remarkable,
that the rulers of Massachusetts would not relax the sentence of
banishment, even for the advantage of a personal interview with the
powerful sachem.

Mr. Williams was doubtless employed at Providence, in labors for the
welfare of the colony, and for the subsistence of his family. He
possessed no property, and was obliged to support his wife and children
by his personal labor. We have already seen, that, at his first coming,
he planted his field, _Whatcheer_, with his own hands. He engaged, also,
in traffic with the natives, and must have spent much time in travelling
among them. The knowledge of their language, which he displayed in his
Key, published a few years afterwards, could have been acquired only by
a familiar and frequent intercourse with them, in their own habitations.
He assures us, in his preface, that, “of later times, (out of desire to
attain their language,) I have run through varieties of intercourses
with them, day and night, summer and winter, by land and sea. Many
solemn discourses I have had with all sorts of nations of them, from one
end of the country to another.”[222]

His fourth child, Marcy, was born on the 15th of July, 1640.

The tranquillity of the town of Providence was early disturbed, by
disputes respecting the boundaries of lands. The town was divided into
two settlements, the original one at Moshassuck, and that on the
Pawtuxet river. These two communities were much agitated, at various
times, by dissensions concerning their respective limits. The loose
phraseology of the memorandum attached to the deed of the sachems, “up
the streams of Pawtucket and Pawtuxet, without limits, we might have for
our use of cattle,” was construed, by some, as a cession of the land up
to the sources of the streams; while Roger Williams, more reasonably,
insisted, that the Indians merely meant to allow the cattle to feed
occasionally on the banks of the rivers. Of this dispute we shall see
more hereafter. It seems to have commenced very early, and to have
seriously disturbed the peace of the town. It became evident that a more
energetic government was necessary. A committee was appointed by the
town, consisting of Robert Coles, Chad Brown, William Harris, and John
Warner, who were authorized to decide, by arbitration, the existing
disputes. Their report is dated “Providence, the 27th of the 5th month,
in the year (so called) 1640.”[223] It settles the boundaries between
the Pawtuxet purchasers and the other inhabitants of Providence. It
proposes that five men be chosen, to meet once a month, to dispose of
lands, with a right of appeal to the town. It further recommends, that
disputes be settled, in future, by arbitration, according to certain
rules which it prescribes. It provides for the choice of a town clerk,
and for a general town meeting for business, to be called by the clerk,
every three months.

This report is highly characteristic of the times, and of the community.
One of its prominent articles is in these words: “We agree, as formerly
hath been the liberties of the town, so still, to hold forth liberty of
conscience.” This fundamental principle was recognised, and announced,
on all occasions.

The democratic spirit appears in the provision, that the “five
disposers” should present their accounts every quarter, and a new choice
be made.

No form of government could be more simple than this. Mr. Callender
says, (p. 43) in allusion to this period, that the inhabitants of
Providence “did, to the number of near forty persons, combine in a form
of civil government, according to a model drawn up by some of
themselves, as most suitable to promote peace and order in their present
circumstances, which, however, left them in a very feeble condition.”

The government on Rhode-Island was more regularly organized the same
year, as we have already stated. An act, which was passed on the 16th of
March, 1641, says: “It was ordered, and unanimously agreed upon, that
the government which this body politic doth attend unto in this island
and the jurisdiction thereof, in favor of our Prince, is a Democracy, or
popular government, that is to say, it is in the power of the freemen,
orderly assembled, or major part of them, to make or constitute just
laws, by which they will be regulated, and to depute from among
themselves such ministers as shall see them faithfully executed between
man and man.”

The genuine Rhode-Island doctrine is recognised in the following act:
“It was further ordered, by the authority of this present Court, that
none be accounted a delinquent for doctrine, provided it be not directly
repugnant to the government or laws established.” And on the 17th of
September following, 1641, they passed this act: “It is ordered, that
that law of the last Court, made concerning liberty of conscience in
point of doctrine, be perpetuated.”[224]

It thus appears, that the settlements at Providence, and on
Rhode-Island, though, at that time, having no political connection, were
founded on the same principles. Mr. Williams continued his friendly
offices with the Indians, on behalf of the colony on Rhode-Island. On
the 19th of September, 1642, he was requested “to consult and agree with
Miantinomo, for the destruction of the wolves that are now upon the
island.”

The history of Samuel Gorton is a prominent event among the occurrences
of this period. We cannot enter into a minute detail of his conduct, his
opinions, and his sufferings; but a brief account of him is required, by
his connection with Mr. Williams.

Mr. Gorton was born in London, and came to Boston in 1636. Here, his
religious opinions and conduct occasioned, as we are told, much
disturbance, and he removed to Plymouth, in 1637. He there engaged in a
controversy with Mr. Smith, the pastor, who appealed to the civil power.
Gorton was summoned before a court in Plymouth, at which he maintained
his opinions with firmness, and, as the court thought, with insolence.
He was amerced in a large fine, and banished, after having suffered,
according to some writers,[225] corporal punishment. He removed to
Newport, on Rhode-Island, in June, 1638. There he remained for a year or
two; but he gave offence to the government, and, as some authors
assert,[226] he was imprisoned, whipped, and banished from the island,
probably in the course of the year 1641. These transactions are not
vouched by very satisfactory evidence; and we know not, admitting that
they occurred, to whom the blame belongs, or in what proportion it must
be shared by Mr. Gorton and his judges.

From Newport, he proceeded to Providence, where, says Hutchinson, “Roger
Williams, with his usual humanity, although he disliked his principles
and behavior, gave him shelter.” Mr. Williams, many years afterwards,
publicly averred,[227] that he did not approve of Mr. Gorton’s
principles; but this disapprobation did not induce him to refuse the
rights of hospitality to the fugitive. He had himself tasted of the same
cup, and, like Dido, had been taught by suffering to succor the
miserable.

Mr. Gorton, in January, 1641–2, purchased land at Pawtuxet, in the south
part of the territory then included under the name of Providence, and
within the limits of the present town of Cranston. He was soon joined by
a number of persons, who were disfranchised at Newport, on account,
perhaps, of their attachment to him.

A disturbance soon arose between Mr. Gorton’s friends and the former
inhabitants. The parties became so much exasperated, that they proceeded
to acts of violence and bloodshed. Winthrop states, that “they came
armed into the field, each against the other, but Mr. Williams pacified
them for the present.” Mr. Williams could not but deplore such a feud,
in his infant colony, and, with the pacific disposition which ever
characterized him, he endeavored to allay the tumult, and produce a
reconciliation; but his efforts were unsuccessful. The passions of the
parties were too strongly excited, to admit of any arbitration but
force. The government at Providence was then, as we have seen, a simple
compact; and the citizens being divided in opinion and feeling, there
was no superior power to control the disturbers of the public peace. In
this exigency, in November, 1641, some of the weaker party had recourse
to the strange, and, as it proved, most disastrous expedient, of
applying to the government of Massachusetts for aid or counsel.[228] The
country was beyond the limits of Massachusetts, which could not
interfere. “We answered them,” says Winthrop,[229] “that we could not
levy any war, without a General Court. For counsel, we told them, that
except they did submit themselves to some jurisdiction, either Plymouth
or ours, we had no calling or warrant to interpose in their contentions,
but if they were once subject to any, then they had a calling to protect
them.”[230]

The proposition to submit, either to Massachusetts or to Plymouth, did
not meet with a very prompt reception by the aggrieved party at
Pawtuxet. But, in September, 1642, four of them (William Arnold, Robert
Cole, William Carpenter, and Benedict Arnold,) appeared before the
General Court, at Boston, and yielded themselves and their lands, to be
governed and protected by Massachusetts. They were accepted, and
Winthrop acknowledges that Massachusetts was desirous to spread her sway
over the whole of the rising colonies around the Narraganset Bay. The
right of these individuals to submit to the jurisdiction of
Massachusetts must be denied; for the territory had been purchased by
Mr. Williams, and sold to his companions and others, with the evident
design, and the implied, if not express condition, that a new colony be
established, as a refuge from the laws of Massachusetts, as well as from
oppression elsewhere. To invite the extension of these laws over any
portion of the colony, was to defeat the purpose of its settlement, and
was, virtually, a violation of the covenant which the settlers had
subscribed.

But if these individuals had possessed the right to yield allegiance to
Massachusetts, their surrender could not bind their fellow-citizens, and
give to Massachusetts any claim to obedience from Mr. Gorton, or any
other inhabitant of Providence. Yet Massachusetts immediately assumed a
jurisdiction over all the inhabitants of Providence. In October, the
Governor and three of the assistants signed a warrant, requiring them to
submit to Massachusetts[231] and commanding Mr. Gorton and his friends
to come to Boston, to answer to the complaints of Mr. Arnold and his
associates. To this summons a reply was returned, dated November 20, and
signed by Mr. Gorton and eleven other persons, in which they denied the
authority of Massachusetts, and refused to obey.[232] This answer is
said to have been long, mystical, and contemptuous; but the principle,
which it maintained, was, indisputably, sound.

Mr. Gorton, and his eleven friends, thought it prudent to remove from
Providence. They accordingly crossed the Pawtuxet river, the southern
boundary of the territory purchased by Mr. Williams. They obtained from
Miantinomo the cession of a tract of country, called Shawomet,
afterwards named Warwick, for which they paid one hundred and forty-four
fathoms of wampum.[233] Here they fixed their residence; but, if the
object of their removal was to escape the grasp of Massachusetts, they
fared like many others, who have fled from apparent into real danger.
Two Indian sachems, Pomham and Sochonocho, who lived at Shawomet and
Pawtuxet, claimed the territory as their own, and went to Boston, in
June, 1643, where they complained of Mr. Gorton and his friends, as
having taken their lands from them. These sachems then made a surrender
of themselves, and of the lands which they claimed, to Massachusetts,
and promised fidelity, for themselves and their descendants.

It appears, however, that Miantinomo, as the greatest and most powerful
sachem, claimed the right to dispose of the land.[234] Pomham himself
had signed the deed; and he and Sochonocho, as subordinate sachems, seem
to have had no authority to dispute the validity of the sale, or to cede
the territory to Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the best authority on a
question touching the usages of the Indians, says, in a letter written
several years afterwards, to the General Court of Massachusetts,
concerning this transaction: “What was done was according to the law and
tenor of the natives, I take it, in all New-England and America, viz.
that the inferior sachems and subjects shall plant and remove at the
pleasure of the highest and supreme sachems; and I humbly conceive, that
it pleaseth the Most High and Only Wise to make use of such a bond of
authority over them, without which they could not long subsist in human
societies, in this wild condition wherein they are.”

These facts must be deemed a sufficient proof, that Mr. Gorton and his
friends had a fair title to the lands, or, at least, that they must be
acquitted of the charge of defrauding the inferior sachems. But
Massachusetts was not destitute of the inclination, which all states
have usually possessed, to extend her authority. The submission of these
sachems gave her a plausible pretext; and her rulers again summoned
Gorton and his friends to appear at Boston, informing them that they
were within the jurisdiction of Massachusetts. They again refused; and
an armed force of forty men was sent to Shawomet, who seized Mr. Gorton
and ten of his friends, and carried them to Boston, where they were
imprisoned. Their cattle were carried away with them, their property
otherwise injured or seized, and their families left to the mercy of the
Indians.

At Boston, they were tried for their lives, not for any specific civil
crime, but on the general charge of being enemies to true religion, and
to civil authority. They were saved from death, by a majority, it is
said, of two votes only. They were, nevertheless, sentenced to a severe
punishment. Mr. Gorton was ordered to be confined at Charlestown, and
the others in different towns. Each was compelled to wear an iron chain,
fast bolted round the leg, and in this manner to labor. If they spoke to
any person, except an officer of church or state, they were to suffer
death. They were kept at labor during the winter, and were then
banished, from Massachusetts, and from the lands at Shawomet, on pain of
death.

Mr. Gorton, and two of his friends, afterwards went to England, where
they obtained an order from the Earl of Warwick and the other
commissioners of the plantations, dated August 19, 1644, requiring
Massachusetts not to molest the settlers at Shawomet. Massachusetts
reluctantly complied, and Mr. Gorton and his followers occupied their
lands in quiet. Mr. Gorton lived to a great age.[235]

We have stated these proceedings at considerable length, because they
are connected with the history of Mr. Williams. They exhibit strongly
the temper of those times. The conduct of Massachusetts none will now
defend. It was a manifest usurpation, and a cruel abuse of power. It is
a profitable example of the manifold evils of erecting the civil
government into a court of inquisition. It was the alleged heresies and
blasphemies of Mr. Gorton and his friends, against which the edge of
this persecution was directed; and these unhappy men narrowly escaped
the fate which, a few years later, befel the Quakers. The rulers and
clergy of Massachusetts, undoubtedly, thought that they were impelled by
an honest zeal for the purity of religion and the glory of God. Their
conduct proves, that a being so fallible as man, is unfit to be
intrusted with power over the conscience.

It is difficult to ascertain the true character and real opinions of Mr.
Gorton. If the statements of his opponents could be safely received, we
should view him as a wild and turbulent fanatic. But we have seen much
reason to distrust the representations, which writers of that age have
furnished of Mr. Gorton, and others. He was, unquestionably, a bold,
zealous, eloquent man, of considerable talents and learning, and easily
exasperated, by opposition, to stubborn and contumacious resistance. He
possessed the art of securing the firm attachment of his friends; a
proof that he possessed some virtues, besides consistency of character.
A competent authority, quoted in a preceding page, has testified to the
general purity of his morals, and to the high estimation in which he was
held by his fellow-citizens, as indicated by the fact, that, “from the
first establishment of government, he was almost constantly in office.”
As to his religious opinions, it is affirmed, by the same authority,
that “he spiritualized every thing, and one would almost have thought
that he had taken the tour of Swedenborg.”[236]

It is certain that Roger Williams disapproved Mr. Gorton’s religious
opinions, but did not consider them as dangerous, or as impairing his
civil rights.[237]

CHAPTER XV.

Birth of Mr. Williams’ second son—league of the colonies—war between
the Narragansets and Mohegans—capture and death of Miantinomo—Mr.
Williams embarks for England.

We have, in the account of Mr. Gorton, advanced beyond other events
which claim a notice.

Mr. Williams’ second son, Daniel, was born February 13, 1642.

The colonists were alarmed, in 1642, by reports of a meditated design,
among the Indians, of a general war. The natives began to acquire the
use of fire-arms, with which, together with ammunition, they were
supplied by English and Dutch traders. Vigorous measures of defence were
accordingly adopted in the colonies. Connecticut proposed to attack the
Indians, but Massachusetts refused to join in the war, on the ground
that there was not sufficient proof of hostile designs on the part of
the Indians. She, nevertheless, disarmed the natives within her limits.
Miantinomo came to Boston, and protested that he was innocent.

The year 1643 was made memorable in the history of New-England, by the
union of the colonies. On the 19th of May, articles of confederation
were signed, at Boston, by the Commissioners of Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New-Haven and Plymouth, by which these four colonies formed
a league, under the name of “the United Colonies of New-England.” The
preface to the articles explains the objects of the confederation:

“Whereas we all came into these parts of America with one and the same
end and aim, namely, to advance the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to enjoy the liberties of the Gospel in purity with peace; and
whereas, by our settling, by the wise providence of God, we are further
dispersed upon the sea-coasts and rivers than was at first intended, so
that we cannot, according to our desire, with convenience communicate in
one government and jurisdiction, and whereas we live encompassed with
people of several nations and strange languages, which hereafter may
prove injurious to us or our posterity; and forasmuch as the natives
have formerly committed sundry insolences and outrages upon several
plantations of the English, and have of late combined themselves against
us; and seeing, by reason of the sad distractions in England, (which
they have heard of) and by which they know we are hindered both from
that humble way of seeking advice and reaping those comfortable fruits
of protection, which, at other times, we might well expect; we,
therefore, do conceive it our bounden duty, without delay, to enter into
a present consociation among ourselves, for mutual help and strength in
all future concernment, that, as in nation and religion, so in other
respects, we be and continue one.”[238]

By the articles, it was stipulated, that two commissioners from each of
the colonies should be chosen, to meet annually, at Boston, Hartford,
New-Haven and Plymouth, in successive years, and that this Congress
should determine questions of peace or war, and consult for the general
welfare of the colonies. This league continued till the year 1686. It
had a beneficial effect, and was probably the germ from which sprung the
confederation, and the subsequent union of the States, under our present
happy government. Rhode-Island was never allowed the honor of an
admission into the New-England confederacy. The want of a charter was,
at first, the pretext; but when the charter was obtained, there was no
more disposition than before to forgive this offending sister, and admit
her to the privileges of the family compact. The second charter itself
was offensive to the other colonies, for it recognised, as a fundamental
principle, “a full liberty in religious concernments.” The exclusion of
Rhode-Island from the confederacy exposed her to many inconveniences and
dangers. She was left without defence, except by her own citizens, and a
law of the New-England Congress virtually forbad her to purchase arms
and ammunition for her own protection. But the influence of Mr. Williams
among the Indians preserved the colony from perils, to which the
inexorable aversion of her sister colonies had abandoned her. It was
happy for those colonies, that their conduct met with no retaliation,
but that Mr. Williams and his colony steadily employed their influence
to appease the ire of the savages, and to protect their countrymen.

A war soon commenced between Miantinomo and Uncas, the Mohegan sachem.
In 1637, Miantinomo made an agreement with the government of
Massachusetts, not to fight, without their consent, with any of the
Indians, and particularly not to invade Uncas. In the next year, there
was a tripartite agreement made at Hartford, between Miantinomo, Uncas
and the English, in which it was stipulated, that those sachems should
not make war on each other, for any alleged injuries, without an appeal
to the English. In the spring of the year 1643, an attempt, it was said,
was made to assassinate Uncas, by a Pequod Indian, one of his subjects,
and it was suspected that he was incited to this act by Miantinomo.
Other attempts, it is alleged, were made to take the life of Uncas, and
in the same year, the two sachems came to open war. Miantinomo, with one
thousand Narraganset warriors, attacked Uncas, in August, 1643, but was
defeated and taken prisoner, though the force of Uncas was only three or
four hundred. Miantinomo had a coat of mail, or corslet, with which, it
has been said, without sufficient proof, he was furnished by Mr. Gorton.
Uncas carried his prisoners to Hartford, at the suggestion of Mr.
Gorton,[239] who wished to save his friend, and therefore wrote to
Uncas, threatening him with the resentment of the English, if he did not
surrender the captive.

At Hartford, Miantinomo was imprisoned, and application was made to the
Commissioners of the United Colonies, at their session at Boston,
September, 1643, to determine his fate. The Commissioners thought, that
they could neither release him with safety, nor justly put him to death.
But they called in to their aid “five of the most judicious
elders,”[240] and these ministers of the Gospel soon agreed, that the
unhappy chief ought to die. This answer was accordingly returned, and
Miantinomo was delivered to Uncas, who carried him within his own
territories, and there butchered him. The government at Hartford sent
twelve or fourteen soldiers with Uncas, as a guard to protect him from
the rage of the Narragansets.

This transaction has been defended, on the grounds, that Miantinomo was
at the head of a general conspiracy against the English, that he had
violated the agreement made at Hartford, and that he was of a turbulent
spirit. Other charges were alleged against him; but it is not easy to
convince a reader of the present day, that the death of the sachem was
either deserved or necessary. That the ministers of the Gospel doomed
him to death, while the civilians could hesitate, is remarkable. It is
another proof of the danger of permitting the clerical and civil
functions to interfere with each other. The clergymen probably treated
the case of Miantinomo as a religious question. These good men, we may
fear, were misled by that propensity, to which we have before alluded,
to regard the events of Jewish history as authoritative precedents.
They, perhaps, viewed Miantinomo as a heathen conspirator against the
people of God, and deemed him worthy of the fate of Agag. But we turn
away, with a sigh, from this melancholy subject, by quoting the words of
a distinguished citizen of Providence.[241] “This was the end of
Miantinomo, the most potent Indian prince the people of New-England had
ever any concern with; and this was the reward he received for assisting
them, seven years before, in their war with the Pequods. Surely a
Rhode-Island man may be permitted to mourn his unhappy fate, and drop a
tear on the ashes of Miantinomo, who, with his uncle Canonicus, were the
best friends and greatest benefactors the colony ever had. They kindly
received, fed and protected the first settlers of it, when they were in
distress, and were strangers and exiles, and all mankind else were their
enemies; and, by this kindness to them, drew upon themselves the
resentment of the neighboring colonies, and hastened the untimely death
of the young king.”

But let us remember, that it is not easy to judge fairly of the conduct
of our fathers. We cannot feel, as they did, the exigencies of their
situation. They were weak, and surrounded with powerful tribes, to whom
rumor and fear constantly attributed the design to unite in a general
conspiracy for the destruction of the English. Miantinomo was suspected,
probably without sufficient evidence, of an ambitious purpose to be the
head of such a league. The colonists, perhaps, thought themselves
justified, by the right of self-preservation, in putting to death the
aspiring chief, before he could mature his plans, and execute his
purpose.

We must now return to Mr. Williams. The settlements at Providence and on
Rhode-Island had continued to increase, for several years. They had
hitherto been distinct, but their principles and interests were so
similar, that an alliance as one colony became manifestly expedient. The
necessity of a charter, from the government of England, was apparent, to
protect them from the encroachments of the other colonies, and to give a
sanction and authority to their government. A committee was appointed,
at an assembly in Newport, September 19, 1642, with instructions to
procure a charter. This committee intrusted the agency to Mr. Williams,
who, on behalf of that colony and his own, agreed to visit England on
this important errand.[242]

He accordingly left his family, and proceeded to Manhattoes, (New-York)
to embark for England. It would have been more convenient and agreeable
to sail from Boston, but Mr. Williams was not permitted to enter the
territories of Massachusetts, notwithstanding the good service which he
had performed for them in their hour of need. But at Manhattoes, he had
an opportunity to use his influence with the savages, and to display his
pacific principles. A war had been provoked, by the wanton cruelty of
the Dutch, and the Indians assailed them with great fury. They burnt
several houses in the neighborhood of Manhattoes, and killed several
persons, among whom was Mrs. Hutchinson, with all but one of her family.
The Indians on Long-Island engaged in the war, and burnt several of the
Dutchmen’s houses. They assaulted the dwelling of Lady Moody, who not
long before had left Salem, in consequence of her Baptist
principles.[243] Mr. Williams immediately interceded, and, by his
mediation, the Indians were pacified, and peace was restored between
them and the Dutch. This event, according to Winthrop, occurred in June,
1643, and we thus learn the date of Mr. Williams’ first embarkation for
England, which must have taken place soon after.

CHAPTER XVI.

Mr. Williams’ first visit to England—Key to the Indian
languages—charter—birth of Mr. Williams’ youngest child—Bloody
Tenet—he returns to America—reception at Boston and Providence—again
aids in preventing an Indian war.

Some time during the summer of 1643, Mr. Williams embarked at New-York
for his native land. A Dutch ship furnished him with a conveyance, which
his own countrymen had denied him. Of the length and incidents of the
voyage, we know nothing. The vessel, we may be sure, did not afford the
sumptuous accommodations, nor pursue her course over the Atlantic with
the celerity, of the packet ships of the present day.

Mr. Williams was not of a mood to be idle, either on the land or on the
ocean. He acted on the principle, so beautifully expressed in one of his
books, “one grain of time’s inestimable sand is worth a golden
mountain.” He has told us, that he employed his leisure, during this
voyage, in preparing the materials of his Key to the Indian languages:
“I drew the materials, in a rude lump, at sea, as a private help to my
own memory, that I might not, by my present absence, lightly lose what I
had so dearly bought in some few years’ hardship and charges among the
barbarians.”[244]

This book, which is an honorable specimen of his talents as a writer,
his industry and acuteness in collecting the words and phrases of an
unwritten language, and his benevolent zeal for the welfare of the
Indians, must have been nearly finished for the press during the voyage.
It was printed before the close of the year 1643, and we may suppose,
that after his arrival in England, his endeavors to procure the charter,
and other engagements, would leave him little leisure for writing. Of
this book we shall have occasion to speak again, in a subsequent
chapter, in which we shall briefly review his literary character and
writings.

Mr. Williams arrived in England at a most critical period. A civil war
then convulsed the nation. The misguided King, Charles I., by a series
of unjustifiable measures, repugnant to the constitution, and in
violation of his own promises and oaths, had provoked an opposition,
which issued in a rupture and a bloody war. The King had fled from
London, and Parliament had assumed the executive as well as legislative
authority. The King and the Parliament levied troops, the sword was
unsheathed, and, after a sanguinary struggle of several years, the
unhappy Charles died on the scaffold, Episcopacy was abolished, the
monarchy was overturned, and a commonwealth, under the protectorship of
Cromwell, was established on its ruins.

Mr. Williams arrived at an early period in this disastrous conflict. Its
issue was then very doubtful. The Episcopal clergy, and a large portion
of the aristocracy, were on the side of the King. With these were joined
many of the quiet men of the kingdom, who, while they disapproved the
King’s conduct, were led by a sentiment of loyalty, and a hope that he
might be persuaded to a right course, to rally around the monarch. The
patriot would have been satisfied with a guarantee for the rights of the
people; and the advocates of religious liberty would have been content
with toleration. But the inflexible obstinacy and arbitrary principles
of the King daily strengthened his enemies and alienated his friends. It
soon became evident, that the King must yield, or the nation must submit
to slavery. The contest ended, as every struggle between despotism and
liberty, the rulers and the people, must, sooner or later, terminate:

“For Freedom’s battle, once begun,
Bequeath’d by bleeding sire to son,
Though baffled oft, is ever won.”[245]

The disturbed condition of the kingdom was, in some respects, favorable
to the objects of Mr. Williams. It disposed the Parliament to strengthen
themselves, by conciliating the favor of their brethren in America. The
House of Commons, in March, 1642–3, passed a memorable resolve, in favor
of New-England, exempting its imports and exports from customs, subsidy
or taxation. In November, 1643, not long, we presume, after Mr.
Williams’ arrival, Parliament passed an ordinance, appointing the Earl
of Warwick Governor in Chief and Lord High Admiral of the American
colonies, with a council of five peers and twelve commoners. It
empowered him, in conjunction with his associates, to examine the state
of their affairs, to send for papers and persons, to remove governors
and officers, and appoint others in their places, and to assign to these
such part of the power now granted as he should think proper.[246]

From these commissioners Mr. Williams easily obtained, by the aid of Sir
Henry Vane, one of their number, a charter for the colony of
Rhode-Island, dated March 14, 1643–4, in which the most ample powers
were granted to the inhabitants to form and maintain a civil
government.[247]

During Mr. Williams’ absence, his youngest child, Joseph, was born, in
December, 1643, according to Backus, though his tombstone, now standing
in the family graveyard, in Cranston, (R. I.) bears an inscription,
which states that he was born in 1644.

While in England, Mr. Williams, notwithstanding the pressure of his
duties, and the disturbed state of the public mind, found leisure to
prepare for the press his celebrated book, entitled “The Bloody Tenet of
Persecution for Cause of Conscience, discussed in a conference between
Truth and Peace, who, in all tender affection, present to the High Court
of Parliament, as the result of their discourse, these amongst other
passages of highest consideration.” In this book, which he dedicated to
Parliament, and which was doubtless read, with interest and profit, by
many of the leading men in England,[248] Mr. Williams discusses the
great principles of religious liberty, in answer to a letter of the Rev.
John Cotton. Mr. Cotton wrote a reply, to which, in accordance with the
humor of those times, he gave the quaint and punning title of “The
Bloody Tenet Washed, and made White in the Blood of the Lamb.” Mr.
Williams published a rejoinder, with a title in the same strain, “The
Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody, by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to Wash it
White.” Of these books we shall give some account, in a subsequent
chapter. It may suffice now, to say, that Mr. Cotton’s argument rests on
a sophistical distinction between persecution for religious opinions,
and punishment for maintaining errors. He disclaims the right to
“persecute any for conscience rightly informed;” but if a man possesses
“an erroneous and blind conscience, in fundamental and weighty points,”
he ought, after suitable admonition, to be punished by the civil
magistrate, not because he entertains heretical principles, but because
he is wilfully blind and criminally obstinate, in refusing to believe
what is clearly revealed in the Scriptures. It seems surprising, that a
man of Mr. Cotton’s abilities and virtues, could seriously maintain so
transparent an absurdity; for if the magistrate be allowed to judge what
is “an erroneous and blind conscience,” he will decide according to his
own construction of the word of God, and will pronounce all who differ
from himself to be culpably obstinate, and worthy of punishment. This is
precisely the case in every instance of persecution; and the Court of
High Commission, who expelled Mr. Cotton from England, would have needed
no other defence of their conduct than his own arguments. But Mr.
Cotton, though a great and a good man, was misled by his views of the
duty of the civil magistrate to interfere, for the preservation of
purity in the Christian church, as the civil authorities were required
to guard the Jewish religion, and to smite, with unsparing severity,
those who renounced or corrupted it.

Mr. Williams, in his book, exposes the fallacy of Mr. Cotton’s
arguments; and by cogent reasoning and acute expositions of various
texts, he establishes this fundamental principle, as alike taught by the
Scriptures and by reason, that men are not responsible to each other for
their religious opinions, and ought not to suffer molestation, or
injury, in their persons or property, for those opinions, nor for the
actions by which they are expressed and maintained, unless the civil
peace is disturbed. In this case, their conduct ceases to be a matter of
religious concern merely, and comes within the cognizance of the civil
magistrate. Mr. Williams is very clear and decided on this point. Though
he was accused as a turbulent contemner of magistracy and civil order,
yet in this book, printed within a few years after his banishment, he
says, “I speak not of scandals against the civil state, _which the civil
state ought to punish._”[249] This book is written with great ability,
it shows learning and taste, and it breathes a tone of courtesy which
was not common at that time, and which would not dishonor this age.

Mr. Williams returned to America, in the autumn of 1644. He landed at
Boston, September 17. He was emboldened to venture on this forbidden
ground, by the following letter from several noblemen and other members
of Parliament, addressed “To the Right Worshipful the Governor and
Assistants, and the rest of our worthy friends in the plantation of
Massachusetts Bay, in New-England:”

“Our much honored friends:

“Taking notice some of us of long time of Mr. Roger Williams’ good
affections and conscience, and of his sufferings by our common enemy
and oppressors of God’s people, the prelates, as also of his great
industry and travels in his printed Indian labors, in your parts,
(the like whereof we have not seen extant from any part of America)
and in which respect it hath pleased both Houses of Parliament to
grant unto him, and friends with him, a free and absolute charter of
civil government for those parts of his abode, and withal
sorrowfully resenting, that amongst good men (our friends) driven to
the ends of the world, exercised with the trials of a wilderness,
and who mutually give good testimony, each of the other, (as we
observe you do of him, and he abundantly of you,) there should be
such a distance; we thought it fit, upon divers considerations, to
profess our great desires of both your utmost endeavors of nearer
closing and of ready expressing those good affections, (which we
perceive you bear to each other) in effectual performance of all
friendly offices. The rather because of those bad neighbors you are
likely to find too near you in Virginia, and the unfriendly visits
from the west of England and from Ireland. That howsoever it may
please the Most High to shake our foundations, yet the report of
your peaceable and prosperous plantations may be some refreshings to
your true and faithful friends.”

This letter procured for Mr. Williams permission to proceed unmolested
to Providence, but it produced no relaxation of the policy of
Massachusetts towards him. Mr. Hubbard (p. 349) says: “Upon the receipt
of the said letter, the Governor and magistrates of the Massachusetts
found, upon examination of their hearts, they saw no reason to condemn
themselves for any former proceedings against Mr. Williams; but for any
offices of Christian love, and duties of humanity, they were very
willing to maintain a mutual correspondency with him. But as to his
dangerous principles of separation, unless he can be brought to lay them
down, they see no reason why to concede to him, or any so persuaded,
free liberty of ingress and egress, lest any of their people should be
drawn away with his erroneous opinions.” The aversion to Mr. Williams’
principles, both religious[250] and political, was not abated by his
return with a charter, which invested the heretical colony with the
dignity of an independent government, and armed her with the shield of
the parent state. Her example became, thenceforth, more dangerous; and
the united colonies steadily pursued towards her an unfriendly policy.

Mr. Williams’ return to Providence was greeted by a voluntary expression
of the attachment and gratitude of its inhabitants, which is one of the
most satisfactory testimonies to his character. They met him at Seekonk,
with fourteen canoes, and carried him across the river to Providence.
This simple act of respect must have been highly grateful to his
feelings. It does equal honor to him, and to his fellow citizens, who
thus showed themselves capable of estimating, in a manner worthy of
freemen, the services of a friend and public benefactor.[251]

We may suppose, that Mr. Williams, after his return, immediately
endeavored to carry into operation the charter which he had procured
with so much labor and expense. But it was a work which required time,
to bring the inhabitants of the several settlements at Providence,
Newport, Portsmouth and Warwick, to agree on a form of government, and
unite as one colony. The charter prescribed no form of civil polity, and
it was accordingly necessary to manage the negotiations between the
towns with much delicacy and skill.

In the mean time, Mr. Williams had another opportunity to interpose his
beneficent agency in favor of the colonists. The Narraganset Indians,
exasperated by what they judged to be the murder of their favorite
sachem, Miantinomo, were bent on vengeance, with the unrelenting
ferocity of savages. They alleged, that they had paid wampum, to the
amount of forty pounds, as a ransom for the chieftain’s life. They
therefore resolved on war with the Mohegans, until they should obtain
the head of Uncas. The commissioners of the colonies, at their meeting
in Hartford, in September, 1644, appeased their animosity for a while,
the Narraganset sachems promising not to commence hostilities against
Uncas until after the next planting time, and likewise after thirty
days’ notice to the government of Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The commissioners, this year, passed an act, forbidding any person to
sell any kind of arms or ammunition to an Indian, or to repair any
weapon for him, under a heavy penalty. This measure was called for by
the rapid progress of the Indians in the use of fire-arms. The law had,
it is probable, some effect, but like similar laws in regard to the
Indians, in later times, unprincipled men found many ways to evade it.

The Narragansets soon commenced the war, and killed several of the
Mohegans. An extraordinary meeting of the commissioners was held in
Boston, in July, 1645, when it was judged necessary to send messengers
to the sachems of the Narragansets and Mohegans, requiring them to
suspend hostilities and come to Boston. The messengers were informed by
the Narragansets, that they were resolved on war. They accordingly
returned to Boston, with a letter from Mr. Williams, informing the
government, that the Narragansets would soon commence hostilities
against the colonists, except at Providence and Rhode-Island, the
Indians having, from regard to Mr. Williams, agreed to maintain a
neutrality with these settlements.

The commissioners immediately resolved to raise a force of three hundred
men,[252] to march immediately for the protection of the Mohegans. A
part of the levy from Massachusetts marched accordingly. Two messengers
were again sent to the Narraganset sachems, with directions to take Mr.
Benedict Arnold with them as their interpreter. But they could not find
Mr. Arnold at Providence, and learned that he dared not venture among
the Indians without a guard. But Mr. Williams had been sent for by the
sachems, doubtless to advise them in this crisis. The messengers,
therefore, solicited his aid, and he served them as an interpreter. By
his mediation, Passacus,[253] the sachem, and other chief men, were
persuaded to go to Boston, where a treaty was concluded between the
commissioners and the sachems, by which the latter agreed to make peace
with Uncas, and to pay the colonists two thousand fathoms of wampum, at
different times, as a remuneration for their expenses in the war. This
treaty was concluded in August, 1645, and the sachems left a child of
Passacus, a child of his brother, and two other children of persons of
note, as a security for the faithful performance of the treaty.[254]

Thus was New-England saved, a second time, from a general Indian war, by
means, in no small part, of the good offices of Mr. Williams. The small
English army was disbanded, and the 4th of September was observed, by
the colonists, as a day of thanksgiving to God. This measure was worthy
of our pious ancestors. We may hope, that while they justly ascribed the
praise of their deliverance to God, they felt some emotions of gratitude
towards their exiled benefactor.

CHAPTER XVII.

Letters to John Winthrop—organization of the government—vote of money
to Mr. Williams—agreement of several inhabitants of
Providence—dissentions—Indian troubles.

We have now the pleasure of presenting the first of a number of
unpublished letters, addressed to John Winthrop, the son of Governor
Winthrop, of Massachusetts.[255] Mr. Winthrop resided, for several
years, at Nameug, or Pequod, now New-London, in Connecticut. It appears
from one of the letters, that Mr. Williams became acquainted with him in
England; and the correspondence which we shall introduce, will show that
the friendship was strong and mutual. We cannot stay to offer comments
on the letters. They relate to politics, literature, agriculture, and
various other topics, while religion is diffused, like a grateful
fragrance, through them all.

This and other letters are dated at Narraganset, or Cawcawmqussick, (now
North-Kingstown,) where Mr. Williams, about this time, purchased an
estate, and built a trading house, which he afterwards sold, to obtain
money for his second visit to England.

“For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod, these.

“_Nar. 22, 4, 45, (so called.)_[256]

“Sir,

“Best salutations, &c. William Cheesbrough, now come in, shall be
readily assisted, for yours and his own sake. Major Bourne is come
in. I have, by Providence, seen divers papers, (returning now yours
thankfully,) which are snatched from me again. I have, therefore,
been bold to send you the Medulla and the Magnalia Dei. Pardon me,
if I request you, in my name, to transfer the paper to Captain
Mason, who saith he loves me. God is love; in him only I desire to
be yours ever,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“Loving salutes to your dearest and kind sister.

“I have been very sick of cold and fever, but God hath been gracious
to me. I am not yet resolved of a course for my daughter. If your
powder, with directions, might be sent without trouble, I should
first wait upon God in that way: however, it is best to wait on him.
If the ingredients be costly, I shall thankfully account. I have
books that prescribe powders, &c. but yours is probatum in this
country.”

We know little of the condition of Providence at this time. We may
presume, however, that it continued to flourish. It is stated, that
about this period, there were, in Providence and its vicinity, one
hundred and one men, fit to bear arms.[257] This fact indicates a large
increase of population, in a period of less than ten years.

After a considerable lapse of time, the inhabitants of Providence,
Portsmouth, Newport, and Warwick, agreed on a form of civil government.
This form, says Mr. Backus, provided for the election of “a President
and four Assistants annually, who had the executive power, were judges
in the courts of law and kept the peace. An Assembly, of six
commissioners, or representatives, from each town, made laws, and
ordered their general affairs; but their laws must be sent to every
town, to be deliberately considered in their town meetings, from whence
the clerk was to send an account of their votes to the General Recorder;
and, if the majority of the towns approved the law, it was confirmed, if
not, it was disannulled. The Assembly chose yearly a Treasurer and a
General Recorder and General Sergeant, which are only other names for a
Secretary and Sheriff. In each town, six persons were yearly chosen, who
were called the Town Council, who had the powers of a Court of Probate,
of granting licenses to inn-keepers and retailers, and the care of the
poor.”

The first General Assembly met at Portsmouth, May 19, 1647, when John
Coggshall was chosen President, Roger Williams assistant for Providence,
John Sanford for Portsmouth, William Coddington for Newport, and Randall
Holden for Warwick. William Dyer was chosen Recorder. They agreed upon a
body of laws, chiefly taken from the laws of England, with the addition
of a few suited to their particular circumstances. In the introduction
of this code, the form of government established is called
“democratical, that is to say, a government held by the free and
voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of the free inhabitants.”

The code, which contains nothing except civil regulations, concludes
thus: “Otherwise than thus, what is herein forbidden, all men may walk
as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.
And let the lambs of the Most High walk, in this colony, without
molestation, in the name of Jehovah, their God, forever and ever.” This
noble principle was thus established, as one of the fundamental laws, at
the first Assembly under the charter. It is indigenous to the
Rhode-Island soil, and is the glory of the state.

Mr. Williams had a large share in thus organizing the government. His
services were gratefully recognized by the Assembly, who, at their first
session, adopted the following resolution:[258]

“That forasmuch as Mr. Roger Williams hath taken great pains, and
expended much time, in obtaining the charter for this province, of our
noble Lords and Governors, be it enacted and established, that, in
regard to his so great trouble, charges and good endeavors, we do freely
give and grant unto the said Mr. Roger Williams an hundred pounds, to be
levied out of the three towns, viz.: fifty pounds out of Newport, thirty
pounds of Portsmouth, twenty pounds out of Providence; which rate is to
be levied and paid in by the last of November.” Backus, vol. i. p. 199.

This grant of one hundred pounds was voted, but for some reason, Mr.
Williams never received it all.[259] It was, undoubtedly, a very
inadequate compensation for his toils and expenses, in procuring the
charter.

The following very characteristic letter belongs here. The seal is a
rude representation of a tulip, or other flower, the impression sunk,
and not raised:

“For his worshipful, and his much honored, kind friend, Mr. John
Winthrop, at Nameaug, these.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 28, 3, 47, (so called.)_

“Worthy Sir,

“Loving respects and salutations to your kind self and your kindest
companion. Some while since, you desired a word of direction about
the hay seed. I desired my brother to collect his own and other
neighbors’ observations about it, which (with his respects
presented) amounts to this.

“First, usually three bushels seed to one acre land.

“2. It hath been known to spread, to mat, &c. the Indian hills being
only scraped or levelled.

“3. This may be done at any time of the year, but the sooner the
better.

“4. It is best to sow it upon a rain preceding.

“5. Some say let the ripe grass stand until it seed, and the wind
disperse it (susque deque) up and down, for it is of that thriving
and homogeneal nature with the earth, that the very dung of cattle
that feeds on it will produce the grain.

“6. The offs, which can hardly be severed from the seed, hath the
same productive faculty.

“7. Sow it not in an orchard, near fruit trees, for it will steal,
and rob the trees, &c.

“Sir: Concerning Indian affairs, reports are various; lies are
frequent. Private interests, both with Indians and English, are
many; yet these things you may and must do. First, kiss truth where
you evidently, upon your soul, see it. 2. Advance justice, though
upon a child’s eyes. 3. Seek and make peace, if possible, with all
men. 4. Secure your own life from a revengeful, malicious arrow or
hatchet. I have been in danger of them, and delivered yet from them;
blessed be his holy name, in whom I desire to be

“Your worship’s, in all unfeigned
“respects and love,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following letter relates, probably, to the collection of the wampum
to be paid to the commissioners, by the Narragansets, in accordance with
the treaty.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 20, 6, 47, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Due respects presented, &c. I am importuned by Ninigret,[260] in
express words, to present his respects and love to your honored
father, and to the honored President of the commissioners, giving
great thanks for the great favor and kindness showed him. Withal, he
prays you earnestly to present his humble suit, that since he, by
reason of his travel and illness, can, as yet, get no further
towards his own home, and finds he must have much work with the
natives of these parts, before he repair home, and time to spend
exceeding fast, it may be accounted no breach of faithfulness of his
promise, if he finish the contribution he is now about, within a few
days after the punctual time. The other sachems, upon agitations,
have promised their utmost concurrence, to finish all within a month
from the day of his promise, which time he earnestly requests may be
assented to, hoping to make payment before, but not questioning by
the expiration of that time. By this bearer, he humbly prays a word
of answer, that, with the more cheerful concurrence of the other
sachems, (who join with him in this request,) he may be the more
cheerful in the work. Sir, I discern nothing but reality and reason
in his request; otherwise, I should not dare to molest you, or those
honored persons whom it concerns; to whom, with my humble respects,
and to yourself presented, beseeching the Most High to be your
portion, I rest,

“Your worship’s unworthy
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“Pesickosh desired me to present his great thanks for his child.

“Sir: Your man is with me at present writing, well, this last of the
week, and will be going instantly. Humble thanks for the sight of
papers from England. The sea will be the sea till it be no more.
Revel. 21.

“Respects to your dearest.”

The following agreement, written, evidently, by Mr. Williams, and signed
by himself and several of the citizens of Providence, is a proof of his
pacific principles, and of his desire for the peace and welfare of the
colony:

“Considering the great mercy afforded unto us, in this liberty thus
to meet together, being denied to many of our countrymen in most
parts, especially in our poor native country, now deploring their
distressed condition in most sad and bloody calamities: That
ingratitude and disacknowledgments for favors received, are just
causes for the deprivation of them, together with home divisions and
home conspiracies, the ruination of families, towns and countries.
Moreover, the many plots and present endeavors, at home and abroad,
not only to disturb our peace and liberties, but utterly to root up
both root and branch of this our being; that government held forth
through love, union and order, although by few in number and mean in
condition, yet (by experience) hath withstood and overcome mighty
opposers; and, above all, the several unexpected deliverances of
this poor plantation, by that mighty Providence who is still able to
deliver us, through love, union and order. Therefore, being sensible
of these great and weighty premises, and now met together to consult
about our peace and liberty, whereby our families and posterity may
still enjoy these favors; and that we may publicly declare unto all
the free discharge of all our consciences and duties, whereby it may
appear upon record that we are not wilfully opposite, nor careless
and senseless, and thereby the means of our own and others’ ruin and
destruction;—and especially in testimony of our fidelity and cordial
affection unto one another here present, that so there may be a
current placable proceeding, we do faithfully and unanimously, by
this our subscription, promise unto each other to keep unto these
ensuing particulars: First, that the foundation in love may appear
among us, what causes of difference have heretofore been given,
either by word or misbehavior, in public or private, concerning
particular or general affairs, by any of us here present, not to
mention or repeat them in the assembly, but that love shall cover
the multitude of them in the grave of oblivion. Secondly, that union
may proceed from love, we do promise to keep constant unto those
several engagements made by us, both unto our town and colony, and
that, to the uttermost of our powers and abilities to maintain our
lawful rights and privileges, and to uphold the government of this
plantation. Also, that love may appear in union, we desire to
abandon all causeless fears and jealousies of one another, only
aiming at the general and particular peace and union of this town
and colony. Lastly, for our more orderly proceeding in this
assembly, whereby love and union may appear in order, if in our
consultations differences in judgment shall arise, then moderately
in order, through argumentation, to agitate the same; considering
the cause, how far it may be hurtful, or conducing unto our union,
peace and liberty, and accordingly act, not after the will or person
of any, but unto the justice and righteousness of the cause. Again,
if such cause shall be presented, wherein such difficulties shall
appear, that evident arguments cannot be given for present
satisfaction, but that either town or colony, or both, shall suffer,
then to take into consideration a speech of a beloved friend,
“better to suffer an inconvenience than a mischief,” better to
suspend with a loss that may be inconvenient, than to be totally
disunited and bereaved of all rights and liberties, which will be a
mischief indeed. Moreover, that offences and distractions may be
prevented, that so the current of business may peaceably proceed in
this assembly, we do faithfully promise to carry ourselves, in words
and behavior, so moderately and orderly as the cause shall permit;
and if any of us shall fly out in provoking, scurrilous, exorbitant
speeches, and unsuitable behavior, that he or they so doing shall be
publicly declared, branded, and noted upon record, to be a covenant
violator, and disturber of the union, peace and liberty of this
plantation. We do here subscribe, without partiality. Dated
December, 1647.

ROBERT WILLIAMS,
ROGER WILLIAMS,
JOHN SMITH,
HUGH BEWIT,
WILLIAM WICKENDEN,
JOHN TRIPP,
THOMAS HOPKINS,
WILLIAM HAWKINS.”

It is a proof, that Mr. Williams was not a very ambitious man, that he
put himself entirely on a level with his fellow citizens, and was
willing to serve the colony in the subordinate situation of an
assistant. He was entitled, from his character and services, to be the
first President; but he was, doubtless, disposed to yield his own
claims, to conciliate the other towns. His services, as a peace-maker,
were often needed.

It could scarcely be expected, that towns, composed of so many
discordant materials, would coalesce quietly in one government. The
principle on which the colony was founded, made it the resort of many
uneasy spirits, who occasioned difficulties which disturbed its peace,
and brought undeserved odium on the better portion of the inhabitants.

In May, 1648, Mr. Coddington was elected President, and Jeremiah Clarke,
Roger Williams, William Baulstone, and John Smith, Assistants; Philip
Sherman, Recorder; and Alexander Partridge, General Sergeant.

In September following, Mr. Coddington and Mr. Partridge applied, in
person, to the commissioners of the united colonies, requesting that the
island of Rhode-Island might be received as a member of the league,
alleging it to be the desire of a majority of the inhabitants. But the
commissioners refused to admit them, unless the island were placed under
the jurisdiction of Plymouth. It was a happy event for Rhode-Island,
that this request was refused, for had it been granted, the effect might
have been the separation of the island from the rest of the colony.

In this posture of affairs, Mr. Williams again tried his influence as a
peace-maker. In August, 1648, he addressed the following letter to the
town of Providence:

“Worthy friends, that ourselves and all men are apt and prone to differ,
it is no new thing. In all former ages, in all parts of the world, in
these parts, and in our dear native country and mournful state of
England, that either part or party is most right in his own eyes, his
cause right, his carriage right, his arguments right, his answers right,
is as wofully and constantly true as the former. And experience tells
us, that when the God of peace hath taken peace from the earth, one
spark of action, word or carriage is too powerful to kindle such a fire
as burns up towns, cities, armies, navies, nations and kingdoms. And
since, dear friends, it is an honor for men to cease from strife; since
the life of love is sweet, and union is as strong as sweet; and since
you have been lately pleased to call me to some public service and my
soul hath been long musing how I might bring water to quench, and not
oil or fuel to the flame, I am now humbly bold to beseech you, by all
those comforts of earth and heaven which a placable and peaceable spirit
will bring to you, and by all those dreadful alarms and warnings, either
amongst ourselves, in deaths and sicknesses, or abroad in the raging
calamities of the sword, death and pestilence; I say humbly and
earnestly beseech you to be willing to be pacifiable, willing to be
reconcilable, willing to be sociable, and to listen to the (I hope not
unreasonable) motion following: To try out matters by disputes and
writings, is sometimes endless; to try out arguments by arms and swords,
is cruel and merciless; to trouble the state and Lords of England, is
most unreasonable, most chargeable; to trouble our neighbors of other
colonies, seems neither safe nor honorable. Methinks, dear friends, the
colony now looks with the torn face of two parties, and that the greater
number of Portsmouth, with other loving friends adhering to them, appear
as one grieved party; the other three towns, or greater part of them,
appear to be another: Let each party choose and nominate three;
Portsmouth and friends adhering three, the other party three, one out of
each town; let authority be given to them to examine every public
difference, grievance and obstruction of justice, peace and common
safety: let them, by one final sentence of all or the greater part of
them, end all, and set the whole into an unanimous posture and order,
and let them set a censure upon any that shall oppose their sentence.
One log, without your gentle help, I cannot stir; it is this: How shall
the minds of the towns be known? How shall the persons chosen be called?
Time and place appointed in any expedition? For myself I can thankfully
embrace the help of Mr. Coddington or Mr. Clarke, joined or apart, but
how many are there who will attend, (as our distempers are) to neither?
It is, gentlemen, in the power of the body to require the help of any of
her members, and both King and Parliament plead, that in extraordinary
cases they have been forced to extraordinary ways for common safety. Let
me be friendly construed, if (for expedition) I am bold to be too
forward in this service, and to say, that if within twenty days of the
date hereof, you please to send to my house, at Providence, the name of
him whom you please to nominate, at your desire I will acquaint all the
persons chosen with place and time, unto which in your name I shall
desire their meeting within ten days, or thereabouts, after the receipt
of your letter. I am your mournful and unworthy

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

“This address,” says Mr. Backus, “had such an effect, that Mr. Williams
was received to act as President of the colony, till their election at
Warwick, May 22, 1649.”

The following letter to Mr. Winthrop, throws some light on the state of
things at that time:

“For my much honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at his house,
at Nameug, these.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 23, 7, 48, (so called.)_

“Kind Sir,

“Best salutations to your dear selves and loving sister. I am bold
and yet glad to trouble you, that by this occasion I may hear of
your welfare. Capt. Mason lately requested me to forbid the
Narragansets to hunt at Pequod, and to assure them of his visiting
of them if they so did. I have written now an answer, which I am
bold to request you to send at your next opportunity. Two days since
I was at Providence, and then Mr. Brown was not returned, only he
had wrote home some angry passage against the Narragansets, who are
now in expectation of some assault from the English. Sir, whether it
please God to visit us with peace or war, in life and death I desire
to be

“Yours ever in Christ Jesus,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“Sir, our neighbors Mr. Coddington and Capt. Partridge, ten days
since, returned from Plymouth with propositions for Rhode-Island to
subject to Plymouth; to which himself and Portsmouth incline; our
other three towns decline, and Mr. Holden and Mr. Warner, of
Warwick, came from thence also, and they say, gave satisfaction why
they dare not (the other three towns) depart from the charter. Sir,
in this division of our neighbors, I have kept myself unengaged, and
presented motions of pacification, amongst which I was bold to
propose a reference to your worthy self and some other friend to be
chosen; our town yields to it, and Mr. Boston (though opposite) and
possibly you may have the trouble and honor of a peace-maker.

“Sir, pray seal the enclosed.”

It appears by this letter, and by other evidence, that Plymouth was
desirous to add the beautiful island to her territory. Three years
before, she claimed it as belonging to her jurisdiction; and
Massachusetts insisted on her title to the allegiance of the inhabitants
of Pawtuxet and Warwick.[261] Winthrop says, under the date of May,
1645:[262] “The government of Plymouth sent one of their magistrates,
Mr. Brown, to Aquetneck island, to forbid Mr. Williams, &c. to exercise
any of their pretended authority upon the island, claiming it to be
within their jurisdiction. Our Court also sent to forbid them to
exercise any authority within that part of our jurisdiction at Pawtuxet
and Shawomet, and although they had boasted to do great matters there,
by virtue of their charter, yet they dared not to attempt any thing.”

Connecticut afterwards laid claim to a part of the western territory of
Rhode-Island. Thus was the little colony pressed on each side by her
more powerful neighbors, who would gladly have enacted, at that early
day, the same scene which was long afterwards presented in Poland,
though the wrong would certainly have been less flagrant, and the motive
less criminal. Thanks to the protection of God, and to the prudent
firmness of Mr. Williams and others, the colony escaped all the designs
of her neighbors, and has continued till this day, small in territory,
but strong in her love of freedom, and consistent in her maintenance of
the principles of her founder.

The Indians again disturbed the colonies. “In August, 1648,” says Mr.
Backus,[263] “about one thousand Indians from various parts were
collected in Connecticut, with three hundred guns among them, and it was
reported that they were hired by the Narragansets to fight with Uncas.
The magistrates of Hartford sent three horsemen to inquire what they
designed, and to let them know, that if they made war with him, the
English must defend him, upon which they dispersed. When the
commissioners met at Plymouth the next month, they ordered four men to
be sent to the Narragansets, with instructions how to treat with them,
both concerning their hiring other Indians to war upon Uncas, and also
about the tribute of wampum that was behind. Captain Atherton and
Captain Prichard undertook the service, and going to Mr. Williams, they
procured the sachems to be sent for, but they, hearing that many
horsemen were come to take them, shifted for themselves. Passacus fled
to Rhode-Island, but soon after, they were, by Mr. Williams’ means,
delivered of their fears, and came to the messengers as they were
desired, and denied their hiring the Mohawks to war against Uncas,
though they owned that they had sent them a present.”

The following letters to Mr. Winthrop, relating to the concerns of the
Indians, with occasional references to the important events which were
then transpiring in England, may be properly introduced here:

“For his much honored and beloved Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 10, 8, 48_, (_so called_.)

“Sir,

“Best salutations to your dear selves and loving sister. In my last
I intimated a promise of presenting you with what here passeth.
Captain Atherton, Captain Prichard, Richard Wood and Strong Tuchell,
have been with me (as also Wm. Arnold, instead of his son Benedict,
who withdrew himself, though sent unto,) these six or seven days.
They were at Niantick two nights. Captain Atherton purposed to visit
you, but they appointing their meeting with all the sachems at my
house, they came back; and this morning, (the fourth day of the
week,) they are departed with good content toward the Bay. From the
commissioners they brought several articles, but the main were
three; concerning the Mohawks, &c.; 2d, the payment; 3d, Uncas’
future safety. To the first, they sent answer (and that they
confirmed with many asseverations, and one of them voluntarily took
the Englishmen’s God to witness) that they gave not a penny to hire
the Mohawks against the Mohegans, but that it was wholly wrought by
Wussoonkquassin, (which they discovered as a secret) who being bound
by Uncas, and Wuttouwuttauoum, Uncas his cousin, having attempted to
shoot a Mohawk sachem at that time, resolved with the Mohawks (to
whom he also gave peag) to take revenge upon Uncas; Wussoonkquassin
sent them word and desired peag of them in the spring, but they
profess they consented not, nor sent not a penny, afterwards they
sent Waupinhommin up to inquire to Pawcatuck and however they have
given some of the Mohegans peag this year, (as they have always
done) yet they say they are clear from giving a penny in hire, &c.
They confess their enmity against Uncas, and they (to the 2d) will
not rest until they have finished their payments, that they may
present their complaints against Uncas, who (they say) and other
Indians, within these three years, have committed thirteen murders
with impunity, being out of their reach in the English protection.
This last year they pleaded they were near starved, and, therefore,
sent but a small quantity. Now they promise, upon return of their
men from hunting this winter, to make a contribution, the next
spring another, and so according as they can draw the people to it,
will not cease to furnish, and if they die, their children shall
fulfil, and that it is their sore grief, &c. with much to this
purpose. For Uncas they profess neither directly nor indirectly, to
have to do with him, yet hope the English will not deal partially
with him. They desired the English receipt of their peag; I produced
the note you sent me, which, because it was not signed with your
father’s hand or the Treasurer’s, &c. the messengers promised to
send them one from the Bay. Ninigret, made great lamentation that
you had entertained hard thoughts of him in this business, and all
the sachems here professed their sorrow and that you had hearkened
to Wequashcook, who they say never contributed nor joined in the
Pequod wars, and now flatters to draw his neck out of the payments
to the English. They hope you will not countenance him to rob
Ninigret of those hunting places which the commissioners gave him
leave to make use of, and he with the English had fought for with
the expense of much treasure and hazard of his life. They desire
that he may and Causasenamon and the rest of the Pequods, be as your
little dogs, but not as your confederates, which they say is
unworthy yourself, &c. Sir, I perceive the English about the Bay
inquire after new places. Captain Atherton prays me shortly to
convey a letter to you. I forgot one passage that the sachems
discovered, that Wussoonkquassin gave peag to the Mohawks to
retreat. It seems they are (Switzer like) mercenary, and were hired
on and off; these sachems I believe desire cordially to hold
friendship with both the English and the Mohawks together; I am
confident (whether they lie or not, about Wussoonkquassin) that they
never intended hurt against the English nor yourself and yours
especially, to whom they profess great respect, and jointly they
desire that Wequashcook may come back to Connecticut from whence he
went, for if he join with Uncas they suspect he will secretly be a
means of some of their deaths. Lastly, whereas they heard that the
women with you were something fearful, Ninigret prays Mrs. Winthrop
to be assured, that there never was, nor never shall be, to his
knowledge, the least offence given to her or her neighbors, by any
of his (though he hath learnt it partly by your just abhorring of
Uncas his outrageous carriage among you, and of which I have not
softly told these messengers and the admired partiality in the
case.) For a token of his fidelity to Mrs. Winthrop, Ninigret he
prays me to write, that all the women of his town shall present Mrs.
Winthrop with a present of corn at Pawcatuck, if she please to send
in any conveyance to Pawcatuck for it.

“Sir, to gratify them, I am thus bold with you, and desiring your
eternal peace, I rest

“Your worship’s unworthy
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“Sir, I formerly wrote to you and now still crave your help with
Wequashcook, who keeps basely from me for five or six coats, and can
neither get peag nor cloth.”

“For his much honored and beloved Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 7, 9, 48_.

“Kind Sir,

“Best salutations, &c. I am requested by letter of Captain Atherton,
to certify what I can advise about Block-Island, whether it might be
had of the natives, for divers of the English (it seems to my
conjecture) upon some agitations at the last Court, have thoughts
this way. Sir, because God hath pitched your tent these ways, and
you know much among the natives of these parts, I judged it not
unfit to pray you help me with a word of your information, before I
write what otherwise I can, from the barbarians. The counsels of the
Most High are deep concerning us poor grasshoppers, hopping and
skipping from branch to twig in this vale of tears. Wm. Peacock hath
had a very heavy task in carrying Joseph with cattle from you; six
or seven days and nights the poor fellow was seeking them (being
lost and scattered from Niantick.) Then he brought six to my house,
four being finally lost; I took what pains I could to get them
sought again, and three I hear are found, after which Wm. Peacock is
now out, and I look for him this night with those three; Ninigret
did his part honestly, but the youths and boys thereabouts (by some
occasion hallooing) the cattle thence took the woods. Joseph Wild
hath written to me, and I acquaint him with the cause, that one man
alone cannot well drive cattle amongst barbarians, especially
without an Indian guide. It were exceeding well that three or four
poles were enclosed at Niantick, to keep cattle there at night, for
if God vouchsafe peace and plantations (prosperity) there is great
needs of it.

“Sir, I desire to be your worship’s unfeigned,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

“_Nar._[264]

“Sir,

“Loving respects to yourself and dearest, and Mrs. Lake, premised.
Two days since, Ninigret came to me and requested me to write two
letters; the one, in answer to Captain Atherton’s motion for some
English planting on Block-Island, and on a neck at Niantick; the
other, to yourself, in which protesting his innocence as to the
death of his son-in-law, with which Uncas and the Pequods charge
him. He prays you (as of yourself) to signify (as much as you can)
items to the Pequods, that they be quiet and attempt nothing (at
least, treacherously,) against him, which he suspects, from words
from Uncas, that it will be pleasing to the English. He prays you
also to be mindful of endeavoring to remove Wequashcook, so constant
a provocation before him; and, at present, he prays you to send for
some skins, which lately, as lord of the place, he hath received. I
hope the English sachems, as I tell him, in the spring will hear and
gratify him in his just desires, the want of which, I guess, is the
cause that he is not free, as yet, for Block-Island, &c.; but
expresseth much, if the English do him justice against his enemies.
Oh, sir, how far from nature is the spirit of Christ Jesus, that
loves and pities, prays for and doth good to enemies? Sir, it is
like he will request a line of answer, which, if you please to give,
I pray, sir, write when either of those ships you write of are for
England, and by which you write yourself; also where Mr. Throgmorton
is, and whether he desires I should trouble you with the peag of
which I wrote, which I propose, if God please, (unless countermanded
by either of you) to send immediately upon hearing from you.

“Sir, yours,
“R. W.

“Sir, since I wrote this, it pleased God to send a Dutchman for an
old debt, and the same night Mr. Goodyear also, to whom and his wife
(for her former husband) I am indebted, and so was necessitated to
make satisfaction to Mr. Goodyear also. These providences of God so
falling will necessarily cause me to be preparing some few days more
that peag for Mr. Throgmorton. But most certainly it, (God please I
live) notwithstanding ways and weather, shall be sent; this I write,
that although Mr. Throgmorton should depart, or come home, yet he
may presume on your faithfulness and love to dispose of it, as he
requesteth.

“Sir, your unworthy,
“R. W.

“Captain Underhill, now here in a Dutch vessel, presents loving
respects.”

“For the worshipful Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug, these.[265]

“Sir,

“Respective salutations to you both, and sister Lake. At this
instant (the first of the week, toward noon,) I received yours, and
shall be glad, (if God will,) you may gain a seasonable passage by
us, before the hardest of winter, although I cannot advise you (but
to pray against winter flights and journies,) yet if the necessity
of God’s providence so cast it, I shall be glad that we might have
you prisoner in these parts, yet once in a few days (though in deep
snow) here is a beaten path, &c. Sir, Ninigret again importunes me
to write to your father and yourself, about his and hunting at
Pequod, that you would also be pleased to write to your father. I
have endeavored to satisfy him what I can, and shall, yet I am
willing at present to write to you, not so much concerning that you
can further gratify him at this time, but that I may by this
opportunity, salute you with the tidings from the Bay the last
night. Skipper Isaack and Moline, are come into the Bay with a Dutch
ship, and (as it is said) have brought letters from the States to
call home this present Dutch Governor to answer many complaints,
both from Dutch and English, against him. In this ship are come
English passengers, and they bring word of the great trials it
pleaseth the Most High and Only Wise, to exercise both our native
England and these parts also.

“The Prince is said to be strong at sea, and among other mischiefs
hath taken Mr. Trevice his ship which went from hence, and sent it
for France, it seems their rendezvous.

“It is said that after Cromwell had discomfited the Welch, with six
thousand, he was forced to encounter nineteen thousand Scots, of
whom he took nine hundred prisoners, &c. Great store of Scots and
Welch are sent and sold as slaves into other parts. Cromwell wrote
to the Parliament that he hoped to be at Edinburgh in a few days. A
commission was sent from the Parliament, to try the King in the Isle
of Wight, lately prevented from escape.

“The Prince of Orange and the States are falling, if not already
fallen, into wars, which makes some of the States to tender
Manhattoes, as place of retreat.

“Sir, to Him in whose favor is life, I leave you, desiring in Him to
be

“Your worship’s unworthy
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“John prays you to be earnest with Mr. Hollet about his house,
hoping to be back in a fortnight.”

“_Nar._ (_probably towards the close of Dec. 1648._)

“Sir,

“Best salutations to your worthy self and yours, premised. I am glad
for your sake, that it hath pleased God to prevent your winter
travel; though I gladly, also, this last week, expected your
passage, and being at Providence, hastened purposely to attend you
here. Our candle burns out day and night, we need not hasten its end
(by swaling) in unnecessary miseries, unless God call us for him to
suffer, whose our breath is, and hath promised to such as hate life
for him, an eternal. Sir, this last week, I read an ordinance of
both houses, (dated third month, May last) decreeing death to some
consciences, but imprisonment to far more, ever (upon the point) to
all but Presbyterians. We have a sound, that Fairfax and Cromwell
are proclaimed traitors, but I rather credit that report, that
Cromwell only was sent for by the Parliament, which, it seems,
inclines with the king, and the city all against the army. The Earl
of Warwick was gone for Holland with twenty-two ships pursuing the
Prince. Mr. Foot and others went to Holland, (whither Mr. Trevice
his ship was carried) and were offered the ship for two thousand
pounds, but I cannot hear of their agreement. About forty from the
Parliament went to the King, to the Isle of Wight, (who was lately
and strangely prevented of escape) to treat, but could not agree
upon the first, viz. that the King should acknowledge the beginning
of the war to be his. Sir, this is the chief of matters told me few
days since, by Mr. Throgmorton, who came ten days since from the
Bay, and came well in a full laden vessel to anchor by Saconet
rocks, but it pleased God his new cable was cut by the rocks, and he
drove upon Rhode-Island shore, where it is feared the vessel is
spoiled, but (through God’s mercy) he saved his goods. Sir, Mr.
Brewster, (by letter) requests me to convey three letters and bags
of metal to you. I wish they may have worth in them, especially to
draw us up to dig into the heavens for true treasure. Sir, (though
Mr. Brewster wrote me not word of it) yet in private, I am bold to
tell you, that I hear it hath pleased God greatly to afflict him in
the thorns of this life. He was intended for Virginia; his creditors
in the Bay came to Portsmouth and unhung his rudder, carried him to
the Bay, where he was forced to make over all, house, land, cattle,
and part with all to his chest. Oh how sweet is a dry morsel and a
handful, with quietness from earth and heaven. Sane nescio de quo
scribis furti suspecto. John Jones is thought here to be false or
faulty. He said he was your servant, that you gave him 10_s._ in
peag to bear his charges, which being stolen out of his pocket, he
borrowed so much of me here in your name, promising to pay me at his
return, being to receive money for you in the Bay; he had, also,
10_s._ more, to buy, for me, two or three necessaries. He took
27_s._ 6_d._ of Valentine, Mr. Smith’s man, my neighbor at the
trading house, for a drum, which he said he left at my house at
Providence, which drum cost him 48_s._, and he promised to send it
by an Indian, but refused, and offered to sell it again at
Providence; it is now attached.

“Mr. Brewster requested me to pay the Bay carriers, which I have
thus ordered, that six awl blades I pay to a native to carry to
Ninigret, and pray you to pay six more to him that brings them to
you. I am sorry you had no more corn from Ninigret, yet glad you had
so much, for I am forced to pay 4_s._ the bushel for all I spend.
Sir, I have not known the like of Indian madness. The Father of
lights cause us to bless him for and with our reason, remembering
Nebuchadnezzar.

“Sir, I desire to be yours ever in Christ Jesus,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

In March, 1648–9, the town of Providence obtained a charter of
incorporation from the General Assembly. [See Appendix F.]

CHAPTER XVIII.

Mr. Coddington—letters to John Winthrop—execution of Charles I.

The unhappy dissensions, which arose among the leading men on
Rhode-Island, were a source of disquietude to Mr. Williams, and of
injury to the whole colony. The fierce controversy then maintained
between the King and Parliament, in England, had some share in the
difficulties between Mr. Coddington and his friends. Mr. Coddington was
attached to the King, and was disposed to uphold his interest in the
colony.

The following letter to Mr. Winthrop, which is without date, but which
appears, from internal evidence, to have been written about the
commencement of the year 1648–9, refers to these dissensions, and
displays the pacific temper of Mr. Williams:

“For his much honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at his house
at Nameug, these.

“_Cawcawmsqussick._

“Sir,

“Best salutations presented to you both, with humble desires, that,
since it pleaseth God to hinder your presence this way, he may
please, for his infinite mercy’s sake, in his Son’s blood, to
further our eternal meeting in the presence of him that sits upon
the throne, and the Lamb forever; and that the hope thereof may be
living, and bring forth the fruits of love where it is possible, and
of lamenting for obstructions. Sir, the affairs of our country
(Vaderland, as the Dutch speak) would have afforded us much
conference. The merciful Lord help us to make up in prayer to his
holy majesty, &c. Sir, for this land, our poor colony is in civil
dissension. Their last meetings, at which I have not been, have
fallen into factions; Mr. Coddington and Captain Partridge, &c. are
the heads of the one, and Captain Clarke, Mr. Easton, &c. the heads
of the other faction. I receive letters from both, inviting me, &c.
but I resolve (if the Lord please) not to engage, unless with great
hopes of peace-making. The peace makers are sons of God. Our
neighbors, the Narragansets, are now consulting, and making peag, to
carry, within a few weeks, another payment. Sir, about a month
since, one William Badger, a seaman, and now a planter at William
Field’s farm, near Providence, passed by me, travelling to the
Seabrook. I have received letters since from Captain Mason, to whom
I wrote by him, and hear nothing of him. I fear he miscarried, for
he was alone, without a guide. And, since I mention Captain Mason,
worthy Sir, I humbly beg of the Father of Lights to guide you, in
your converse and neighborhood with him. In his letters to me, he
tells me of some extraordinary lifts against Uncas, and that he will
favor him, but no more than religion and reason bid him. He
promiseth to visit me, in his passage, this summer, eastward, (I
guess he means toward Plymouth.) I shall then argue, if God will,
many things, and how it stands with religion and reason, that such a
monstrous hurry and affrightment should be offered to an English
town, either by Indians or English, unpunished. Sir, you have seen
many parts of this world’s snowball, and never found aught but
vanity and vexation. At Nameug shall you find no more, except in the
fountain of living waters. Sir, heap coals of fire on Captain
Mason’s head; conquer evil with good, but be not cowardly, and
overcome with any evil.

“If you have by you the Trial of Wits, at convenience, spare it me a
few days. However, study, as the Lord commands, your quietness, for
which I shall ever pray and endeavor.

“Your worship’s unfeigned,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

Mr. Coddington, having failed in his endeavors to detach the island from
the colony, and unite it to Plymouth, resolved to proceed to England,
and procure a separate charter for the island. The following letter,
dated January 29, 1648–9, mentions his departure, without any allusion
to his object, which, perhaps, was not then known:

“For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 29, 11, 48_, (_so called_.)

“Sir,

“Best salutations and wishes to the Father of mercies for your
worthy self, yoke fellow, sister, &c. It must be so in this world’s
sea. Sicut fluctus fluctum, sic luctus luctum sequitur. And every
day hath his sufficiency or fulness of evil to all the children of
the first sinful man; no persons, no places, exempted from the reach
of the first curse. My humble desire is to the most righteous and
only wise Judge, that the wood of Christ’s gallows (as in Moses’
act) may be cast into all your and our bitter waters, that they be
sweet and wholesome instructers of the fruits of sin, the sorrows of
others abroad, (in our England’s Aceldama,) our own deservings to
feel upon ourselves, bodies and souls, (wives and children also,)
not by barbarians, but devils, and that eternally, sorrows
inexpressible, inconceivable, and yet, if Christ’s religion be true,
unavoidable, but by the blood of a Savior, &c. Sir, pardon me, this
is not the matter. Sir, your letters I speedily despatched by a
messenger on purpose. For a place, I know indeed of one in Plymouth
claim, and would specify, but that your spirit being troubled,
countermanded it again, in your postscript concerning Elderkin, whom
I will, if God will, effectually labor with, and write the issue
with speed. All our neighbors, the barbarians, run up and down, and
consult; partly suspecting like dealings; partly ready to fall upon
the Mohegans, at your word, and a world of foolish agitations, I
could trouble you with, but I told the chiefest yesterday, that it
is not our manner to be rash, and that you will be silent till your
father and other ancient sachems speak first, &c. Sir, concerning
the bags of ore, it is of Rhode-Island, where is certainly affirmed
to be both gold and silver ore, upon trial. Mr. Coddington went to
the Bay, with his daughter, for England, and left Captain Partridge
in trust with all, the last week, at Newport. George Wright, alias
Captain Wright, stabbed with a pike, Walter Lettice, at Newport, and
is in prison; the other, if not dead, not like to live.

“Sir, yours ever, in all unfeigned respect, &c.
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“I want wax to seal, otherwise I would have expressed something,
which I reserve till another season, if the Lord will.”

In March following, Mr. Williams again wrote to Mr. Winthrop. In this
letter, he mentioned, that he had been elected Deputy President, in
consequence of the absence of Mr. Coddington.

“For the worshipful, his kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug.

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 1, 48 (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Best respects and love presented, and thanks hearty for your
letters, former and latter, all now received. I am again importuned
by our neighbor sachems, having heard of Wequashcook’s carrying of
peag to Captain Mason, to pray you to inform them whether that peag
be part of the payment; because Wequashcook and his company refuse
to pay. They desire me also to write to the Bay about it, which I
defer to do until their payments go, which are something delayed
because of the death of Ninigret’s wife’s mother, which is the same
you write of, Wequashcook’s mother, and it is now qunnantacaun, that
is, lamentation. Sir, since I wrote to you, our four towns met by
deputies, six out of a town. This Court last week wrote to me
information of their choice of myself Deputy President, in the
absence of the President, who, whether they have fixed on yourself,
or Mr. Coddington’s faction prevail to keep his name in, now gone
for England, I cannot yet learn, but I have excused myself for some
reasons, and I hope they have chosen better. I wrote to them about
an act of oblivion, which, blessed be the God of peace, they have
past, and have appointed a Court of election in the third month, at
Warwick. Sir, I am exceeding glad of your beginnings at Pawcatuck. I
pray fail not to inquire whether there, or from Mohegan or
Connecticut, you can help me to one hundred bushels of Indian corn.
To your dear yokefellow and sister respective salutation. The sun of
righteousness graciously shine on you. I desire, unfeignedly, to be
your worship’s unfeigned in love,

“R. W.

“The sachems pray you to tell them whether their peag will be sold
at under rates, as Pumhommin, coming two days since from the Bay,
informs them, viz. that they must pay great black at thirteen to the
penny, and small black at fifteen, and white eight to the penny. I
tell them the last year it was measured, and so word was sent to me
they should pay it by measure.”

Another letter, written about this time, will be inserted here. It
treats of the usual topic, the rights and interests of the Indians:

“For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.[266]

“Sir,

“I am the more easily persuaded by this barbarian prince, Ninigret,
to trouble you so often, that I may the oftener hear of your
welfare, and at present how it pleased God to bring you home to
yours again. Upon your word, Ninigret prays you to send him word,
whether within ten days of this 5th of the week present, you will
please to meet him at Wequatucket, so it be when Mr. Stanton is
present. He would confer about Mr. Eliot’s letter and coat, about
Wequashcook’s usurping at Pawcatuck, about his present hunting,
about the present disposal of the Pequod fields, about his letters
to the Bay, which, in your name, I have almost persuaded to suspend
until the meeting of the commissioners at Boston. Here is now a
great hurry made by Anquontis, one of those petty sachems, of whom
Mr. Eliot wrote to you and me. He hath offered great abuse to one of
the chief, and Ninigret is now going to Conanicut about him. I
persuade not to engage themselves, but to send him to the Bay with
my letter. Sir, loving respects to Mrs. Winthrop, Mrs. Lake, whom
God graciously, with your loving self and yours, bind up in the
bundle of that life, which is eternal in Christ Jesus, in whom I
desire to be,

“Yours ever,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following letter alludes to a narrow escape from death, which Mr.
Williams met with, in his passage in a canoe, from Providence to
Narraganset. His habitual piety is here exhibited in a manner the more
satisfactory, because it is evidently the unstudied emanation of his
feelings:

“For the worshipful Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.

“_Narraganset, 9, 3, 49, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Best salutations and wishes presented to your dearest, with
yourself, &c. These enclosed came to my hand in two several letters
from the Bay enclosed, your brother in a letter from him, requesting
my help, &c. I have, therefore, speeded them by the sachems, who
will, therefore, expect some word of tidings from the Bay, which you
may please to signify, in one line to me. Whatever you hear, or can
well collect, will be any word of tidings, &c., by which occasion
(if you have occasion) you may well rescribe. Benedict was desired
by the magistrates in the Bay to take special care to charge
Wequashcook, concerning[267] ——. He hath requested this task from
me, which this morning I purpose to do (with God’s help) carefully.
Sir, two days since, my boat not being fitted, coming from
Providence, I was (in articulo temporis) snatched by a merciful,
and, some say, a miraculous hand, from the jaws of death. The canoe
being overset, some goods, to some value, were sunk, some whereof I
hope, if God please, to recover. However, blessed be God, and
blessed are such whom he correcteth and teacheth in him. Yours he
graciously make me, though unworthy.

“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following letter is worthy of notice, as affording a slight
intimation of that deficiency of paper and other articles, which the
exclusion from intercourse with Boston occasioned. This letter was
written on the envelope, or blank side, of one addressed to the writer,
as is evident from the direction, which stood originally thus: “To my
much respected friend, Mr. Roger Williams.” Mr. Williams struck out his
own name, and put in the place of it, “John Winthrop, at Pequod,” in a
blacker ink.

“To my much respected friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.

“_13, 3, 49, (so called.)_

“Sir,
“Salutations, &c.

“Your last letter, which you mention, I sent by the way of the
English, since I came hither from Providence. I know of no letter of
yours, that came back, as you write. One of mine to yourself, when
you were in the Bay, was met by the peag messengers from the Bay,
and brought by them again to my hand, because, as they conceived,
the whole about Uncas, his wounding, was not yet, as then, known,
which, at your coming hither, by the English relation, was
perfected. Tidings from Uncas are, that the English come from the
Bay to Hartford about Uncas, and are appointed to take this way, and
to take Ninigret with them. Aquawoce (Wepiteammock) is at the point
of death. Expectat nos mors ubique; cur non nos mortem? In life and
death the Son of God shine on us. In him,

“Yours I desire to be, ever unfeigned,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

In May, 1649, the General Court met at Warwick, when Mr. John Smith was
chosen President, Mr. Williams having, as it appears declined a
re-election. Among the assistants chosen, was Mr. Gorton. Mr. Williams
was chosen “to take a view of the records delivered into the Court by
Mr. William Dyre,” referring, probably, to his complaints against Mr.
Coddington. These complaints were again presented to the Court, but were
deferred, in consequence, we may suppose, of the absence of Mr.
Coddington.

At this Court, a law was made, that if a President should be elected,
and should refuse to serve, he should be fined ten pounds, and an
assistant, in like circumstances, five pounds. We may infer, from this
law, that the men of those times were either too humble to covet the
honors, or too poor to sustain the expenses, of office. The want of
ambition may, perhaps, be fairly considered, as the chief cause. It
would be happy for our country, if a portion of this temper of our
ancestors, were inherited by their descendants. The furious struggle for
power is one of the most ominous evils in our free republic.

The following letter from Mr. Williams was written a few days after the
session of the Court. It is interesting, for several reasons. The
excellent regulation, forbidding the sale or gift of spirituous liquors
to the natives, except at the discretion of Mr. Williams, shows, at
once, the wise and humane policy of the colony towards the natives, and
the confidence which they placed in him.

This letter is remarkable, too, for the notice which it contains of the
execution of Charles I., who, on the 30th of January preceding, was
beheaded at Whitehall, in pursuance of the sentence of his judges. That
Charles had forfeited his crown, will scarcely be denied by any man at
the present day, unless he be an advocate for arbitrary rule. That the
unhappy King did not deserve to die, will now, perhaps, with almost
equal unanimity, be maintained, except by those whose political
principles bias their judgment, and silence the emotions of their
hearts. Of the inexpediency of the execution, the effects are the best
proof. The reaction, which was produced in the feelings of the nation,
was, doubtless, one of the causes of the restoration, and of the
consequent evils. The letter was endorsed by Mr. Winthrop, “Mr.
Williams, of the high news about the King.”

“For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Nameug, these.

“_Nar. 26, 3, 49, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Loving respects to your dear self, and dearest, &c. This last of
the week, in the morning, your man and all his charge are come just
now to me in safety. I, myself, also came hither late last night,
and wet, from Warwick, where this colony met, and upon discharge of
my service, we chose Mr. Joseph Smith, of Warwick, (the merchant or
shop-keeper that lived at Boston) for this year, President. Some
were bold (though Capt. Clarke was gone to the Bay and absent) to
use your name, and generally applauded and earnestly desired, in
case of any possible stretching our bounds to you, or your drawing
near to us, though but to Pawcatuck. One law passed, that the
natives should no longer abuse us, but that their black should go
with us, as with themselves, at four per penny. All wines and strong
waters forbidden the natives throughout the colony, only a privilege
betrusted in my hand, to spare a little for necessities, &c.

“Sir, tidings are high from England; many ships from many parts say,
and a Bristol ship, come to the Isle of Shoals within a few days,
confirms, that the King and many great Lords and Parliament men are
beheaded. London was shut up on the day of execution, not a door to
be opened, &c. The States of Holland and the Prince of Orange
(forced by them) consented to proceedings. It is said Mr. Peters
preached (after the fashion of England) the funeral sermon to the
King, after sentence, out of the terrible denunciation to the King
of Babylon. Esa. 14: 18, &c.

“Your letter to your brother I delivered to Mr. Gold, (going to
Boston;) this weather, I presume, hinders. Mr. Andrews, a gentleman
of Warwick, told me, that he came from the Bay, where he heard that
the Bay had proclaimed war with the Narragansets. I hope it is but
mistaken; and yet all under, and while we are under the sun, nothing
but vanity and vexation.

“The most glorious Sun of Righteousness shine graciously on us. In
him I desire to be, Sir, ever yours,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following letter is, on many accounts, honorable to Mr. Williams. It
needs no comment:

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 13, 4, 49, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Best salutations, &c. The last night one of Wequashcook’s Pequods
brought me, very privately, letters from Capt. Mason, (and, as he
said, from Uncas and Wequashcook.) The letters are kind to myself,
acknowledging loving letters (and tokens, which, upon the burning of
his house,) he had received from me, &c.; but terrible to all these
natives, especially to the sachems, and most of all, to Ninigret.
The purport of the letters and concurrence of circumstances, seem to
me to imply some present conclusions (from Connecticut) of
hostility, and I question whether or no present and speedy, before
the meeting of commissioners, which I saw lately from the Court,
under Mr. Nowell’s hand, was not to be till the 7th month. The
murdering of Uncas is alleged by stabbing, and since attempted by
witches, &c. The conclusion is therefore ruin. The words of the
letter are: ‘If nothing but blood will satisfy them, I doubt not but
they may have their fill; and again, I perceive such an obstinate
wilfulness, joined with desperate malicious practices, that I think
and believe _they are sealed to destruction_.’ Sir, there are many
devices in a man’s heart, but the counsel of Jehovah shall stand. If
he have a holy and righteous purpose to make us drink of our
mother’s cup, the holiness, nor power, nor policy of New-England,
can stop his hand: He be pleased to prevent it, if not to sweeten
it.

“Sir, I pray, if you have aught, signify in a line, and you shall
not fail of my poor papers and prayers.

“Your unfeigned,
“R. W.

“Your letters and friends were here some days with me. This last
choice at Warwick (according to my soul’s wish and endeavor) hath
given me rest. Others are chosen, Mr. John Clarke, at Newport, to
whom, and all my friends on the island, I wrote effectually. Thither
they went. I have heard nothing since. If power had been with me,
such a work of mercy, (although to strangers) I hope, by the Lord’s
assistance, shall not escape me; and I have promised my assistance
to Mr. Clarke and others, at Newport, if any blame or damage befal
them from the colony or elsewhere.

“Sir, I forgot to thank you for the pamphlets, although (not having
been lately at Providence) I have them not; but I have sent for
them. I have here now with me my eldest daughter, of seventeen. Her
younger sister, of fifteen, hath had nature’s course before her,
which she wanting, a flux of rheum hath much affected her head and
right eye; she hath taken much physic, and been let blood, but yet
no change. She is advised by some to the Bay. I pray advise me to
whom you judge fittest to address unto of the Bay physicians.

“Sir, I hear a smith of your town hath left you, and saith I sent
for him. It is most untrue, though we want one at Providence, yet I
should condemn in myself, or any, to invite any convenience or
commodity from our friends. I know him not, nor ever spake (to my
knowledge) about him. Mr. Throgmorton hath lately brought in some
corn from Hemstead and those parts, but extraordinary dear. I pay
him 6_s._ for Indian, and 8_s._ for wheat. These rains, if God
please to give peace, promise hopes of plenty.

“Two days since, letters from my brother. He saith a ship was come
to the Bay from England. She was not come yet in the river. A
lighter went aboard, and brought the confirmation of the King’s
death, but no other particulars. The everlasting King of kings shine
on us, &c.”

CHAPTER XIX.

Warwick—Mr. Williams’ compensation—imprisonment of John Clarke and
Obadiah Holmes—Mr. Coddington’s separate charter—Mr. Williams and
Mr. Clarke prepare to go to England.

It has been seen, that although Warwick was not named in the charter,
yet that settlement, having obtained from England the sanction of the
commissioners, had joined with the other towns, in forming a civil
government. But a portion of the inhabitants of Pawtuxet, having
submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts, refused to
acknowledge the authority of the charter. At the General Assembly, at
Warwick, in May, 1649, it was “ordered, that a messenger be sent to
Pomham and the other sachem, to require them to come to this Court; and
that letters be sent to Benedict Arnold and his father, and the rest of
Pawtuxet, about their subjecting to this colony.” They persisted in
their refusal; and, although the territory was undeniably included in
the charter obtained by Mr. Williams, yet these inhabitants of Pawtuxet
and its vicinity continued for several years to resist the authority of
the General Assembly of Rhode-Island, and caused much annoyance to the
colony. In this conduct, they were upheld by the government of
Massachusetts. In 1650, as we are informed by Mr. Backus,[268] “William
Arnold and William Carpenter, instead of submitting to the government of
their own colony, went again and entered complaints against some of
their neighbors to the Massachusetts rulers, and they sent a citation to
some of them to come and answer the same in their courts, dated from
Boston, June 20, 1650, signed by Edward Rawson, Secretary.”[269]

There seems to have been much disinclination to pay the sum voted to Mr.
Williams for his services in procuring the charter. At the General
Assembly, in May, 1650, three years after the grant, it was found
necessary to send a fresh order to the towns to collect and pay the sums
due, within twenty days. This order was not entirely successful, and it
is nearly certain, that the whole amount was never paid. It is probable,
that few disputed the justice of the grant, and we may hope, that the
unhappy jealousies which subsisted between individuals, and some of the
towns, together with the poverty of the inhabitants, rather than a
deliberate disregard of Mr. Williams’ just claims, were the causes of
the failure. But gratitude has not been the most conspicuous virtue,
either of kings or of republics. The patriotic Winthrop spent his large
estate, and his life, in the service of Massachusetts; yet was he
compelled to submit to an impeachment, from which, however, he issued
with a purer fame. It is a lamentable fact, that men are often
imboldened to do, in concert, what they would not venture to do, in
their individual capacity. They seem to think, that they lose their
identity in a crowd, and that guilt, in which many share, becomes so
divided and attenuated, as to leave a very insignificant portion to each
person. Human passions, too, are contagious, and a large assembly
sometimes inflame each other to the perpetration of deeds, of which each
man would, when alone, have been ashamed.

The memorable transactions in Massachusetts, in which the Rev. John
Clarke, Mr. Obadiah Holmes and Mr. John Crandall[270] had so melancholy
a share, deserve a notice. They show the rigor, with which the famous
law of 1644, levelled ostensibly against anabaptists, was executed; and
the special aversion which was felt towards intruders from Rhode-Island.

In July, 1651, these gentlemen were deputed by the Baptist church in
Newport, to visit William Witter, an aged member of that church, who
resided at Lynn, a few miles east of Boston. Mr. Witter was an old man,
and being unable to visit the church, he had requested an interview with
some of his brethren. On this most Christian and inoffensive errand, the
committee proceeded to Lynn. Their aged brother resided about two miles
from the town, and the next day being the Sabbath, it was thought proper
to spend it in religious worship at his house. Mr. Clarke preached from
Rev. 3: 10. “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will
keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the
world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.” In the midst of his
sermon, he was interrupted by two constables. Mr. Clarke thus describes
the scene:

“While in conscience towards God, and good will unto his saints, I
was imparting to my companions in the house where I lodged, and to
four or five strangers that came in unexpected after I had begun,
opening and proving what is meant by the hour of temptation, what by
the word of his patience, and their keeping it, and how he that hath
the key of David (being the promiser) will keep those who keep the
word of his patience, from the hour of temptation. While, I say, I
was yet speaking, there came into the house where we were, two
constables, who, with their clamorous tongues, made an interruption
in my discourse, and more uncivilly disturbed us than the
pursuivants of the old English bishops were wont to do, telling us
that they were come with authority from the magistrate to apprehend
us. I then desired to see the authority by which they thus
proceeded, whereupon they plucked forth their warrant, and one of
them, with a trembling hand, (as conscious he might have been better
employed) read it to us; the substance whereof was as followeth:

‘By virtue hereof, you are required to go to the house of William
Witter, and so to search from house to house, for certain erroneous
persons, being strangers, and them to apprehend, and in safe custody
to keep, and to-morrow morning, at eight o’clock, to bring before
me.

‘ROBERT BRIDGES.’”[271]

The constables carried Mr. Clarke and his companions to the
Congregational meeting, where they were compelled to stay till the
service was closed. Mr. Clarke then rose and addressed the assembly, but
was speedily silenced, and the next day, the three heretics were
committed to prison in Boston. A few days afterwards, they were tried,
before the Court of Assistants, and Mr. Clarke was sentenced to pay a
fine of twenty pounds, Mr. Holmes thirty pounds, and Mr. Crandall five
pounds; or, in default of payment, each was to be whipped. They refused
to pay the fine, for the plain reason, that the payment of a fine is an
acknowledgment of guilt, of which they felt themselves to be innocent.
They were accordingly committed to prison.

On the trial, Mr. Clarke defended himself and his companions so ably,
that the Court were somewhat embarrassed. “At length, (says Mr. Clarke)
the Governor stepped up and told us we had denied infant baptism, and
being somewhat transported, told me I had deserved death, and said he
would not have such trash brought into their jurisdiction. Moreover he
said, ‘you go up and down, and secretly insinuate into those that are
weak, but you cannot maintain it before our ministers. You may try and
dispute with them.’ To this I had much to reply, but he commanded the
jailer to take us away.”[272]

From the prison, Mr. Clarke sent to the Court a proposition to meet with
any of the ministers, and hold a public discussion. This proposal was at
first accepted, and a day was fixed. But the clergy probably thought,
that a public debate about infant baptism, with so able an antagonist,
would be inexpedient. Mr. Clarke’s fine was accordingly paid, without
his knowledge or consent, and he was released from prison. He was
anxious for an opportunity to maintain, publicly, his opinions, and to
vindicate his innocence. But he could not succeed in bringing his
opponents to the trial of argument. Leaving, therefore, with the
magistrates a declaration, that he would be ready, at any time, to visit
Boston, and maintain his sentiments, he, together with Mr. Crandall, who
was released on condition of appearing at the next Court, returned to
Newport.

The two following letters from Mr. Williams to Mr. Winthrop, were
written about this time, probably in August, 1651:

“Sir,

“Loving respects to you both, with Mrs. Lake and yours. By this
opportunity I am bold to inform you, that from the Bay I hear of the
sentence on Mr. Clarke, to be whipt or pay twenty pounds, Obadiah
Holmes whipt or thirty pounds, on John Crandall, whipt or five
pounds. This bearer hears of no payment nor execution, but rather a
demur, and some kind of conference. The Father of Lights graciously
guide them and us in such paths; for other succor than that (in his
mouth) Christ Jesus walks not among the churches, (Rev. 1.) Sir,
upon those provocations that lately (as in my last I hinted)
Auguontis gave the sachems, Ninigret, Pitammock and Pesiccosh, went
in person to their town, (Chaubutick) and upon Pummakommins telling
the sachems that he was as great a sachem as they, they all fell
together by the ears; yet no blood spilt. The Chaubatick Indians
send to the Bay; they say Auguontis is sent for and Ninigret, but I
know no certain other than messengers passing to and again from
Chaubatick to the Bay. Here was last week Mr. Sellick, of Boston,
and Mr. Gardiner, a young merchant, to fetch my corn, and more, from
Mr. Paine, of Seekonk; they are bound to the French, unless
diverted. They tell me of a ship of 300, come from Barbadoes. Mr.
Wall, the master, stood upon his guard while he staid there; he
brought some passengers, former inhabitants from London, whose case
was sad there, because of the posture of the island (where, as I
have by letter from a godly friend there) they force all to swear to
religion and laws. This Mr. Wall hath a new and great design, viz.
from hence to the East Indies. The frigates designed for Barbadoes
were ordered for Scilly, which they assaulted, and took forts and
ordnance and frigates, and drove the Governor into his last fort. It
hath pleased God to bring your ancient acquaintance and mine, Mr.
Coddington, in Mr. Carwithy his ship of 500; he is made Governor of
this colony for his life. General Cromwell was not wounded nor
defeated, (as is said) but sick of flux and fever, and mending, and
had a victory over the Scots. Sir, this world passeth away and the
(σχημα) fashion, shape and form of it, only the word of Jehovah
remains. That word literal is sweet, as it is the field where the
mystical word or treasure, Christ Jesus, lies hid.

“In Him I hope to be
“Yours, R. W.

“Sir, to Mr. Blindman loving salutations.”

“For his honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.

“Sir,

“Loving respects, &c. Yours received and the 10_s._ from your
neighbor Elderkin, and letters, which shall carefully be sent. I
came from Providence last night, and was able, by God’s merciful
providence, so to order it, that I was their pilot to my house here,
from whence I have provided a native, who, with Joseph Fosseker, I
hope will bring them safe to you. The merciful Lord help you and me
to say, as Solomon, all that comes is vanity: all cattle, all goods,
all friends, all children, &c. I met Mr. John Clarke, at Providence,
_recens e carcere_. There was great hammering about the disputation,
but they could not hit, and although (my much lamented friend) the
Governor told him, that he was worthy to be hanged, &c. yet he was
as good as thrust out without pay or whipping, &c.; but Obadiah
Holmes remains. Mr. Carwithy is gone with his ship to the eastward
for masts, and returns, three weeks hence, to set sail for England.
Sir, I have a great suit to you, that at your leisure you would fit
and send something that you find suitable to these Indian bodies, in
way of purge or vomit; as, also, some drawing plaster, and if the
charge rise to one or two crowns, I shall thankfully send it; and
commending you and yours to the only great and good Physician,[273]
desire, Sir, to be ever

“Yours in Him, R. W.”

Mr. Holmes was confined in prison till September, when thirty stripes
were inflicted on him, with such merciless severity, that he could not,
for a considerable time, take any rest, except by supporting himself
with his knees and elbows. Two individuals (John Spur and John
Hazel,[274]) were imprisoned and fined for the grievous offence of
exhibiting some sympathy for the sufferer. Mr. Holmes was released, but
he continued in Massachusetts, and baptized several individuals.
Warrants were again issued to apprehend him, and he returned home to his
family.

The recital of these transactions is painful, but we must compel
ourselves to contemplate such scenes, if we would suitably feel the
contrast between the policy of Massachusetts, at that day, and the
tolerant principles of Roger Williams. To that policy must it be
ascribed, that wise and good men could thus treat their fellow
Christians. It is pleasing to know, however, that this conduct was not
unanimously approved, by those who were free from all suspicion of
anabaptism. Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the magistrates of
Massachusetts, then in England, wrote thus to Messrs. Cotton and Wilson:

“Reverend and dear friends, whom I unfeignedly love and respect:

“It doth not a little grieve my spirit, to hear what sad things are
reported daily of your tyranny and persecutions in New-England, as
that you fine, whip and imprison men for their consciences. First,
you compel such to come into your assemblies as you know will not
join you in your worship, and when they show their dislike thereof,
or witness against it, then you stir up your magistrates to punish
them for such (as you conceive) their public affronts. Truly,
friends, this your practice of compelling any in matters of worship,
to do that whereof they are not fully persuaded, is to make them
sin, for so the apostle (Rom. 14: 23) tells us, and many are made
hypocrites thereby, conforming in their outward man, for fear of
punishment. We pray for you, and wish you prosperity every way,
hoping the Lord would have given you so much light and love there,
that you might have been eyes to God’s people here, and not to
practise those courses in a wilderness, which you went so far to
prevent. These rigid ways have laid you very low in the hearts of
the saints.”

Mr. Cotton replied to this letter. After stating that Mr. Clarke and Mr.
Holmes had offended against the “order and government of our churches,
established, _we know_, by God’s law,” he furnishes this remarkable
specimen of sophistry: “You think, to compel men in matters of worship
is to make them sin. If the worship be lawful in itself, the magistrate
compelling him to come to it compelleth him not to sin, but the sin is
in his will that needs to be compelled to a Christian duty. If it do
make men hypocrites, yet better be hypocrites than profane persons.
Hypocrites give God part of his dues, the outward man; but the profane
person giveth God neither outward nor inward man. You know not, if you
think we came into this wilderness, to practise those courses here,
which we fled from in England. We believe there is a vast difference
between men’s inventions and God’s institutions. We fled from men’s
inventions, to which we else should have been compelled. We compel none
to men’s inventions. If our ways (rigid ways, as you call them,) have
laid us low in the hearts of God’s people, yea, and of the saints, (as
you style them) we do not believe it is any part of their saintship.
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, we have tolerated in our churches
some anabaptists, some antinomians, and some seekers, and do so still,
at this day. We are far from arrogating infallibility of judgment to
ourselves, or affecting uniformity. Uniformity God never required;
infallibility he never granted us.”[275]

There is, in this reply, somewhat more of asperity than Mr. Cotton’s
writings usually exhibit. It is easy to perceive, that the good man’s
spirit was chafed by the rebuke from one of his own friends. Nothing
tries a man’s temper more than reproof, when he is secretly convinced
that he has done wrong, and is yet unprepared to acknowledge it. It is a
sore task to defend himself, when his conscience is on the side of the
accuser. In such a case, a man is apt to resort to confident and
emphatic assertions, rather than to calm arguments.

We have mentioned Mr. Coddington’s visit to England, for the purpose of
procuring a charter for the islands of Rhode-Island, Canonicut, &c. He
procured from the Council of State, which then wielded the executive
power in England,[276] a commission, dated April 3, 1651, and signed by
John Bradshaw, constituting Mr. Coddington governor of the islands, and
empowering him to rule them, with a council of six men, nominated by the
people, and approved by himself.

Mr. Coddington returned about the first of August, 1651. His new charter
at once subverted the existing government, by severing the islands from
the other towns. Much agitation of feeling naturally ensued. Those
inhabitants of the islands, who were opposed to Mr. Coddington’s
measures, were alarmed at finding themselves thus subjected to his
power. The towns of Warwick and Providence were annoyed by the
inhabitants of Pawtuxet, consisting of whites and Indians, who rejected
the government of Rhode-Island, and adhered to that of Massachusetts.
The Indians committed many depredations, and offered many insults, which
neither the General Assembly of Rhode-Island, nor the towns of
Providence and Warwick, could either prevent or punish. The government
of Massachusetts, and the commissioners of the united colonies, refused
to remedy these evils, unless Warwick would submit to the jurisdiction
of Plymouth or Massachusetts, and finally the commissioners advised the
Plymouth colony to take possession of Warwick by force, if necessary.

In this distressed state of the colony, the separation occasioned by Mr.
Coddington’s measures would have been ruinous. The only remedy was an
immediate application to the government in England, for the repeal of
Mr. Coddington’s charter, and the confirmation of that obtained by Mr.
Williams. For this purpose, Mr. John Clarke was requested by citizens of
Newport and Portsmouth[277] to proceed to England, as their agent. The
towns of Providence and Warwick urgently importuned Mr. Williams to
accompany Mr. Clarke on this important business. He consented, though
with reluctance, arising from a natural unwillingness to leave his large
family, (now consisting of a wife and six children) and partly, we
presume, from inability to sustain the expense. He had not been
remunerated for his former agency, and he was now, it seems, obliged, in
order to raise funds, to sell his house at Narraganset,[278]
notwithstanding that some efforts were made by the people of Providence
and Warwick to obtain a sufficient sum by subscription. These facts we
learn from the following letter to Mr. Winthrop, and from a letter which
will next be quoted from William Arnold:

“For my honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.

“_Nar. 6, 8, 51, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Once more my loving and dear respects presented to you both, and
Mrs. Lake. Being now bound, resolvedly, (if the Lord please) for our
native country, I am not certain whether by the way of the English,
(you know the reason[279]) or by the way of the Dutch. My neighbors
of Providence and Warwick, (whom I also lately denied) with
importunities, have overcome me to endeavor the renewing of their
liberties, upon the occasion of Mr. Coddington’s late grant. Upon
this occasion, I have been advised to sell, and have sold this house
to Mr. Smith, my neighbor, who also may possibly be yours, for I
hear he is like to have Mrs. Chester.

“Sir, I humbly thank you for all your loving-kindnesses to me and
mine unworthy. The Father of Mercies graciously reward you, guide
you, preserve you, save, sanctify and glorify you in the blood of
his dear Son, in whom I mourn I am no more, and desire to be yours,
unfeignedly and eternally,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“This bearer, coming now from England, will acquaint you, &c.

“To all yours, and all my friends, my loving salutations. Mr. Sands,
of Boston, and John Hazel, of Seekonk, are gone before us.”

Information of these designs was immediately communicated by William
Arnold to the Governor of Massachusetts. The following letter, preserved
in Hutchinson’s Collection, is worthy of perusal, both from its
connection with Mr. Williams, and from the light which it throws on the
state of the times. Mr. Arnold, it will be seen, was not disposed to
look on any of the proceedings of Rhode-Island with a favorable eye; and
hence he accuses its inhabitants of hostility to the united colonies,
though facts do not seem to sustain the charge, unless hostility was
indicated by a patient endurance of wrong, and by generous services in
time of danger.

Copy of a letter from Mr. William Arnold to the Governor of
Massachusetts:

“_From Pawtuxet, this 1st day of the 7th month, 1651._

“Much honored,

“I thought it my duty to give intelligence unto the much honored
Court, of that which I understand is now working here in these
parts; so that if it be the will of God, an evil may be prevented,
before it come to too great a head, viz:

“Whereas Mr. Coddington has gotten a charter of Rhode-Island and
Canonicut Island to himself, he has thereby broken the force of
their charter, that went under the name of Providence, because he
has gotten away the greater part of that colony.

“Now these company of the Gortonists, that live at Shawomet, and
that company of Providence, are gathering of £200, to send Mr. Roger
Williams unto the Parliament, to get them a charter of these parts,
they of Shawomet have given £100 already, and there be some men of
Providence that have given £10 and £20 a man, to help it forward
with speed; they say here is a fair inlet, and I hear they have
said, that if the Parliament do take displeasure against
Massachusetts, or the rest of the colonies, as they have done
against Barbadoes and other places, then this will serve for an
inroad to let in forces to overrun the whole country.

“It is great pity, and very unfit, that such a company as these are,
they all stand professed enemies against all the united colonies,
that they should get a charter for so small a quantity of land as
lieth in and about Providence, Shawomet, Pawtuxet, and Coweset, all
which, now Rhode-Island is taken out from it, is but a strip of land
lying in between the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth and
Connecticut, by which means, if they should get them a charter, of
it there may come some mischief and trouble upon the whole country,
if their project be not prevented in time, for under the pretence of
liberty of conscience, about these parts, there comes to live all
the scum, the runaways of the country, which, in time, for want of
better order, may bring a heavy burthen upon the land, &c. This I
humbly commend unto the serious consideration of the much honored
Court, and rest your humble servant to command,

“WILLIAM ARNOLD.

“They are making haste to send Mr. Williams away. We that live here
near them, and do know the place and hear their words, and do take
notice of their proceeding, do know more and can speak more of what
may come to the country by their means, than the Court do yet
consider of. We humbly desire God their purpose may be frustrated,
for the country’s peace.

“I humbly desire my name may be concealed, lest they, hearing of
what I have herein written, they will be enraged against me, and so
will revenge themselves upon me.

“Some of them of Shawomet that crieth out much against them which
putteth people to death for witches; for, say they, there be no
other witches upon earth, nor devils, but your own pastors and
ministers, and such as they are, &c.

“I understand that there liveth a man amongst them that broke
prison, either at Connecticut or New-Haven; he was apprehended for
adultery; the woman, I hear, was put to death, but the man is kept
here in safety, in the midst of the united colonies. It is time
there were some better order taken for these parts, &c.

“I have hired this messenger on purpose. I humbly desire to hear if
this letter come safe to your hands.”

The town of Warwick addressed to the commissioners, who met at
New-Haven, September 4, 1651, a letter,[280] in which they unfolded the
real condition of the town, and announced, with calm dignity, their
design to appeal to the government of England. Mr. Arnold had written,
in haste, as if some secret plot had been fomented; but the town thus
gave seasonable notice to the commissioners, in order that the other
colonies might adopt measures, if they pleased, to oppose and defeat
this new embassy to England. The inhabitants of Warwick felt a
confidence in the justice of their claims, and feared no opposition.

This letter occasioned much debate among the commissioners. Those of
Massachusetts alleged, that Plymouth had resigned to Massachusetts all
its pretensions to Warwick, while the commissioners of Plymouth denied
that such a relinquishment had been made, and protested against the
proceedings of Massachusetts, in relation to Warwick. This disagreement
among themselves may be received as one of the proofs, that neither
party had any just claims.

CHAPTER XX.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke sail—Mr. Coddington’s charter
vacated—troubles in Rhode-Island—Mr. Williams returns—Sir
Henry Vane—Milton—Mr. Williams endeavors to re-establish
order—Indians—letter on religious and civil liberty.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke sailed from Boston for England, in November,
1651. It was not without considerable difficulty that Mr. Williams was
allowed to take passage at Boston. The object of his mission was
offensive to Massachusetts, besides the old dislike of his principles.

During their absence, the towns of Newport and Portsmouth submitted
quietly to Mr. Coddington’s rule. Providence and Warwick resolved to
maintain the government, as before established. They accordingly met by
their deputies, in General Assembly, at Providence, elected a Governor,
and enacted several laws, one of which prohibited any person from
purchasing land of the Indians, without the approbation of the Assembly,
on penalty of forfeiting the same to the colony.

Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke, on their arrival in England, presented a
petition to the Council of State, who, on April 8, 1652, referred it to
the committee for foreign affairs. The application met with opposition,
from various sources; but the Council of State granted an order to
vacate Mr. Coddington’s commission, and to confirm the former charter.

While in England, in 1652, Mr. Clarke published a book, entitled “III
News from New-England, or a Narrative of New-England’s Persecutions;
wherein it is declared, that while Old England is becoming New,
New-England is becoming Old; also, Four Proposals to Parliament, and
Four Conclusions, touching the Faith and Order of the Gospel of Christ,
out of his Last Will and Testament.”

Mr. Williams also published, in 1652, his rejoinder to Mr. Cotton,
entitled “The Bloody Tenet yet More Bloody, by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to
Wash it White;” and two essays, the one entitled “The Hireling Ministry
None of Christ’s, or a Discourse on the Propagation of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ;” and the other, “Experiments of Spiritual Life and Health,
and their Preservatives.”

The following letter was written to Mr. Gregory Dexter, who had printed
Mr. Williams’ “Key,” during his first visit to England, but who had
subsequently removed to Providence.

“At Mr. Davis his house, at the Checker, in St. Martin’s, or at Sir
Henry Vane’s, at Whitehall.

“_8th, 7, 52, (so called.)_

“My dear and faithful friend, to whom, with the dearest, I humbly
wish more and more of the light and love of him who is invisible,
God blessed for evermore in the face of Jesus Christ. It hath
pleased God so to engage me in divers skirmishes against the
priests, both of Old and New-England, so that I have occasioned
using the help of printer men, unknown to me, to long for my old
friend. So it hath pleased God to hold open an open desire of
preaching and printing wonderfully against Romish and English
will-worship. At this present, the devil rageth and clamors in
petitions and remonstrances from the stationers and others to the
Parliament, and all cry, ‘shut up the press.’ The stationers and
others have put forth ‘The Beacon Fired,’ and ‘The Second Beacon
Fired;’ and some friends of yours have put forth ‘The Beacon
Quenched,’ not yet extant.

“Sir, many friends have frequently, with much love, inquired after
you. Mr. Warner is not yet come with my letters: they put into
Barnstable. She came by wagon by land, but he goes with the ship to
Bristol, and, indeed, in this dangerous war with the Dutch, the only
safe trading is to Bristol, or those parts, for up along the
channel, in London way, is the greatest danger, for although our
fleets be abroad, and take many French and Dutch, yet they sometimes
catch up some of ours.

“By my public letters, you will see how we wrestle, and how we are
like yet to wrestle, in the hopes of an end. Praised be the Lord, we
are preserved, the nation is preserved, the Parliament sits, God’s
people are secure, too secure. A great opinion is, that the kingdom
of Christ is risen, and (Rev. 11:) ‘the kingdoms of the earth are
become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.’ Others have fear
of the slaughter of the witnesses yet approaching. Divers friends,
of all sorts, here, long to see you, and wonder you come not over.
For myself, I had hopes to have got away by this ship, but I see now
the mind of the Lord to hold me here one year longer. It is God’s
mercy, his very great mercy, that we have obtained this interim
encouragement from the Council of State, that you may cheerfully go
on in the name of a colony, until the controversy is determined. The
determination of it, Sir, I fear, will be a work of time, I fear
longer than we have yet been here, for our adversaries threaten to
make a last appeal to the Parliament, in case we get the day before
the Council.

“Sir, in this regard, and when my public business is over, I am
resolved to begin my old law-suit, so that I have no thought of
return until spring come twelve months. My duty and affection hath
compelled me to acquaint my poor companion with it. I consider our
many children, the danger of the seas, and enemies, and therefore I
write not positively for her, only I acquaint her with our affairs.
I tell her, joyful I should be of her being here with me, until our
state affairs were ended, and I freely leave her to wait upon the
Lord for direction, and according as she finds her spirit free and
cheerful, to come or stay. If it please the Lord to give her a free
spirit to cast herself upon the Lord, I doubt not of your love and
faithful care, in any thing she hath occasion to use your help,
concerning our children and affairs, during our absence; but I
conclude, whom have I in heaven or earth but thee, and so humbly and
thankfully say, in the Lord’s pleasure, as only and infinitely best
and sweetest.

“Abundance of love remembered from abundance of friends to your dear
self and your dearest.

“My love to your cousin Clemence, and all desire love, especially
our godly friends.

“To my dear and faithful friend, Mr. Gregory Dexter, at Providence,
in New-England, these.”

The General Assembly, which met at Providence, in October, addressed the
following letter to Mr. Williams. It is valuable, as a public
testimonial of the affection of his fellow-citizens. The proposition to
procure for himself, from the government of England, an appointment as
Governor of the colony for one year, is a strong proof of their respect
and confidence, though this proposition was protested against by some of
them. Mr. Williams, we presume, did not covet this distinction, and
probably considered such an appointment as a dangerous precedent, and a
virtual relinquishment of the authority given to the colony by the
charter to elect its own officers.

“Honored Sir,

“We may not neglect any opportunity to salute you in this your
absence, and have not a little cause to bless God, who hath pleased
to select you to such a purpose, as we doubt not but will conduce to
the peace and safety of us all, as to make you once more an
instrument to impart and disclose our cause unto those noble and
grave senators, our honorable protectors, in whose eyes God hath
given you honor, (as we understand) beyond our hopes, and moved the
hearts of the wise to stir on your behalf. We give you hearty thanks
for your care and diligence, to watch all opportunities to promote
our peace, for we perceive your prudent and comprehensive mind
stirreth every stone to present it to the builders, to make firm the
fabric unto us, about which you are employed, laboring to unweave
such irregular devices wrought by others amongst us, as have
formerly clothed us with so sad events, as the subjection of some
among us, both English and Indian, to other jurisdictions, as also
to prevent such near approach of our neighbors upon our borders, on
the Narraganset side, which might much annoy us, with your endeavors
to furnish us with such ammunition as to look a foreign enemy in the
face, being that the cruel begin to stir in these western parts, and
to unite in one again such as of late have had seeming separation in
some respects, to encourage and strengthen our weak and enfeebled
body to perform its work in these foreign parts, to the honor of
such as take care, have been and are so tender of our good, though
we be unworthy to be had in remembrance by persons of so noble
places, indued with parts of so excellent and honorable and
abundantly beneficial use.

“Sir, give us leave to intimate thus much, that we humbly conceive
(so far as we are able to understand) that if it be the pleasure of
our protectors to renew our charter for the re-establishing of our
government, that it might tend much to the weighing of men’s minds,
and subjecting of persons who have been refractory, to yield
themselves over as unto a settled government, if it might be the
pleasure of that honorable state, to invest, appoint, and empower
yourself to come over as Governor of this colony, for the space of
one year, and so the government to be honorably put upon this place,
which might seem to add weight forever hereafter in the constant and
successive derivation of the same. We only present it to your
deliberate thoughts and consideration, with our hearty desires that
your time of stay there for the effectual perfecting and finishing
of your so weighty affairs may not seem tedious, nor be any
discouragement unto you; rather than you shall suffer for loss of
time here, or expense there, we are resolved to stretch forth our
hands at your return, beyond our strength, for your supply. Your
loving bed-fellow is in health, and presents her endeared affection,
so are all your family. Mr. Sayles, also, and his, with the rest of
your friends throughout the colony, who wish and desire earnestly to
see your face.

“Sir, we are yours; leaving you unto the Lord, we heartily take
leave.

“From the General Assembly of this colony of Providence Plantations,
assembled in the town of Providence, the 28th of October, 1652.

“JOHN GREENE, _General Recorder_.”[281]

The order of the Council of State was sent over by Mr. William Dyre,
who, perhaps, accompanied the agents to England. This order directed the
towns to unite again, as before; but it was found, in this, as in other
cases, easier to command, than to enforce obedience. The towns seem to
have been jealous of each other, and tenacious of their claims to
precedence. It was found difficult to procure a meeting, to adjust the
government; the two towns on the island insisting that the meeting
should be held there, as the largest part of the colony, while the towns
of Providence and Warwick made a similar claim, with the plausible
reason, that they had steadily adhered to the charter.

The result was, either from mistake or from a rigid adherence to
etiquette, that two meetings were held. Mr. Backus says:[282]

“The towns on the main met at Providence, May 17, 1653, and elected
their officers. An assembly met at the same time on the island, and
chose Mr. Sanford their President, and some freemen coming from the
main, they chose an assistant for each town in the colony; and they sent
Mr. James Barker and Mr. Richard Knight to Mr. Coddington, to demand the
statute book and book of records. And as it was then a time of war
betwixt England and Holland, and a mention was made of it in the letters
which confirmed their charter, Dyre thought to make his advantage
thereby, and procured commissions for himself, Capt. Underhill and
Edward Hull, to act against the Dutch in America; and some cannon, with
twenty men, were sent to the English, on the east end of Long-Island, to
enable them to act against the Dutch, who lay to the westward of them.
This alarmed Providence colony, who met again in June, and a third time
at Warwick, on August 13, when they answered a letter from the
Massachusetts, and remonstrated against being drawn into a war with the
Dutch; and wrote to Mr. Williams an account of Dyre’s conduct, and of
their being urged to give up their former actings as null; but, say
they, ‘being still in the same order you left us, and observing two
great evils that such a course would bring upon us: First, the hazard of
involving in all the disorders and bloodshed which have been committed
on Rhode-Island since their separation from us.’ Secondly, ‘the invading
and frustrating of justice in divers weighty causes, then orderly
depending in our courts, in some of which causes, Mr. Smith, President,
William Field, &c. were deeply concerned;’ therefore they could not
yield to such a motion.”

Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke continued in England, endeavoring to sustain
the rights of the colony. They had many opposers, but they found a
steady and powerful friend in Sir Henry Vane.[283] At his seat Mr.
Williams spent a portion of his time. While there, he wrote the
following letter to the towns of Providence and Warwick. It exhibits his
generous self-devotion for the public good, his love for his family, and
his characteristic regard for the Indians:

“From Sir Henry Vane’s, at Belleau, in Lincolnshire.

“_April 1st, 53, (so called.)_

“My dear and loving friends and neighbors of Providence and Warwick,
our noble friend, Sir Henry Vane, having the navy of England mostly
depending on his care, and going down to the navy at Portsmouth, I
was invited by them both to accompany his lady to Lincolnshire,
where I shall yet stay, as I fear, until the ship is gone. I must
therefore pray your pardon, that by the post I send this to London.
I hope it may have pleased the Most High Lord of sea and land to
bring Capt. Ch-rst-n’s ship and dear Mr. Dyre unto you, and with him
the Council’s letters, which answer the petition Sir Henry Vane and
myself drew up, and the Council, by Sir Henry’s mediation, granted
us, for the confirmation of the charter, until the determination of
the controversy. This determination, you may please to understand,
is hindered by two main obstructions. The first is the mighty war
with the Dutch, which makes England and Holland and the nations
tremble. This hath made the Parliament set Sir Henry Vane and two or
three more as commissioners to manage the war, which they have done,
with much engaging the name of God with them, who hath appeared in
helping sixty of ours against almost three hundred of their
men-of-war, and perchance to the sinking and taking about one
hundred of theirs, and but one of ours, which was sunk by our own
men. Our second obstruction is the opposition of our adversaries,
Sir Arthur Haselrig and Col. Fenwicke, who hath married his
daughter, Mr. Winslow, and Mr. Hopkins, both in great place; and all
the friends they can make in Parliament and Council, and all the
priests, both Presbyterian and Independent; so that we stand as two
armies, ready to engage, observing the motions and postures each of
the other, and yet shy each of other. Under God, the sheet-anchor of
our ship is Sir Henry, who will do as the eye of God leads him, and
he faithfully promised me that he would observe the motion of our
New-England business, while I staid some ten weeks with his lady in
Lincolnshire. Besides, here is great thoughts and preparation for a
new Parliament; some of our friends are apt to think another
Parliament will more favor us and our cause than this has done. You
may please to put my condition into your soul’s cases; remember I am
a father and a husband. I have longed earnestly to return with the
last ship, and with these, yet I have not been willing to withdraw
my shoulders from the burthen, lest it pinch others, and may fall
heavy upon all; except you are pleased to give to me a discharge. If
you conceive it necessary for me still to attend this service, pray
you consider if it be not convenient that my poor wife be encouraged
to come over to me, and to wait together on the good pleasure of God
for the end of this matter. You know my many weights hanging on me,
how my own place stands, and how many reasons I have to cause me to
make haste, yet I would not lose their estates, peace and liberty,
by leaving hastily. I write to my dear wife, my great desire of her
coming while I stay, yet left it to the freedom of her spirit,
because of the many dangers; truly, at present the seas are
dangerous, but not comparably so much, nor likely to be, because of
the late great defeat of the Dutch, and their present sending to us
offers of peace.

“My dear friends, although it pleased God himself, by many favors,
to encourage me, yet please you to remember, that no man can stay
here as I do, leaving a present employment there, without much
self-denial, which I beseech God for more, and for you also, that no
private respects, or gains, or quarrels, may cause you to neglect
the public and common safety, peace and liberties. I beseech the
blessed God to keep fresh in your thoughts what he hath done for
Providence Plantations.

“My dear respects to yourselves, wives and children. I beseech the
eternal God to be seen amongst you; so prays your most faithful and
affectionate friend and servant,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“P. S. My love to all my Indian friends.”[284]

The difficulties in the colony continued, and were artfully fomented by
uneasy men, who thought disorder more propitious to their interests than
the stable dominion of law and good government. Mr. Williams felt that
his presence was needed at home, that he might, if possible, bring the
discordant towns into harmonious co-operation. He therefore left Mr.
Clarke in England, to prosecute the duties of their mission, and
returned, early in the summer of 1654. He landed at Boston, and being
furnished with an order from the Lord Protector’s Council, requiring the
government of Massachusetts to allow him in future to embark or land in
their territories, he was not molested. He brought the following letter
from Sir Henry Vane, addressed to the inhabitants of the colony of
Rhode-Island:

“Loving and Christian friends,

“I could not refuse this bearer, Mr. Roger Williams, my kind friend
and ancient acquaintance, to be accompanied with these few lines
from myself to you, upon his return to Providence colony; though,
perhaps, my private and retired condition, which the Lord, of his
mercy, hath brought me into, might have argued strongly enough for
my silence; but, indeed, something I hold myself bound to say to
you, out of the Christian love I bear you, and for his sake whose
name is called upon by you and engaged in your behalf. How is it
that there are such divisions amongst you? Such headiness, tumults,
disorders, injustice? The noise echoes into the ears of all, as well
friends as enemies, by every return of ships from those parts. Is
not the fear and awe of God amongst you to restrain? Is not the love
of Christ in you, to fill you with yearning bowels, one towards
another, and constrain you not to live to yourselves, but to him
that died for you, yea, and is risen again? Are there no wise men
amongst you? No public self-denying spirits, that at least, upon the
grounds of public safety, equity and prudence, can find out some way
or means of union and reconciliation for you amongst yourselves,
before you become a prey to common enemies, especially since this
state, by the last letter from the Council of State, give you your
freedom, as supposing a better use would have been made of it than
there hath been? Surely, when kind and simple remedies are applied
and are ineffectual, it speaks loud and broadly the high and
dangerous distempers of such a body, as if the wounds were
incurable. But I hope better things from you, though I thus speak,
and should be apt to think, that by commissioners agreed on and
appointed on all parts, and on behalf of all interests, in a general
meeting, such a union and common satisfaction might arise, as,
through God’s blessing, might put a stop to your growing breaches
and distractions, silence your enemies, encourage your friends,
honor the name of God, (which of late hath been much blasphemed, by
reason of you,) and in particular, refresh and revive the sad heart
of him who mourns over your present evils, as being your
affectionate friend, to serve you in the Lord.

“H. VANE.

“_Belleau, the 8th of February, 1653–4._”[285]

Soon after Mr. Williams returned, he wrote the following letter to his
friend, Mr. Winthrop:

“For my much honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod.

“_Providence, July 12, 54, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“I was humbly bold to salute you from our native country, and now,
by the gracious hand of the Lord, once more saluting this
wilderness, I crave your wonted patience to my wonted boldness, who
ever honored and loved, and ever shall, the root and branches of
your dear name. How joyful, therefore, was I to hear of your abode
as a stake and pillar in these parts, and of your healths, your own,
Mrs. Winthrop, and your branches, although some sad mixtures we have
had from the sad tidings (if true) of the late loss and cutting off
of one of them.

“Sir, I was lately upon the wing to have waited on you at your
house. I had disposed all for my journey, and my staff was in my
hand, but it pleased the Lord to interpose some impediments, so that
I am compelled to a suspension for a season, and choose at present
thus to visit you. I had no letters for you, but yours were well. I
was at the lodgings of Major Winthrop and Mr. Peters, but I missed
them. Your brother flourisheth in good esteem, and is eminent for
maintaining the freedom of the conscience as to matters of belief,
religion and worship. Your father Peters[286] preacheth the same
doctrine, though not so zealously as some years since, yet cries out
against New-English rigidities and persecutions, their civil
injuries and wrongs to himself, and their unchristian dealing with
him, in excommunicating his distracted wife. All this he told me in
his lodgings, at Whitehall, those lodgings which I was told were
Canterbury’s; but he himself told me, that that library, wherein we
were together, was Canterbury’s, and given him by the Parliament.
His wife lives from him not wholly, but much distracted. He tells me
he had but two hundred a year, and he allowed her fourscore per
annum of it. Surely, Sir, the most holy Lord is most wise in all the
trials he exerciseth his people with. He told me that his affliction
from his wife stirred him up to action abroad, and when success
tempted him to pride, the bitterness in his bosom comforts was a
cooler and a bridle to him.

“Surely, Sir, your father, and all the people of God in England,
formerly called _Puritanus Anglicanus_, of late _Roundheads_, now
the _Sectarians_, (as more or less cut off from the parishes) are
now in the saddle and at the helm, so high that _non datur descensus
nisi cadendo_. Some cheer up their spirits with the impossibility of
another fall or turn, so doth Major Gen. Harrison, and Mr. Feake,
and Mr. John Simson, now in Windsor Castle for preaching against
this last change, and against the Protector, as an usurper, Richard
III., &c. So did many think of the last Parliament, who were of the
vote of fifty-six against priests and tithes, opposite to the vote
of the fifty-four who were for them, at least for a while. Major
Gen. Harrison was the second in the nation of late, when the loving
General and himself joined against the former Long Parliament and
dissolved them, but now being the head of the fifty-six party, he
was confined by the Protector and Council, within five miles of his
father’s house, in Staffordshire. That sentence he not obeying, he
told me (the day before my leaving London) he was to be sent
prisoner into Harfordshire. Surely, Sir, he is a very gallant, most
deserving, heavenly man, but most high flown for the kingdom of the
saints, and the fifth monarchy now risen, and their sun never to set
again, &c. Others, as to my knowledge, the Protector, Lord President
Lawrence, and others at helm, with Sir Henry Vane, (retired into
Lincolnshire, yet daily missed and courted for his assistance) are
not so full of that faith of miracles, but still imagine changes and
persecutions and the very slaughter of the witnesses, before that
glorious morning so much desired of a worldly kingdom, if ever such
a kingdom (as literally it is by so many expounded) be to arise in
this present world and dispensation.

“Sir, I know not how far your judgment hath concurred with the
design against the Dutch. I must acknowledge my mourning for it, and
when I heard of it, at Portsmouth, I confess I wrote letters to the
Protector and President, from thence, as against a most uningenuous
and unchristian design, at such a time, when the world stood gazing
at the so famous treaty for peace, which was then between the two
States, and near finished when we set sail. Much I can tell you of
the answer I had from Court, and I think of the answers I had from
heaven, viz. that the Lord would graciously retard us until the
tidings of peace (from England) might quench the fire in the
kindling of it.

“Sir, I mourn that any of our parts were so madly injurious to
trouble yours. I pity poor Sabando. I yet have hopes in God that we
shall be more loving and peaceable neighbors. I had word from the
Lord President to Portsmouth, that the Council had passed three
letters as to our business. First, to encourage us; second, to our
neighbor colonies not to molest us; third, in exposition of that
word dominion, in the late frame of the government of England, viz.
that liberty of conscience should be maintained in all American
plantations, &c.

“Sir, a great man in America told me, that he thought New-England
would not bear it. I hope better, and that not only the necessity,
but the equity, piety and Christianity of that freedom will more and
more shine forth, not to licentiousness, (as all mercies are apt to
be abused) but to the beauty of Christianity and the lustre of true
faith in God and love to poor mankind, &c.

“Sir, I have desires of keeping home. I have long had scruples of
selling the natives aught but what may bring or tend to civilizing;
I therefore neither brought, nor shall sell them, loose coats nor
breeches. It pleased the Lord to call me for some time, and with
some persons, to practise the Hebrew, the Greek, Latin, French and
Dutch. The Secretary of the Council, (Mr. Milton) for my Dutch I
read him, read me many more languages. Grammar rules begin to be
esteemed a tyranny. I taught two young gentlemen, a Parliament man’s
sons, as we teach our children English, by words, phrases and
constant talk, &c. I have begun with mine own three boys, who labor
besides; others are coming to me.

“Sir, I shall rejoice to receive a word of your healths, of the
Indian wars, and to be ever yours,

“R. W.

“Sir, I pray seal and send the enclosed.”

Among other remarkable passages, in the foregoing letter, the allusion
to Milton is not the least interesting. He was then the Secretary of the
government, and in that office he honored the English name, by his
eloquent writings in defence of liberty. Mr. Williams was naturally
attracted to a communion with the lofty spirit of Milton. His was a
kindred mind, imbued with the same love of liberty, and alike free from
selfish ends. Both encountered persecution, and endured poverty for
their principles. They both acted in the same spirit of self-sacrifice
for the good of others; and Mr. Williams might have used, with equal
truth and propriety, the magnanimous and almost triumphant language of
Milton, in his sonnet on the loss of his sight, which was hastened by
his intense application to his noble “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano.”

“I argue not
Against Heaven’s hand or will, nor bate a jot
Of heart or hope, but still bear up, and steer
Right onward.”

The preceding letter bears an incidental testimony to the various
learning of Milton, and it implies, that Mr. Williams was sufficiently
versed in the Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Dutch and French languages, to teach
them. It shows, moreover, that, like Milton himself, and Dr. Johnson,
and other distinguished men, Mr. Williams employed himself in the
honorable office of an instructor of youth; an office worthy of the most
gifted mind, and which ranks, in the estimate of sober reason, second to
no other function, except that of the teacher of religion. This fact is
the more honorable to Mr. Williams, because he became a teacher, as a
means of subsistence, while he was serving his colony in England.[287]

In the following letter to the town of Providence, Mr. Williams alludes,
in affecting terms, to his toils and sacrifices, and to the ungrateful
requital with which they had been met by some individuals:

“Well beloved friends and neighbors,

“I am like a man in a great fog. I know not well how to steer. I
fear to run upon the rocks at home, having had trials abroad. I fear
to run quite backward, as men in a mist do, and undo all that I have
been a long time undoing myself to do, viz. to keep up the name of a
people, a free people, not enslaved to the bondages and iron yokes
of the great (both soul and body) oppressions of the English and
barbarians about us, nor to the divisions and disorders within
ourselves. Since I set the first step of any English foot into these
wild parts, and have maintained a chargeable and hazardous
correspondence with the barbarians, and spent almost five years’
time with the state of England, to keep off the rage of the English
against us, what have I reaped of the root of being the
stepping-stone of so many families and towns about us, but grief,
and sorrow, and bitterness? I have been charged with folly for that
freedom and liberty which I have always stood for; I say liberty and
equality, both in land and government. I have been blamed for
parting with Moshassuck, and afterward Pawtuxet, (which were mine
own as truly as any man’s coat upon his back,) without reserving to
myself a foot of land, or an inch of voice in any matter, more than
to my servants and strangers. 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. This, and ten times more, I have been censured
for, and at this present am called a traitor, by one party, against
the state of England, for not maintaining the charter and the
colony; and it is said that I am as good as banished by yourselves,
and that both sides wished that I might never have landed, that the
fire of contention might have had no stop in burning. Indeed, the
words have been so sharp between myself and some lately, that at
last I was forced to say, they might well silence all complaints if
I once began to complain, who 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. I am told that your opposites thought on
me, and provided, as I may say, a sponge to wipe off your scores and
debts in England, but that it was obstructed by yourselves, who
rather meditated on means and new agents to be sent over, to cross
what Mr. Clarke and I obtained. But, gentlemen, blessed be God, who
faileth not, and blessed be his name for his wonderful PROVIDENCES,
by which alone this town and colony, and that grand cause of TRUTH
AND FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, hath been upheld to this day. And blessed
be his name who hath again quenched so much of our fires hitherto,
and hath brought your names and his own name thus far out of the
dirt of scorn, reproach, &c. I find among yourselves and your
opposites that of Solomon true, that the contentions of brethren
(some that lately were so) are the bars of a castle, and not easily
broken; and I have heard some of both sides zealously talking of
undoing themselves by a trial in England. Truly, friends, I cannot
but fear you lost a fair wind lately, when this town was sent to for
its deputies, and you were not pleased to give an overture unto the
rest of the inhabitants about it; yea, and when yourselves thought
that I invited you to some conference tending to reconciliation,
before the town should act in so fundamental a business, you were
pleased to forestall that, so that being full of grief, shame and
astonishment, yea, and fear that all that is now done, especially in
our town of Providence, is but provoking the spirits of men to fury
and desperation, I pray your leave to pray you to remember (that
which I lately told your opposites) _only by pride cometh
contention_. If there be humility on the one side, yet there is
pride on the other, and certainly the eternal God will engage
against the proud. I therefore pray you to examine, as I have done
them, your proceedings in this first particular. Secondly, Love
covereth a multitude of sins. Surely your charges and complaints
each against other, have not hid nor covered any thing, as we use to
cover the nakedness of those we love. If you will now profess not to
have disfranchised humanity and love, but that, as David in another
case, you will sacrifice to the common peace, and common safety, and
common credit, that which may be said to cost you something, I pray
your loving leave to tell you, that if I were in your soul’s case, I
would send unto your opposites such a line as this: ‘Neighbors, at
the constant request, and upon the constant mediation which our
neighbor Roger Williams, since his arrival, hath used to us, both
for pacification and accommodation of our sad differences, and also
upon the late endeavors in all the other towns for an union, we are
persuaded to remove our obstruction, viz. that paper of contention
between us, and to deliver it into the hands of our aforesaid
neighbor, and to obliterate that order, which that paper did
occasion. This removed, you may be pleased to meet with, and debate
freely, and vote in all matters with us, as if such grievances had
not been amongst us. Secondly, if yet aught remain grievous, which
we ourselves, by free debate and conference, cannot compose, we
offer to be judged and censured by four men, which out of any part
of the colony you shall choose two, and we the other.’

“Gentlemen, I only add, that I crave your loving pardon to your bold
but true friend,

“ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The pathetic earnestness, and conciliatory yet dignified tone of this
letter, produced a favorable effect. At a town meeting held in
Providence, in August, Mr. Williams was requested to prepare an answer
to Sir Henry Vane’s letter, in the name of the town. This answer, dated
August 27, 1654, is as follows. It bears the characteristics of Mr.
Williams’ style, and it expresses his opinions of certain public men and
measures:

“Sir,

“Although we are aggrieved at your late retirement from the helm of
public affairs, yet we rejoice to reap the sweet fruits of your rest
in your pious and loving lines, most seasonably sent unto us. Thus
the sun, when he retires his brightness from the world, yet from
under the very clouds we perceive his presence, and enjoy some light
and heat and sweet refreshings. Sir, your letters were directed to
all and every particular town of this Providence colony. Surely,
Sir, among the many providences of the Most High, towards this town
of Providence, and this Providence colony, we cannot but see
apparently his gracious hand, providing your honorable self for so
noble and true a friend to an outcast and despised people. From the
first beginning of this Providence colony, occasioned by the
banishment of some in this place from the Massachusetts, we say ever
since to this very day, we have reaped the sweet fruits of your
constant loving kindness and favor towards us. Oh, Sir, whence,
then, is it that you have bent your bow, and shot your sharp and
bitter arrows now against us? Whence is it that you charge us with
divisions, disorders, &c.? Sir, we humbly pray your gentle
acceptance of our two fold answer.

“First, we have been greatly disturbed and distracted by the
ambition and covetousness of some amongst us. Sir, we were in
complete order, until Mr. Coddington, wanting that public,
self-denying spirit which you commend to us in your letter,
procured, by most untrue information, a monopoly of part of the
colony, viz. Rhode-Island, to himself, and so occasioned our general
disturbance and distractions. Secondly, Mr. Dyre, with no less want
of a public spirit, being ruined by party contentions with Mr.
Coddington, and being betrusted to bring from England the letters of
the Council of State for our re-unitings, he hopes for a recruit to
himself by other men’s goods; and, contrary to the State’s
intentions and expressions, plungeth himself and some others in most
unnecessary and unrighteous plundering, both of Dutch and French,
and English also, to our great grief, who protested against such
abuse of our power from England; and the end of it is to the shame
and reproach of himself, and the very English name, as all these
parts do witness.

“Sir, our second answer is, (that we may not lay all the load upon
other men’s backs,) that possibly a sweet cup hath rendered many of
us wanton and too active, for we have long drunk of the cup of as
great liberties as any people that we can hear of under the whole
heaven. We have not only been long free (together with all
New-England) from the iron yoke of wolvish bishops, and their popish
ceremonies, (against whose cruel oppressions God raised up your
noble spirit in Parliament,) but we have sitten quiet and dry from
the streams of blood spilt by that war in our native country. We
have not felt the new chains of the Presbyterian tyrants, nor in
this colony have we been consumed with the over-zealous fire of the
(so called) godly christian magistrates. Sir, we have not known what
an excise means; we have almost forgotten what tythes are, yea, or
taxes either, to church or commonwealth. We could name other special
privileges, ingredients of our sweet cup, which your great wisdom
knows to be very powerful (except more than ordinary watchfulness)
to render the best of men wanton and forgetful. But, blessed be your
love, and your loving heart and hand, awakening any of our sleepy
spirits by your sweet alarm; and blessed be your noble family, root
and branch, and all your pious and prudent engagements and
retirements. We hope you shall no more complain of the saddening of
your loving heart by the men of Providence town or of Providence
colony, but that when we are gone and rotten, our posterity and
children after us shall read in our town records your pious and
favorable letters and loving kindness to us, and this our answer,
and real endeavor after peace and righteousness; and to be found,
Sir, your most obliged, and most humble servants, the town of
Providence, in Providence colony, in New-England.

“GREGORY DEXTER,
_Town Clerk_.”

The town of Providence, at the instance of Mr. Williams, and the other
towns, as we may presume, by his influence, appointed commissioners, who
met on the 31st of August, and re-established the government on its old
foundations.[288] They appointed a general election, to be held at
Warwick, on the 12th of September, at which Mr. Williams was chosen
President of the colony, and, together with Mr. Gregory Dexter, was
requested to “draw forth and send letters of humble thanksgiving to his
Highness, the Lord Protector, and Sir Henry Vane, Mr. Holland, and Mr.
John Clarke, in the name of the colony; and Mr. Williams is desired to
subscribe them, by virtue of his office.”

By the wisdom, and the firm yet healing gentleness of Mr. Williams, was
the colony thus re-united, after a disorderly interval of several years.
The little bark was rescued from the rocks which threatened her
destruction, and once more launched forth, her faithful pilot at the
helm, and her banner, displaying her chosen motto “Hope,” floating again
upon the breeze.[289]

The following letter to the government of Massachusetts, alludes to some
disturbances with the Indians, which occurred about this time. Ninigret,
the Niantick sachem, had made war with the Indians of Long Island,[290]
and was supposed to be in alliance with the Dutch at New-York. The
commissioners of the united colonies sent a considerable force against
Ninigret, under the command of Major Willard, of Massachusetts, but they
returned without success, the sachem and his warriors having taken
refuge in a swamp. The real cause, perhaps, why the war was not
vigorously waged, was, that Massachusetts was opposed to hostilities,
and with a wisdom and humanity which honored her rulers, prevented at
this time, as she had done on a former occasion, a general war with the
natives.[291] We may hope, that the admirable letter of Mr. Williams had
some effect in producing this pacific temper:

“_Providence, 5, 8, 54, (so called.)_

“Much honored Sirs,

“I truly wish you peace, and pray your gentle acceptance of a word,
I hope not unreasonable.

“We have in these parts a sound of your meditations of war against
these natives, amongst whom we dwell. I consider that war is one of
those three great, sore plagues, with which it pleaseth God to
affect the sons of men. I consider, also, that I refused, lately,
many offers in my native country, out of a sincere desire to seek
the good and peace of this.

“I remember, that upon the express advice of your ever honored Mr.
Winthrop, deceased,[292] I first adventured to begin a plantation
among the thickest of these barbarians.

“That in the Pequod wars, it pleased your honored government to
employ me in the hazardous and weighty service of negotiating a
league between yourselves and the Narragansets, when the Pequod
messengers, who sought the Narragansets’ league against the English,
had almost ended that my work and life together.

“That at the subscribing of that solemn league, which, by the mercy
of the Lord, I had procured with the Narragansets, your government
was pleased to send unto me the copy of it, subscribed by all hands
there, which yet I keep as a monument and a testimony of peace and
faithfulness between you both.

“That, since that time, it hath pleased the Lord so to order it,
that I have been more or less interested and used in all your great
transactions of war or peace, between the English and the natives,
and have not spared purse, nor pains, nor hazards, (very many
times,) that the whole land, English and natives, might sleep in
peace securely.

“That in my last negotiations in England, with the Parliament,
Council of State, and his Highness,[293] I have been forced to be
known so much, that if I should be silent, I should not only betray
mine own peace and yours, but also should be false to their
honorable and princely names, whose loves and affections, as well as
their supreme authority, are not a little concerned in the peace or
war of this country.

“At my last departure for England, I was importuned by the
Narraganset sachems, and especially by Ninigret, to present their
petition to the high sachems of England, that they might not be
forced from their religion, and, for not changing their religion, be
invaded by war; for they said they were daily visited with
threatenings by Indians that came from about the Massachusetts, that
if they would not pray, they should be destroyed by war. With this
their petition I acquainted, in private discourses, divers of the
chief of our nation, and especially his Highness, who, in many
discourses I had with him, never expressed the least tittle of
displeasure, as hath been here reported, but, in the midst of
disputes, ever expressed a high spirit of love and gentleness, and
was often pleased to please himself with very many questions, and my
answers, about the Indian affairs of this country; and, after all
hearing of yourself and us, it hath pleased his Highness and his
Council to grant, amongst other favors to this colony, some
expressly concerning the very Indians, the native inhabitants of
this jurisdiction.

“I, therefore, humbly offer to your prudent and impartial view,
first, these two considerable terms, it pleased the Lord to use to
all that profess his name (Rom. 12: 18,) if it be possible, and all
men.

“I never was against the righteous use of the civil sword of men or
nations, but yet since all men of conscience or prudence ply to
windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive, (as did both King
and Scotch, and English, and Irish too, in the late wars,) I humbly
pray your consideration, whether it be not only possible, but very
easy, to live and die in peace with all the natives of this country.

“For, secondly, are not all the English of this land, generally, a
persecuted people from their native soil? and hath not the God of
peace and Father of mercies made these natives more friendly in
this, than our native countrymen in our own land to us? Have they
not entered leagues of love, and to this day continued peaceable
commerce with us? Are not our families grown up in peace amongst
them? Upon which I humbly ask, how it can suit with Christian
ingenuity to take hold of some seeming occasions for their
destructions, which, though the heads be only aimed at, yet, all
experience tells us, falls on the body and the innocent.

“Thirdly, I pray it may be remembered how greatly the name of God is
concerned in this affair, for it cannot be hid, how all England and
other nations ring with the glorious conversion of the Indians of
New-England. You know how many books are dispersed throughout the
nation, of the subject, (in some of them the Narraganset chief
sachems are publicly branded, for refusing to pray and be
converted;) have all the pulpits in England been commanded to sound
of this glorious work, (I speak not ironically, but only mention
what all the printed books mention,) and that, by the highest
command and authority of Parliament, and church wardens went from
house to house, to gather supplies for this work.

“Honored Sirs,

“Whether I have been and am a friend to the natives’ turning to
civility and Christianity, and whether I have been instrumental, and
desire so to be, according to my light, I will not trouble you with;
only I beseech you consider, how the name of the most holy and
jealous God may be preserved between the clashings of these two,
viz: the glorious conversion of the Indians in New-England, and the
unnecessary wars and cruel destructions of the Indians in
New-England.

“Fourthly, I beseech you forget not, that although we are apt to
play with this plague of war more than with the other two, famine
and pestilence, yet I beseech you consider how the present events of
all wars that ever have been in the world, have been wonderful
fickle, and the future calamities and revolutions, wonderful in the
latter end.

“Heretofore, not having liberty of taking ship in your jurisdiction,
I was forced to repair unto the Dutch, where mine eyes did see that
first breaking forth of that Indian war, which the Dutch begun, upon
the slaughter of some Dutch by the Indians; and they questioned not
to finish it in a few days, insomuch that the name of peace, which
some offered to mediate, was foolish and odious to them. But before
we weighed anchor, their bowries were in flames; Dutch and English
were slain. Mine eyes saw their flames at their towns, and the
flights and hurries of men, women and children, the present removal
of all that could for Holland; and, after vast expenses, and mutual
slaughters of Dutch, English, and Indians, about four years, the
Dutch were forced, to save their plantation from ruin, to make up a
most unworthy and dishonorable peace with the Indians.

“How frequently is that saying in England, that both Scotch and
English had better have borne loans, ship money, &c. than run upon
such rocks, that even success and victory have proved, and are yet
like to prove. Yea, this late war with Holland, however begun with
zeal against God’s enemies, as some in Parliament said, yet what
fruits brought it forth, but the breach of the Parliament, the
enraging of the nation by taxes, the ruin of thousands who depended
on manufactures and merchandize, the loss of many thousand seamen,
and others, many of whom many worlds are not worthy?

“But, lastly, if any be yet zealous of kindling this fire for God,
&c. I beseech that gentleman, whoever he be, to lay himself in the
opposite scale, with one of the fairest buds that ever the sun of
righteousness cherished, Josiah, that most zealous and
melting-hearted reformer, who would to war, and against warnings,
and fell in most untimely death and lamentations, and now stands, a
pillar of salt to all succeeding generations.

“Now, with your patience, a word to these nations at war, (occasion
of yours,) the Narragansets and Long-Islanders, I know them both
experimentally, and therefore pray you to remember,

“First, that the Narragansets and Mohawks are the two great bodies
of Indians in this country, and they are confederates, and long have
been, and they both yet are friendly and peaceable to the English. I
do humbly conceive, that if ever God calls us to a just war with
either of them, he calls us to make sure of the one to a friend. It
is true some distaste was lately here amongst them, but they parted
friends, and some of the Narragansets went home with them, and I
fear that both these and the Long-Islanders and Mohegans, and all
the natives of the land, may, upon the sound of a defeat of the
English, be induced easily to join each with other against us.

“2. The Narragansets, as they were the first, so they have been long
confederates with you; they have been true, in all the Pequod wars,
to you. They occasioned the Mohegans to come in, too, and so
occasioned the Pequods’ downfall.

“3. I cannot yet learn, that ever it pleased the Lord to permit the
Narragansets to stain their hands with any English blood, neither in
open hostilities nor secret murders, as both Pequods and
Long-Islanders did, and Mohegans also, in the Pequod wars. It is
true they are barbarians, but their greatest offences against the
English have been matters of money, or petty revenging of themselves
on some Indians, upon extreme provocations, but God kept them clear
of our blood.

“4. For the people, many hundred English have experimented them to
be inclined to peace and love with the English nation.

“Their late famous long-lived Canonicus so lived and died, and in
the same most honorable manner and solemnity (in their way) as you
laid to sleep your prudent peace-maker, Mr. Winthrop, did they honor
this, their prudent and peaceable prince. His son, Mexham[294],
inherits his spirit. Yea, through all their towns and countries, how
frequently do many, and oft-times one Englishman, travel alone with
safety and loving kindness!

“The cause and root of all the present mischief, is the pride of two
barbarians, Ascassassotic, the Long-Island sachem, and Ninigret, of
the Narraganset. The former is proud and foolish; the latter is
proud and fierce. I have not seen him these many years, yet from
their sober men I hear he pleads,

“First, that Ascassassotic, a very inferior sachem, bearing himself
upon the English, hath slain three or four of his people, and since
that, sent him challenges and darings to fight, and mend himself.

“2. He, Ninigret, consulted, by solemn messengers, with the chief of
the English Governors, Major Endicott, then Governor of the
Massachusetts, who sent him an implicit consent to right himself,
upon which they all plead that the English have just occasion of
displeasure.

“3. After he had taken revenge upon the Long-Islanders, and brought
away about fourteen captives, divers of their chief women, yet he
restored them all again, upon the mediation and desire of the
English.

“4. After this peace made, the Long-Islanders, pretending to visit
Ninigret, at Block-Island, slaughtered of his Narragansets near
thirty persons, at midnight, two of them of great note, especially
Wepiteammoc’s son, to whom Ninigret was uncle.

“5. In the prosecution of this war, although he had drawn down the
Islanders to his assistance, yet, upon protestation of the English
against his proceedings, he retreated, and dissolved his army.

“Honored Sirs,

“1. I know it is said the Long-Islanders are subjects; but I have
heard this greatly questioned, and, indeed, I question whether any
Indians in this country, remaining barbarous and pagan, may with
truth or honor be called the English subjects.

“2. But grant them subjects, what capacity hath their late massacre
of the Narragansets, with whom they had made peace, without the
English consent, though still under the English name, put them into?

“3. All Indians are extremely treacherous; and if to their own
nation, for private ends, revolting to strangers, what will they do
upon the sound of one defeat of the English, or the trade of killing
English cattle, and persons, and plunder, which will, most certainly
be the trade, if any considerable party escape alive, as mine eyes
beheld in the Dutch war.

“But, I beseech you, say your thoughts and the thoughts of your
wives and little ones, and the thoughts of all English, and of God’s
people in England, and the thoughts of his Highness and Council,
(tender of these parts,) if, for the sake of a few inconsiderable
pagans, and beasts, wallowing in idleness, stealing, lying, whoring,
treacherous witchcrafts, blasphemies, and idolatries, all that the
gracious hand of the Lord hath so wonderfully planted in the
wilderness, should be destroyed.

“How much nobler were it, and glorious to the name of God and your
own, that no pagan should dare to use the name of an English
subject, who comes not out, in some degree, from barbarism to
civility, in forsaking their filthy nakedness, in keeping some kind
of cattle, which yet your councils and commands may tend to, and, as
pious and prudent deceased Mr. Winthrop said, that civility may be a
leading step to Christianity, is the humble desire of your most
unfeigned in all services of love,

“ROGER WILLIAMS,
_of Providence colony_,
_President_.”

Though Mr. Williams had succeeded in restoring the regular operation of
the government, there were not wanting individuals who were uneasy and
restive under restraints. A person, about this time, sent a paper to the
town of Providence, affirming “that it was blood-guiltiness, and against
the rule of the Gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors against
the private or public weal.” This principle struck at the foundation of
all civil society. There were, as we may easily suppose, some
individuals, who had been drawn to Rhode-Island by the prospect of
enjoying liberty, and who would gladly have cast off all restraint, and
revelled in unbounded license.

Mr. Williams could not remain silent, while such sentiments were avowed.
He accordingly wrote the following letter to the town. It is, in every
respect, worthy of him. It presents, briefly, his principles of civil
and religious liberty, illustrated by a happy comparison, and carefully
guarded by limitations, exact, clear, and in harmony with the dictates
of reason and Scripture. The duty of civil obedience is maintained, as
decisively as Mr. Cotton himself could have wished; while the rights of
conscience are declared, with a precision, an enlarged comprehension of
mind, and a liberality of feeling, of which no other example could be
found at that early day. This letter is a sufficient reply to all the
allegations against Mr. Williams of a spirit hostile to the civil peace;
and it may be added, that the church which he founded at Providence, and
all the churches of the same faith which have since multiplied over the
land, have maintained precisely the same views of civil and religious
duties and rights:

“That ever I should speak or write a tittle that tends to such an
infinite liberty of conscience, is a mistake, and which I have ever
disclaimed and abhorred. To prevent such mistakes, I at present
shall only propose this case: There goes many a ship to sea, with
many hundred souls in one ship, whose weal and woe is common, and is
a true picture of a commonwealth, or a human combination or society.
It hath fallen out sometimes that both Papists and Protestants, Jews
and Turks, may be embarked in one ship; upon which supposal I
affirm, that all the liberty of conscience, that ever I pleaded for,
turns upon these two hinges: that none of the Papists, Protestants,
Jews or Turks, be forced to come to the ship’s prayers or worship,
nor compelled from their own particular prayers or worship, if they
practise any. I further add, that I never denied, that
notwithstanding this liberty, the commander of this ship ought to
command the ship’s course, yea, and also command that justice, peace
and sobriety be kept and practised, both among the seamen and all
the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their
service, or passengers to pay their freight; if any refuse to help,
in person or purse, towards the common charges or defence; if any
refuse to obey the common laws and orders of the ship, concerning
their common peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up
against their commanders and officers; if any should preach or write
that there ought to be no commanders or officers, because all are
equal in Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, nor laws nor
orders, no corrections nor punishments; I say, I never denied, but
in such cases, whatever is pretended, the commander or commanders
may judge, resist, compel and punish such transgressors, according
to their deserts and merits. This, if seriously and honestly minded,
may, if it so please the Father of Lights, let in some light to such
as willingly shut not their eyes.

“I remain studious of your common peace and liberty.

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

CHAPTER XXI.

Troubles in Rhode-Island—William Harris—Quakers—severe laws against
them in other colonies—conduct of Rhode-Island—Mr. Williams and Mr.
Harris—Mr. Williams not re-elected as President.

The following letter from Mr. Williams to Mr. Winthrop is chiefly on his
common theme, the Indians:

“To my honored, kind friend, Mr. Winthrop, at Pequod, these present.

“_Providence, the 26, 2, 55, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“Loving respects to you both presented, wishing you a joyful spring
after all your sad and gloomy, sharp and bitter winter blasts and
snows. Sir, one of your friends among the Narraganset sachems,
Mexham, sends this messenger unto me and prays me to write to you
for your help about a gun, which Kittatteash, Uncas his son, hath
lately taken from this bearer, Ahauansquatuck, out of his house at
Pawchauquet. He will not own any offence he gave him, but that he is
subject to Mexham, though possibly Kittatteash may allege other
causes, yea and true also. I doubt not of your loving eye on the
matter, as God shall please to give you opportunity. Sir, the last
first day divers of Boston merchants were with me, (about Sergeant
Holsey run from Boston hither, and a woman after him, who lays her
great belly to him.) They tell me, that by a bark come from
Virginia, they are informed of God’s merciful hand in the safe
arrival of Major Sedgwick and that fleet in the West of England, and
that General Penn was not yet gone out, but riding (all things
ready) in Torbay, waiting for the word; and by letters from good and
great friends in England, I understand there are like to be great
agitations in this country, if that fleet succeed.

“Sir, a hue and cry came to my hand lately from the Governor at
Boston, after two youths, one run from Captain Oliver, whom I
lighted on and have returned; another from James Bill, of Boston,
who I hear past through our town, and said he was bound for Pequod.
His name is James Pitnie; he hath on a blackish coat and hat, and a
pair of greenish breeches and green knit stockings. I would now
(with very many thanks) have returned you your Jesuit’s Maxims, but
I was loth to trust them in so wild a hand, nor some tidings which I
have from England. These merchants tell me, that Blake was gone
against the Duke of Legorne, and had sent for ten frigates more.
Sir, the God of peace fill your soul with that strange kind of peace
which passeth all understanding.

“So prays, Sir,
“Your unworthy R. W.”

Mr. Williams, being now invested with the office of President, watched
over the interests of the colony with his usual vigilance and zeal.
There was an urgent need of all his wisdom and firmness. A disposition
to abuse the liberty of conscience, was one of the evils which disturbed
the colony. Mr. William Harris “sent his writings to the main and to the
island, against all earthly powers, parliaments, laws, charters,
magistrates, prisons, punishments, rates, yea, against all kings and
princes, under the notion that the people should shortly cry out, ‘_No
lords, no masters_,’ and in open Court protested, before the whole
colony Assembly, that he would maintain his writings with his
blood.”[295]

The avowal of such sentiments might well alarm the Assembly, not only
for the peace of the colony, but for its character in the mother
country. They accordingly appointed a committee, says Mr. Backus, “to
deal with Mr. Harris.”

Although the several towns were re-united in the government, yet
individuals, who were royalists in principle, refused to obey it, and
created factions. Complaints were made through Mr. Clarke, to the
Protector; but Cromwell was too busy with concerns at home, to give much
attention to the colonies. He addressed the following letter to the
colony:[296]

“Gentlemen,

“Your agent here hath represented unto us some particulars
concerning your government, which you judge necessary to be settled
by us here, but by reason of other great and weighty affairs of the
commonwealth, we have been necessitated to defer the consideration
of them to further opportunity; in the mean time, we are willing to
let you know, that you were to proceed in your government according
to the tenor of your charter, formerly granted on that behalf,
taking care of the peace and safety of those plantations, that
neither through intestine commotions or foreign invasions, there do
arise any detriment or dishonor to their commonwealth or yourselves,
as far as you by your care and diligence can prevent. And as for the
things that are before us, they shall, as soon as the other
occasions will permit, receive a just and sufficient determination.
And so we bid you farewell, and rest,

“Your very loving friend,
“OLIVER, P.

“_March 29, 1655._

“To our trusty and well beloved the President, Assistants and
inhabitants of Rhode-Island, together with Narraganset Bay, in
New-England.”

At the session of the Assembly, June 28, an act was passed, founded on
the Protector’s letter, in which it was enacted, that “if any person or
persons be found, by the examination and judgment of the General Court
of Commissioners, to be a ring-leader or ring-leaders of factions or
divisions among us, he or they shall be sent over at his or their own
charges, as prisoners, to receive his or their trial or sentence, at the
pleasure of his Highness, and the Lords of his Council.”

This act proves, that the Assembly, while they recognized the rights of
conscience, were resolved to enforce civil obedience. It produced the
desired effect. Mr. Coddington soon after signed a public declaration of
his submission to the government of the colony, as now united, and he
and Mr. Dyre subscribed, in the presence of Mr. Williams and others, an
agreement, by which the long-standing feud between them was amicably
settled. Mr. Harris, also, felt the genial influence of the better
spirit which now prevailed, and in the words of Mr. Backus, “cried up
government and magistrates, as much as he had cried them down before.”

In November, 1655, Mr. Williams wrote the following letter to the
General Court of Massachusetts, in which he remonstrated, though in a
courteous tone, against the disorders which still continued at Warwick
and Pawtuxet, and which were countenanced, if not fomented, by
Massachusetts. We learn from this letter, and from other sources, that
the inhabitants of Rhode-Island were not allowed to procure arms and
ammunition from Boston, though they were exposed to attacks from the
savages, who were abundantly supplied from various quarters.[297] Mr.
Williams modestly alludes to his sufferings, when he attempted to pass
through Massachusetts, at his last embarkation for England. With all
these causes of complaint, the mildness of this letter must be deemed a
favorable evidence of a gentle and pacific temper. The solemn
confession, that it might be better for Rhode-Island to be placed under
the sway of Massachusetts, certainly does honor to his feelings,
whatever may be thought of its wisdom:

“Copy of a letter from Mr. Roger Williams, President of Providence
Plantations, to the General Court of Magistrates and Deputies
assembled, at Boston.

“_Providence, 15, 9mo. 55, (so called.)_

“Much honored Sirs,

“It is my humble and earnest petition unto God and you, that you may
so be pleased to exercise command over your own spirits, that you
may not mind myself nor the English of these parts (unworthy with
myself of your eye) but only that face of equity (English and
Christian) which I humbly hope may appear in these representations
following.

“First, may it please you to remember, that concerning the town of
Warwick, (in this colony) there lies a suit of £2000 damages against
you before his Highness and the Lords of his Council; I doubt not,
if you so please, but that (as Mr. Winslow and myself had well nigh
ordered it) some gentlemen from yourselves and some from Warwick,
deputed, may friendly and easily determine that affair between you.

“Secondly, the Indians which pretend your name at Warwick and
Pawtuxet, (and yet live as barbarously, if not more than any in the
country) please you to know their insolencies upon ourselves and
cattle (unto £20 damages per annum) are insufferable by English
spirits; and please you to give credence, that to all these they
pretend your name, and affirm that they dare not (for offending you)
agree with us, nor come to rules of righteous neighborhood, only
they know you favor us not and therefore send us for redress unto
you.

“Thirdly, concerning four English families at Pawtuxet, may it
please you to remember that two controversies they have long (under
your name) maintained with us, to a constant obstructing of all
order and authority amongst us.

“To our complaint about our lands, they lately have professed a
willingness to arbitrate, but to obey his Highness’ authority in
this charter, they say, they dare not for your sakes, though they
live not by your laws, nor bear your common charges, nor ours, but
evade both under color of your authority.

“Honored Sirs, I cordially profess it before the Most High, that I
believe it, if not only they but ourselves and all the whole
country, by joint consent, were subject to your government, it might
be a rich mercy; but as things yet are, and since it pleased first
the Parliament, and then the Lord Admiral and Committee for Foreign
Plantations, and since the Council of State, and lastly the Lord
Protector and his Council, to continue us as a distinct colony, yea,
and since it hath pleased yourselves, by public letters and
references to us from your public courts, to own the authority of
his Highness amongst us; be pleased to consider how unsuitable it is
for yourselves (if these families at Pawtuxet plead truth) to be the
obstructers of all orderly proceedings amongst us; for I humbly
appeal to your own wisdom and experience, how unlikely it is for a
people to be compelled to order and common charges, when others in
their bosoms, are by such (seeming) partiality exempted from both.

“And, therefore, (lastly) be pleased to know, that there are (upon
the point) but two families which are so obstructive and destructive
to an equal proceeding of civil order amongst us; for one of these
four families, Stephen Arnold, desires to be uniform with us; a
second, Zacharie Rhodes, being in the way of dipping is
(potentially) banished by you. Only William Arnold and William
Carpenter, (very far, also, in religion, from you, if you knew all)
they have some color, yet in a late conference, they all plead that
all the obstacle is their offending of yourselves.

“Fourthly, whereas, (I humbly conceive) with the people of this
colony your commerce is as great as with any in the country, and our
dangers (being a frontier people to the barbarians) are greater than
those of other colonies, and the ill consequences to yourselves
would be not a few nor small, and to the whole land, were we first
massacred or mastered by them. I pray your equal and favorable
reflection upon that your law, which prohibits us to buy of you all
means of our necessary defence of our lives and families, (yea in
this most bloody and massacreing time.)

“We are informed that tickets have rarely been denied to any English
of the country; yea, the barbarians (though notorious in lies) if
they profess subjection, they are furnished; only ourselves, by
former and later denial, seem to be devoted to the Indian shambles
and massacres.

“The barbarians all the land over, are filled with artillery and
ammunition from the Dutch, openly and horridly, and from all the
English over the country, (by stealth.) I know they abound so
wonderfully, that their activity and insolence is grown so high that
they daily consult, and hope, and threaten to render us slaves, as
they long since (and now most horribly) have made the Dutch.

“For myself (as through God’s goodness) I have refused the gain of
thousands by such a murderous trade, and think no law yet extant,
amongst yourselves or us, secure enough against such villany; so am
I loth to see so many hundreds (if not some thousands) in this
colony, destroyed like fools and beasts without resistance. I grieve
that so much blood should cry against yourselves, yea, and I grieve
that (at this instant by these ships) this cry and the premises
should now trouble his Highness and his Council. For the seasonable
preventing of which, is this humble address presented to your
wisdom, by him who desires to be

“Your unfeigned and faithful servant,
“ROGER WILLIAMS,
“_Of Providence Plantations, President_.

“Hon. Sirs, since my letter, it comes into my heart to pray your
leave to add a word as to myself, viz. at my last return from
England I presented your then honored Governor, Mr. Bellingham, with
an order of the Lords of the Council, for my free taking ship or
landing at your ports, unto which it pleased Mr. Bellingham to send
me his assent in writing; I humbly crave the recording of it by
yourselves, lest forgetfulness hereafter, again put me upon such
distresses as, God knows, I suffered when I last past through your
colony to our native country.”

The following letter to Mr. Winthrop, belongs to this period:

“To his much honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at Pequod or
elsewhere, these presents.

“_Providence, 21, 12, 55–6, (so called.)_

“Sir,

“This opportunity makes me venture this salutation, though we hear
question of your being at Pequod. These friends can say more of
affairs than I can write. I have letters from England of proceedings
there, which yet are not come; some I have received, which tell me,
that the Lord hath yet created peace, although the sword is yet
forced (by garrisons) to enforce it. I cannot hear of open wars with
France, but only with Spain, and that the prosecution of that West
India expedition is still with all possible vigor on both sides
intended. This diversion against the Spaniards hath turned the face
and thoughts of many English; so that the saying of thousands now
is, crown the Protector with gold, though the sullen yet cry, crown
him with thorns. The former two or three years with plenty
unthankfully received in England; the Lord sent abundance of waters
this last summer, which spoiled their corn over most parts of the
land. Sir Henry Vane being retired to his own private, in
Lincolnshire, hath now published his observations as to religion; he
hath sent me one of his books, (though yet at Boston.) His father is
dead, and the inheritance falls to him, and 10 or 12,000 more than
should if his father had lived but a month longer; but though his
father cast him off, yet he hath not lost in temporals, by being
cast off for God. Our acquaintance, Major Sedgwick, is said to be
successor to unsuccessful Venables, cast into the tower. Your
brother Stephen succeeds Major General Harrison. The Pope endeavors
the uniting of all his slaves for his guard, fearing the heretics.
The Lord knows whether Archer (upon the reign of Christ) said true,
‘that yet the Pope, before his downfall, must recover England; and
the protestant countries revolted from him.’ Sir, we are sure all
flesh is grass, and only the word of the Lord endures forever. Sir,
you once kindly intended to quench a fire between Mr. Coddington and
others, but now it is come to public trial. We hear the Dutch fire
is not quenched. I fear this year will be stormy; only may the most
gracious Lord by all drive and draw us to himself, in whom, Sir, I
desire to be ever

“Yours, R. W.”

The letter of November 15, to the General Court of Massachusetts, did
not produce any favorable change in her measures. Mr. Williams
afterwards wrote to the Governor, Mr. Endicott, who invited him to visit
Boston. The following address to the General Court was prepared, in
which some of the same topics are again touched:

“Copy of a letter from Providence Plantations to the General Court
of the Massachusetts.

“_Providence, 12, 3, 56, (so called.)_

“May it please this much honored Assembly to remember, that, as an
officer and in the name of Providence colony, I presented you with
our humble requests before winter, unto which not receiving answer,
I addressed myself this spring, to your much honored Governor, who
was pleased to advise our sending of some of Providence to your
Assembly.

“Honored Sirs, our first request (in short) was and is, for your
favorable consideration of the long and lamentable condition of the
town of Warwick, which hath been thus: they are so dangerously and
so vexatiously intermingled with the barbarians, that I have long
admired the wonderful power of God in restraining and preventing
very great fires of mutual slaughters, breaking forth between them.

“Your wisdoms know the inhuman insultations of these wild creatures,
and you may be pleased, also, to imagine, that they have not been
sparing of your name as the patron of all their wickedness against
our English men, women, and children, and cattle to the yearly
damage of 60, 80 and 100 pounds.

“The remedy is (under God) only your pleasure, that Pumham shall
come to an agreement with the town or colony, and that some
convenient way and time be set for their removal.

“And that your wisdom may see just grounds for such your
willingness, be pleased to be informed of a reality of a solemn
covenant between this town of Warwick and Pumham, unto which,
notwithstanding that he pleads his being drawn to it by the awe of
his superior sachems, yet I humbly offer that what was done, was
according to the law and tenor of the natives, (I take it) in all
New-England and America, viz. that the inferior sachems and subjects
shall plant and remove at the pleasure of the highest and supreme
sachems, and I humbly conceive that it pleaseth the Most High and
Only Wise to make use of such a bond of authority over them, without
which, they could not long subsist in human society, in this wild
condition wherein they are.

“2. Please you not to be insensible of the slippery and dangerous
condition of this their intermingled cohabitation. I am humbly
confident, that all the English towns and plantations in all
New-England, put together, suffer not such molestation from the
natives, as this one town and people. It is so great and so
oppressive, that I have daily feared the tidings of some public fire
and mischief.

“3. Be pleased to review this copy from the Lord Admiral, and that
this English town of Warwick should proceed, also that if any of
yours were there planted, they should, by your authority, be
removed. And we humbly conceive, that if the English (whose removes
are difficult and chargeable) how much more these wild ones, who
remove with little more trouble and damage than the wild beasts of
the wilderness.

“4. Please you to be informed, that this small neck (wherein they
keep and mingle fields with the English) is a very den of
wickedness, where they not only practise the horrid barbarisms of
all kind of whoredoms, idolatries, conjurations, but living without
all exercise of actual authority, and getting store of liquors (to
our grief) there is a confluence and rendezvous of all the wildest
and most licentious natives and practices of the whole country.

“5. Beside satisfaction to Pumham and the former inhabitants of this
neck, there is a competitor who must also be satisfied; another
sachem, one Nawwushawsuck, who (living with Ousamaquin) lays claim
to this place, and are at daily feud with Pumham (to my knowledge)
about the title and lordship of it. Hostility is daily threatened.

“Our second request concerns two or three English families at
Pawtuxet, who, before our charter, subjected themselves unto your
jurisdiction. It is true, there are many grievances between many of
the town of Providence and them, and these, I humbly conceive, may
best be ordered to be composed by reference.

“But (2.) we have formerly made our addresses and now do, for your
prudent removal of this great and long obstruction to all due order
and regular proceedings among us, viz. the refusal of these families
(pretending your name) to conform with us unto his Highness’
authority amongst us.

“3. Your wisdom experimentally knows how apt men are to stumble at
such an exemption from all duties and services, from all rates and
charges, either with yourselves or us.

“4. This obstruction is so great and constant, that (without your
prudent removal of it) it is impossible that either his Highness or
yourselves can expect such satisfaction and observance from us as we
desire to render.

“Lastly, as before, we promised satisfaction to the natives at
Warwick, (and shall all possible ways endeavor their content) so we
humbly offer, as to these our countrymen, First, as to grievances
depending, that references may settle them. Secondly, for the
future, the way will be open for their enjoyment of votes and
privileges of choosing or being chosen, to any office in town or
colony.

“Our third request is, for your favorable leave to us to buy of your
merchants, four or more barrels of powder yearly, with some
convenient proportion of artillery, considering our hazardous
frontier situation to these barbarians, who, from their abundant
supply of arms from the Dutch, (and perfidious English, all the land
over) are full of our artillery, which hath rendered them
exceedingly insolent, provoking and threatening, especially the
inlanders, which have their supply from the fort of Aurania. We have
been esteemed by some of you, as your thorny hedge on this side of
you; if so, yet a hedge to be maintained; if as out sentinels, yet
not to be discouraged. And if there be a jealousy of the ill use of
such a favor, please you to be assured that a credible person in
each town shall have the disposal and managing of such supplies,
according to the true intent and purpose.

“For the obtaining of these, our just and necessary petitions, we
have no inducement or hope from ourselves, only we pray you to
remember, that the matters prayed, are no way dishonorable to
yourselves, and we humbly conceive, do greatly promote the honor and
pleasure of his Highness, yea, of the Most High, also; and lastly,
such kindnesses will be obligations on us to study to declare
ourselves, upon all occasions,

“Your most humble and faithful servants,
“ROGER WILLIAMS, _President_.

“In the name, and by the appointment, of Providence colony.

“Honored Gentlemen,

“I pray your patience to one word relating to myself, only. Whereas,
upon an order from the Lords of his Highness’ Council, for my future
security in taking ships and landing in your ports, it pleased your
honored then Governor, Mr. Bellingham, to obey that order under his
own hand, I now pray the confirmation of it, from one word of this
honored Court assembled.”

A few days after, Mr. Williams addressed the following letter to the
General Court. It bears the unwonted date of Boston, and it breathes a
gratified feeling:

“Copy of a letter from Mr. Roger Williams, to the General Court.

“_Boston, 17, 3, 56, (so called.)_

“May it please this much honored Assembly,

“I do humbly hope, that your own breasts and the public, shall reap
the fruit of your great gentleness and patience in these barbarous
transactions, and I do cordially promise, for myself, (and all I can
persuade with) to study gratitude and faithfulness to your service.
I have debated with Pumham (and some of the natives helping with me)
who shewed him the vexatious life he lives in, your great respect
and care toward him, by which he may abundantly mend himself and be
united in some convenience unto their neighborhood and your service.
But I humbly conceive, in his case, that _dies et quies sanant
hominem_, and he must have some longer breathing, for he tells me
that the appearance of this competitor Nawwushawsuck, hath stabbed
him. May you, therefore, please to grant him and me some longer time
of conference, either until your next general assembling, or longer,
at your pleasure.

“My other requests I shall not be importune to press on your great
affairs, but shall make my address unto your Secretary, to receive,
by him, your pleasure.

“Honored gentlemen,

“Your humble and thankful servant, R. W.”

This year is made remarkable by the arrival at Boston, of several
persons, of the new sect called Quakers.[298] They were imprisoned and
banished. The books which they brought with them were seized and burnt.
Severe laws were enacted to exclude them from the Commonwealth. In
October, 1656, (says Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 181,) “An act passed, laying
a penalty of one hundred pounds upon the master of any vessel who should
bring a known Quaker into any part of the colony, and requiring him to
give security to carry them back again; that the Quaker should be
immediately sent to the house of correction, and whipped twenty stripes,
and afterwards kept to hard labor until transportation. They also laid a
penalty of five pounds for importing, and the like for dispersing,
Quaker books, and severe penalties for defending their heretical
opinions. And the next year, an additional law was made, by which all
persons were subjected to the penalty of forty shillings for every
hour’s entertainment given to any known Quaker; and any Quaker, after
the first conviction, if a man, was to lose one ear, and the second time
the other; a woman, each time to be severely whipped, and the third
time, men or women, to have their tongues bored through with a red hot
iron, and every Quaker, who should become such in the colony, was
subjected to the like punishments. In May, 1658, a penalty of ten
shillings was laid on every person present at a Quaker meeting, and five
pounds upon every one speaking at such a meeting. Notwithstanding all
this severity, the number of Quakers, as might well have been expected,
increasing rather than diminishing, in October following, a further law
was made for punishing with death all Quakers, who should return into
the jurisdiction after banishment.”

By this sanguinary law, which passed the Court by a majority of one vote
only, four persons were afterwards executed, and a large number were
imprisoned, whipped, fined and banished, until an order from the King,
Charles II. in 1661, put an end to these proceedings. The conduct of
some of these persons was scandalous,[299] and deserved punishment, as
offences against civil order and decency; but nothing can justify the
severity with which some of them were treated. The impolicy of
persecution was fully displayed on this occasion; for the Quakers
multiplied, in proportion as they were threatened and punished.

The other united colonies passed severe laws against the Quakers; and
they endeavored to prevail on Rhode-Island to unite in this general
persecution. But she remained true to her principles. The General
Assembly, which met at Portsmouth, March 13, 1657, returned an answer to
the commissioners of the united colonies, in which they held this
language:

“Whereas freedom of different consciences to be protected from
enforcements, was the principal ground of our charter, both with respect
to our humble suit for it, as also to the true intent of the honorable
and renowned Parliament of England, in granting of the same to us, which
freedom we still prize, as the greatest happiness that men can possess
in this world, therefore we shall, for the preservation of our civil
peace and order, the more especially take notice that those people, and
any others that are here, or shall come among us, be impartially
required, and to our utmost constrained, to perform all civil duties
requisite. And in case they refuse it, we resolve to make use of the
first opportunity to inform our agent, residing in England.”

The commissioners were not satisfied with this reply, and the next
autumn they wrote again to the Assembly. An answer was returned, dated
October 13, 1657, which, while it expresses disapprobation of the
conduct of some of the Quakers, unfolds the Rhode-Island doctrine
concerning liberty of conscience, and contains some excellent remarks on
the good effects of toleration in allaying sectarian zeal:

“As concerning these Quakers (so called) which are now among us, we have
no law among us whereby to punish any for only declaring by words, &c.
their minds and understandings concerning the things and ways of God, as
to salvation and an eternal condition. And we find, moreover, that in
those places where these people, aforesaid, in this colony, are most of
all suffered to declare themselves freely, and are only opposed by
arguments in discourse, there they least of all desire to come; and we
are informed, that they begin to loathe this place, for that they are
not opposed by the civil authority, but with all patience and meekness
are suffered to say over their pretended revelations and admonitions,
nor are they like or able to gain many here to their way. And surely we
find, that they delight to be persecuted by the civil powers, and when
they are so, they are like to gain more by the conceit of their patient
sufferings, than by consent to their pernicious sayings.” The letter
then expressed a belief, that their doctrines were dangerous to civil
government, and promised, that at the next General Assembly, the subject
should be considered, and proper measures adopted to prevent any “bad
effects of their doctrines and endeavors.”[300]

This letter was not suited to the prevailing opinions of that day. The
other colonies were incensed by the inflexible adherence of Rhode-Island
to the principles of her founder. The commissioners again wrote to the
General Assembly, virtually requiring Rhode-Island to unite in a general
persecution, under the penalty of being herself put under the ban of an
excommunication from all commercial intercourse with the other colonies.
This attempt to force Rhode-Island into measures subversive of her own
institutions, and abhorrent to her feelings, was resisted as resolutely
as were the threats of the British ministry by a subsequent generation.
Rhode-Island adopted the only course then left to her. She appealed to
the government in England, for protection, while she pursued her settled
policy. The following letter to Mr. Clarke, the agent of the colony in
England, throws much light on her condition and relations at that time.
It was written by a Committee appointed by the General Assembly, at
Warwick, November 5, 1658:[301]

“Worthy Sir, and trusty friend, Mr. Clarke,

“We have found, not only your ability and diligence, but also your
love and care to be such concerning the welfare and prosperity of
this colony, since you have been intrusted with the more public
affairs thereof, surpassing the no small benefit which we had of
your presence here at home, that we in all straits and incumbrances,
are emboldened to repair unto you, for further and continued care,
counsel and help, finding that your solid and christian demeanor
hath gotten no small interest in the hearts of our superiors, those
noble and worthy senators, with whom you had to do in our behalf, as
it hath constantly appeared in our addresses made unto them; we have
by good and comfortable proofs found, having plentiful experience
thereof. The last year we had laden you with much employment, which
we were then put upon by reason of some too refractory among
ourselves, wherein we appealed unto you for advice, for the more
public manifestation of it, with respect to our superiors; but our
intelligence fell short in that great loss of the ship, which we
concluded here to be cast away. We have now a new occasion given us
by an old spirit, with respect to the colonies round about us, who
seem to be offended with us, because a sort of people, called by the
name of Quakers, who are come amongst us, who have raised up divers
who at present seem to be of their spirit, whereat the colonies
about us seem to be offended with us, being the said people have
their liberty with us, are entertained in our houses, or any of our
assemblies; and for the present, we have found no just cause to
charge them with the breach of the civil peace; only they are
constantly going forth amongst them about us, and vex and trouble
them about their religion and spiritual state, though they return
with many a foul scar in their bodies for the same. And the offence
our neighbors take against us, is because we take not some course
against the said people, either to expel them from amongst us, or
take such courses against them as themselves do, who are in fear
lest their religion should be corrupted by them. Concerning which
displeasure that they seem to take, it was expressed to us in a
solemn letter, written by the commissioners of the united colonies
at their sitting, as though they would either bring us in to act
according to their scantling, or else take some course to do us a
greater displeasure. A copy of which letter we have herewith sent
unto you, wherein you may perceive how they express themselves; as
also we have herewith sent our present answer unto them, to give you
what light we may in the matter. There is one clause in the letter,
which plainly implies a threat, though courtly expressed, as their
manner is; which we gather to be this, that themselves (as we
construe it) have been much awed in point of subjection to the state
of England, lest in case they should decline, England might prohibit
all trade with them, both in point of exportation and importation of
any commodities, which were a host sufficiently prevalent to subdue
New England, not being able to subsist:—even so they seem to
threaten us, by cutting us off from all commerce and trade with
them, and thereby to disable us from any comfortable subsistence,
being that the concourse of shipping, and all other sorts of
commodities, are universally conversant among themselves: as also
knowing that ourselves are not in a capacity to send out shipping of
ourselves, which in great measure is occasioned _by their oppressing
us_, as yourself well knows:—as in many other respects, so in this
for one, that we cannot have any thing from them, for the supply of
our necessities, but in effect they make the price, both of their
commodities and our own. Also, because we have no English coin, but
only that which passeth among these barbarians, and such commodities
as are raised by the labor of our hands, as corn, cattle, tobacco,
&c. to make payment in, which they will have at their own rates, or
else not deal with us; whereby though they gain extraordinarily by
us, yet, for the safeguard of their religion, they may seem to
neglect themselves in that respect; for _what will not men do for
their God_? Sir, this is our earnest and pressing request unto you
in this matter, that as you may perceive by our answer unto the
united colonies, we fly as our refuge in all civil respects to his
Highness and honorable Council, as not being subject to any other in
matters of our civil state, so may it please you to have an eye and
ear open, in case our adversaries should speak, to undermine us in
our privileges granted unto us, and plead our cause in such sort, as
that we may not be compelled to exercise any civil power over men’s
consciences, so long as human orders in point of civility are not
corrupted and violated, which our neighbors about us do frequently
practise, whereof many of us have absolute experience, and judge it
to be no less than a point of ABSOLUTE CRUELTY.

“JOHN SANFORD,
_Clerk of Assembly_.”

The concluding sentences of this letter are worthy of special note, as
showing, that the rulers of Rhode-Island carefully distinguished between
the rights of conscience and the duty of obedience to the laws which
guard the civil peace. They permitted no disorderly license, and if any
persons had been guilty, in Rhode-Island, of the acts which some
individuals, calling themselves Quakers, practised in Massachusetts,
they would have been punished. Mr. Williams, in his subsequent
controversy with George Fox, expressed his approbation of the punishment
of certain females in Massachusetts, for their shameless conduct,
affirming it to be a perversion of terms to call the punishment of such
actions, persecution.

We must now return to Mr. Williams. He held the office of President two
years. On the 1st of February, 1657–8, he issued a warrant against Mr.
William Harris, for the alleged crime of opposing the Protector’s
government. The warrant ordered his arrest and imprisonment, for the
purpose of sending him to England, in accordance, probably, with the act
of June, 1655. How far this strong measure was deserved by the conduct
of Mr. Harris, we cannot now determine.[302] It has been inferred that
it was not sustained by public opinion, because, at the next election,
Mr. Williams was superseded, as President, by Mr. Benedict Arnold. It is
not improbable, that he was urged too far, by zeal to uphold the charter
and the Protector’s authority, and perhaps by personal hostility towards
Mr. Harris, between whom and himself there was, for many years, a very
acrimonious feud.[303] There is, however, no very conclusive evidence,
that Mr. Williams’ conduct, in this case, was generally disapproved. He
occupied a seat in the General Assembly, at intervals, for several
years, both as an assistant, and as a representative from Providence. He
was often chosen on important committees, and he continued, till his
death, to serve the public, in various ways, with ability and patriotic
zeal.[304]

CHAPTER XXII.

Death of Cromwell—his character—Richard Cromwell succeeds—Restoration
of Charles II.—Act of Uniformity, and ejection of the
Non-conformists—Affairs in Rhode-Island—Indian deed—letters to Mr.
Winthrop.

The Protector Cromwell died in September, 1658. This wonderful man
raised himself, from a private station, to the supreme power, and
fulfilled his high functions with an ability and energy, which few
occupants of a throne have ever displayed. He has shared the usual fate
of those men, whose conduct and principles have placed them apart from
the mass of mankind. No other man was ever in a position, which exposed
him to the hatred and misrepresentation of so many parties. The
royalists heaped on him unmeasured obloquy as a usurper. The High Church
party denounced him as a foe to the hierarchy. The Presbyterians
disliked and opposed him, as a friend of toleration. The
ultra-republicans reproached him for his ambition, because he did not
think England, in her existing condition, to be capable of a free
republican government, and therefore retained in his hands the power
which he believed to be indispensable to the peace of the state. The
irreligious, of all parties, scoffed at him as a hypocrite and a
fanatic, though the charge is somewhat inconsistent with itself.[305]

That Cromwell had faults, may be freely acknowledged, by his warmest
friends. That his course was always wise and justifiable, cannot be
maintained; but it may be doubted, whether, if the circumstances of that
stormy and critical period in which he lived were fairly weighed, and
his character and conduct were sifted, with a candid spirit, it would
not be found, that Cromwell deserves more of the applause of the friends
of liberty and religion, than of their censures. It is certain, that his
accusers yield to him the praise of qualities, which it is difficult to
reconcile with the crimes that they impute to him.

It is surprising to hear, from American writers, reproaches against
Cromwell as a “usurper.”[306] This language is not strange from the lips
of a royalist, or a High Church partisan, in England; but from an
American, it is inconsistent, and unworthy of his position as a citizen
of a great and free country, where public opinion ought to be decisively
and steadily in favor of republican principles, and ought thus to form
an august tribunal, whose verdict should be felt and respected
throughout the earth.

An American, surely, can feel no respect for hereditary titles. In his
view, Cromwell would have had a clear right to the throne, if the people
had chosen to give him the crown; and there is quite as much evidence,
that the great body of the people of England were satisfied with the
government of Cromwell, as that they were content with that of Charles
II. If by usurpation is meant a violation of the Constitution, it may be
replied, that the Constitution was already broken. The King had trampled
on it, and the Long Parliament had governed the kingdom for years with
an entire disregard of the Constitution. The country was in a state of
anarchy, and it was a blessing to England that Cromwell seized the
reins, and controlled the fierce parties who convulsed the nation.
Napoleon, though his subsequent course was unjustifiable, did a good
service to France, when he overthrew the detestable demagogues who had
deluged her with blood. If our peerless Washington had found this
country, in 1784, in the condition in which England was in 1653, and
France in 1800, it would have been his duty, as a patriot and a
philanthropist, to employ the power at his control for the preservation
of order, and the restoration of public happiness.

It is certain, that the great ends of government,—peace and prosperity
at home and respect abroad,—were enjoyed under Cromwell’s sway, to a far
higher degree than they were under most of the British monarchs,
preceding the revolution. Even Hume, who was an infidel and a tory, and
of course hated Cromwell, acknowledges, that the distracted state of
England, and the mutual rancor of its various factions, rendered an
energetic government indispensable, and would have furnished a
reasonable excuse for what he calls the “temporary usurpation” of
Cromwell, if the Protector had been guilty of no other crime.[307] The
excellent Baxter, who carried his loyalty to the preposterous length of
opposing Cromwell, under whom he enjoyed perfect toleration, and
striving to restore the “legitimate” King, with the almost certain
prospect of being persecuted and silenced, confesses, that religion
flourished, under the Protector, in a degree before unknown. “I do not
believe,” he says,[308] “that ever England had so able and faithful a
ministry since it was a nation, as it hath at this day; and I fear, that
few nations on earth, if any, have the like. Sure I am, the change is so
great, within these twelve years, that it is one of the greatest joys
that ever I had in the world to behold it. O how many congregations are
now plainly and frequently taught, that lived then in great obscurity.
How many able, faithful men are there now in a county, in comparison of
what were then.” And yet Baxter labored and prayed for the restoration
of Charles, under whom Baxter himself and two thousand more of these
faithful ministers were speedily silenced.

Cromwell has been accused of hypocrisy, but this charge, especially when
made by such men as Hume, is unworthy of credit. Baxter, who was a good
judge of piety, does not accuse Cromwell of hypocrisy, but acknowledges
that he was a pious man, though misled by ambition. “Both piety and
ambition,” he says, “concurred in countenancing all whom he thought
godly, of what sect soever. Piety pleaded for them as godly, and charity
as men, and ambition secretly told him what use he might make of them.
He meant well in all this at the beginning, and thought he did all for
the safety of the godly, and the public good, but not without an eye to
himself.”[309] As to his ambition, he probably had a sufficient share of
it; but he refused the crown when it was urged on him, with many
plausible arguments, by Parliament, and when, as Hume intimates, a large
part of the nation would have acquiesced. His personal and domestic
habits are acknowledged, by all parties, to have been pure and amiable.
His court was perhaps the most moral and decorous, that England has ever
seen.

The Protector was a friend of toleration, and this single trait in his
character is sufficient to entitle his memory to respect. He was not
entirely consistent, it is true, but no public man, at that day, except
Roger Williams, was so. Cromwell was surrounded with difficulties; and
the “Instrument of Government,” under which he held the Protectorship,
excluded Episcopalians and Catholics from the enjoyment of that
religious liberty which it granted to all others.[310] But the spirit of
the Protector was more tolerant than the laws, and he often connived at
the meetings of the Episcopalians. A man, who, at that time, and in his
post, could act, so far as he did, on the principle of an equitable
toleration of all religious opinions, could not have been either a
fanatic or a despot.[311]

Roger Williams was a friend of Cromwell. It has been supposed, that he
was allied to him by birth. He was certainly drawn to him by a communion
of spirit, on the subject of religious liberty. In his letters, he
repeatedly alludes to familiar conversations with Cromwell. The
friendship of Milton and Roger Williams may be viewed as an honorable
testimony to the character of the Protector. It is difficult to believe,
that these men would have yielded their confidence and esteem to a
hypocrite, either in religion or in politics. It is not more easy to
believe, that such a man as Cromwell has been described, would have
admitted men so sagacious and upright as Milton and Williams, to a close
scrutiny of his actions, or that by all the cunning which has been
ascribed to him he could have deceived them.

These three men, in fact, resembled each other, in their character, in
their opinions, and in the treatment which they received. Each was
misunderstood; each has suffered obloquy, and each is receiving, from
the calm and enlightened judgment of the present age, that just
sentence, which, sooner or later, will reward him, who aims to advance
the happiness of men, and who perseveres, through evil and good report,
in upholding the persecuted cause of truth and freedom.[312]

Cromwell was quietly succeeded, as Protector, by his son Richard, a
proof, that the nation were not very much dissatisfied with Cromwell’s
sway. But Richard possessed neither the talents, nor the ambition of his
father.[313] The aspiring and factious men whom Oliver held in check,
soon forced his son to retire from his burthensome and difficult office.
A stormy period succeeded, during which the rival parties struggled for
victory. At length, General Monk, obtaining the command of a powerful
army, restored the King, Charles II. who entered London in triumph, May
29, 1660. The nation received him with apparent joy, being weary of the
disorders which preceded and followed the energetic government of
Cromwell. The royalists, among whom were the Episcopalians, welcomed the
King with delight. The Presbyterians, who had disliked Cromwell, were
also zealous in restoring Charles, with the expectation that their
system would be continued as the national religion. They were so eager
to merit the gratitude of the King, that they exacted of him no
conditions, but were satisfied with the assurance, that he would grant
liberty to all _tender consciences_; a promise, which he afterwards
found it very easy to violate, by insisting, that all consciences which
did not agree with his views, were not tender, but criminally obstinate.
The efforts of the Presbyterians to obtain a compromise with the
Episcopalians, by which they might be comprehended in the Established
Church, failed.[314] The bishops would not consent to any alterations of
the liturgy. The Presbyterians would not listen to the King’s
proposition of toleration to other denominations, by which he meant to
favor the Papists, but which the Presbyterians rejected, more from a
dread of Popery, we may hope, than from their general aversion to
toleration. The Act of Uniformity was passed, and took effect, August
24, 1662. Two thousand of the best ministers in England were ejected
from their livings, because they could not submit to the rigorous
requirements of the act. Dreadful distress to them and to their families
was the natural consequence. The interests of religion suffered
incalculable injury, by the loss of these ministers, and by the
character of many of their successors.

King Charles II. was proclaimed in Rhode-Island, October 19, 1660. A new
commission was sent to Mr. Clarke, and he continued his exertions to
procure a new charter for the colony. Various sums of money were voted,
at different times, to be sent to Mr. Clarke.[315]

At Providence, there seems to have been a spirit among some of the
inhabitants, which disturbed the peace of Mr. Williams. Whether they
were envious of his influence, or impatient under the restraints which
he steadily advocated, with the whole weight of his authority, does not
now appear. But it is certain, that parties were formed, which, for many
years, greatly interrupted the tranquillity of the town; and it was
thought necessary, in 1669, to send a Committee of the General Assembly,
to settle the difficulties. The boundaries of the town were a fruitful
cause of contention, and involved the inhabitants in disputes, which
were not adjusted till long after the death of Mr. Williams and of most
of his contemporaries. He complains, in a letter, dated July, 1669, that
they had “four sorts of bounds at least.” He says: “some (that never did
this town nor colony good, and it is feared never will) cried out, when
Roger Williams had laid himself down as a stone in the dust for after
comers to step on in town and colony, _Who is Roger Williams?_ We know
the Indians and the sachems as well as he. We will trust Roger Williams
no longer. We will have our bounds confirmed us under the sachems’ hands
before us.”[316]

In August, 1659, the following deed was procured from the Narraganset
sachems:

“Deed of Scattape and Quoquagunewett, son of Mexham, son of
Qunnouone, called by the English Canonicus, uncle to Miantinomo, who
made a league of peace with the English in the Massachusetts, for
all the Indians in these parts, in the time of the Pequod war with
the English, this our grandfather and cousin, these sachems, granted
to Roger Williams, agent for the men of Providence and the men of
Pawtuxet, a tract of land, reaching from Pawtucket river to Pawtuxet
river. All the lands between the streams of those rivers, and up
these streams without limits, for their use of cattle, did they
grant to the men aforesaid, the men of Providence and the men of
Pawtuxet:—to whom we establish the lands aforesaid, up the streams
of those rivers, and confirm, without limit, or as far as the men
abovesaid, of Providence and of Pawtuxet, shall judge convenient for
their use of cattle, as feeding, ploughing, planting all manner of
plantations whatsoever; we say, all the lands, according to the
limits abovesaid, we establish and confirm to the men of Providence
and the men of Pawtuxet, according to their joint agreement, in the
most absolute tenure of fee simple, to them, their heirs and assigns
forever. And hereby bind ourselves, our heirs and assigns, not to
molest or trouble the men abovesaid, in the full enjoyment of the
land abovesaid. Nevertheless, it shall not be lawful for the men
abovesaid to remove the Indians that are up in the country, from
their fields, without the Indians’ content and consent; nor shall it
be lawful for any of those Indians to sell any of the lands
abovesaid to any, only it shall be lawful for them to take of the
men of Providence and the men of Pawtuxet, according to their joint
agreements, satisfaction for their removing. And, as we have
established to the men abovesaid the land and deed granted by our
grandfather and cousin, so do we now, also, confirm the grant of
confirmation by our cousin, Cursackquanth, Caufanequanutte, and
Kenerselath.

“Dated this first day of December, 1659.

“The mark of (_a tomahawk_) SCUTTAPE,
“The mark of (_bow and arrow_) QUOQUAGUNEWETT.

“Signed and delivered, in presence of

NAUTEMOREAW,—his mark,
RICHARD SMITH,
RICHARD SMITH, JR.,
JAMES SMITH,
WILLIAM DYRE.

“Richard Smith, and Richard Smith, jun. swore, that this deed was
explained before it was signed.” April 28, 1660, Acaquaomitt, son of
Quoquagunewett, confirmed the preceding deed.

This deed was, it appears, written by Mr. William Harris. This fact
accounts for its phraseology. It was asserted by Mr. Williams and
others, that the sachems did not understand its full import, when they
signed it. It was procured on the ground, that Mr. Williams’ deed from
the sachems conveyed a life estate only to him, and consequently his
deed to the purchasers could convey no other title. This deed, also,
greatly extended the original bounds, and thus gratified those who had
contended, that the phrase “up streams without limits,” in the sachems’
deed to Mr. Williams, gave a title to the lands lying along the rivers
Pawtuxet and Pawtucket, up to their sources. This construction was
always resisted by Roger Williams, as false, and as injurious to the
natives. The new deed was disapproved by himself and others.[317] It
appears to have been procured in no friendly spirit towards himself. It
implied that he had acted improperly, in taking the deed in his own
name, and it calls him the “agent of the men of Providence and the men
of Pawtuxet.” But it has, we trust, been satisfactorily shown, in
preceding pages, that Mr. Williams was the rightful proprietor of the
original grant, and was under no obligation to divide the land among his
fellow-colonists.

The following letters to Mr. Winthrop, touch on several interesting
topics:

“To my honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, Governor, at
Hartford, on Connecticut.

“_Providence, 6, 12, 59–60._

“Sir,

“Loving respects to yourself and Mrs. Winthrop, &c. Your loving
lines in this cold, dead season, were as a cup of your Connecticut
cider, which we are glad to hear abounds with you, or of that
western metheglin, which you and I have drunk at Bristol together,
&c. Indeed, it is the wonderful power and goodness of God, that we
are preserved in our dispersions among these wild, barbarous
wretches. I hear not of their excursions this winter, and should
rejoice if, as you hint, Uncas and his brother were removed to
Long-Island, or any where, or else, as I have sometimes motioned, a
truce for some good term of years might be obtained amongst them.
But how should we expect that the streams of blood should stop among
the dregs of mankind, when the bloody issues flow so fresh and
fearfully among the finest and most refined sons of men and sons of
God. We have not only heard of the four northern nations, Dania,
Swedia, Anglia, and Belgium, all Protestants, (heretics and dogs,
with the Pope, &c.) last year tearing and devouring one another, in
the narrow straits and eminent high passages and turns of the sea
and world; but we also have a sound of the Presbyterians’ rage new
burst out into flames of war from Scotland, and the independent and
sectarian army provoked again to new appeals to God, and engagements
against them. Thus, while this last Pope hath plied with sails and
oars, and brought all his popish sons to peace, except Portugal, and
brought in his grand engineers, the Jesuits, again to Venice, after
their long just banishment, we Protestants are wofully disposed to
row backward, and bring our sails aback-stays, and provoke the holy,
jealous Lord, who is a consuming fire, to kindle again those fires
from Rome and hell, which formerly consumed (in Protestant
countries) so many precious servants of God. The late renowned
Oliver confessed to me, in close discourse about the Protestants’
affairs, &c. that he yet feared great persecutions to the
Protestants from the Romanists, before the downfall of the Papacy.
The histories of our fathers before us, tell us what huge bowls of
the blood of the saints that great whore hath been drunk with, in
(now) Protestant dominions. Sure her judgment will ring through the
world, and it is hoped it is not far from the door. Sir, you were,
not long since, the son of two noble fathers, Mr. John Winthrop and
Mr. H. Peters. It is said they are both extinguished. Surely, I did
ever, from my soul, honor and love them even when their judgments
led them to afflict me. Ye the Father of Spirits spares us breath,
and I rejoice, Sir that your name (amongst the New-England
magistrates printed, to the Parliament and army, by H. Nort. Rous,
&c.) is not blurred, but rather honored, for your prudent and
moderate hand in the late Quakers’ trials amongst us. And it is
said, that in the late Parliament, yourself were one of the three in
nomination for General Governor over New-England, which however that
design ripened not, yet your name keeps up a high esteem, &c. I have
seen your hand to a letter to this colony, as to your late purchase
of some land at Narraganset.[318] The sight of your hand hath
quieted some jealousies amongst us, that the Bay, by this purchase,
designed some prejudice to the liberty of conscience amongst us. We
are in consultations how to answer that letter, and my endeavor
shall be, with God’s help, to welcome, with both our hands and arms,
your interest in these parts, though we have no hope to enjoy your
personal residence amongst us. I rejoice to hear that you gain, by
new plantations, upon this wilderness. I fear that many precious
souls will be glad to hide their heads, shortly, in these parts.
Your candle and mine draws towards its end. The Lord graciously help
us to shine in light and love universally, to all that fear his
name, without that monopoly of the affection to such of our own
persuasion only; for the common enemy, the Romish wolf, is very high
in resolution, and hope, and advantage to make a prey on all, of all
sorts, that desire to fear God. Divers of our neighbors thankfully
re-salute you. We have buried, this winter, Mr. Olney’s son, whom,
formerly, you heard to be afflicted with a lethargy. He lay two or
three days wholly senseless, until his last groans. My youngest son,
Joseph, was troubled with a spice of an epilepsy. We used some
remedies, but it hath pleased God, by his taking of tobacco,
perfectly, as we hope, to cure him. Good Mr. Parker, of Boston,
passing from Prudence Island, at his coming on shore, on Seekonk
land, trod awry upon a stone or stick, and fell down, and broke the
small bone of his leg. He hath lain by of it all this winter, and
the last week was carried to Boston in a horse litter. Some fears
there were of a gangrene. But, Sir, I use too much boldness and
prolixity. I shall now only subscribe myself,

“Your unworthy friend,
“R. W.

“Sir, my loving respects to Mr. Stone, Mr. Lord, Mr. Allen, Mr.
Webster, and other loving friends.”

“To my honored, kind friend, Mr. Winthrop, Governor of Connecticut,
these presents.

“_Providence, 8, 7, 60 (so called.)_

“Sir,

“A sudden warning gives me but time of this abrupt salutation to
your kind self and Mrs. Winthrop, wishing you peace. I promised to a
neighbor, a former servant of your father’s, (Joshua Windsor,) to
write a line, on his behalf, and at his desire, unto you. His prayer
to you is, that when you travel toward Boston, you would please to
come by Providence, and spare one hour to heal an old sore,—a
controversy between him and most of his neighbors, in which, I am
apt to think, he hath suffered some wrong. He hath promised to
submit to your sentence. His opposite, one James Ashton, being
desired by me to nominate also, he resolves also to submit to your
sentence, which will concern more will and stomach than damage; for
the matter only concerns a few poles of ground, wherein Joshua hath
cried out of wrong these many years. I hope, Sir, the blessed Lord
will make you a blessed instrument of chiding the winds and seas;
and I shall rejoice in your presence amongst us. There are greater
ulcers in my thoughts at present, which, I fear, are incurable, and
that it hath pleased the Most Wise and Most High to pass an
irrevocable sentence of amputations and cauterizations upon the poor
Protestant party. The clouds gather mighty fast and thick upon our
heads from all the Popish quarters. It hath pleased the Lord to glad
the Romish conclave with the departure of those two mighty bulwarks
of the Protestants, Oliver and Gustavus; to unite, (I think by this
time) all the Catholic kings and princes, for Portugal was like,
very like, of late, to return to the yoke of Spain, whose treasure
from the Indies it hath pleased God to send home, so wonderfully
great and rich this year, that I cannot but fear the Lord hath some
mighty work to effect with it. We know the Catholic King was in
debt, but he now overflows with millions, which God is most like to
expend against the Protestants or the Turks, the two great enemies,
(the sword-fish and the thrasher) against the Popish leviathan. The
Presbyterian party in England and Scotland is yet very likely to
make some struggle against the Popish invasions; and yet in the end
I fear (as long I have feared, and long since told Oliver, to which
he much inclined,) the bloody whore is not yet drunk enough with the
blood of the saints and witnesses of Jesus. One cordial is, (amongst
so many the merciful Lord hath provided) that that whore will
shortly appear so extremely loathsome, in her drunkenness,
bestialities, &c. that her bewitched paramours will tear her flesh,
and burn her with fire unquenchable. Here is a sound that Fairfax,
and about two hundred of the House with him, differ with the King.
The merciful Lord fit us to hear and feel more. It is a very thick
and dreadful mist and swamp, with which the Lord hath a great while
suffered us to labor in, as hoping to wade out, break through, and
escape shipwreck. In Richard Protector’s Parliament, they fell into
three factions presently: royalists, protectorians, (which were most
Presbyterian, and earned it,) and commonwealth’s men. The
Presbyterians, when General Monk brought in the secluded members,
carried it again, of late, clearly, and so vigorously against the
Papists, that stricter laws than ever. There must surely, then, be
great flames, before the King can accomplish his engagements to the
Popish party.

“You know well, Sir, at sea, the first entertainment of a storm is
with, down with top-sails. The Lord mercifully help us to lower, and
make us truly more and more low, humble, contented, thankful for the
least crumbs of mercy. But the storm increaseth, and trying with our
mainsails and mizzens will not do. We must, therefore, humbly beg
patience from the Father of Lights and God of all mercies, to lay at
Hull, in hope. It was a motto in one of the late Parliaments:
cornets, under a shower of blood. ‘Transibit.’

“Sir, my neighbor, Mrs. Scott, is come from England; and, what the
whip at Boston could not do, converse with friends in England, and
their arguments, have, in a great measure drawn her from the
Quakers, and wholly from their meetings. Try the spirits. There are
many abroad, and must be, but the Lord will be glorious, in plucking
up whatever his holy hand hath not planted. My brother runs strongly
to Origen’s notion of universal mercy at last, against an eternal
sentence. Our times will call upon us for thorough discussions. The
fire is like to try us. It is a wonderful mercy the barbarians are
yet so quiet. A portion of our neighbors are just now come home, _re
infecta_. The Mohegans would not sally, and the Narragansets would
not spoil the corn, for fear of offending the English. The Lord
mercifully guide the councils of the commissioners. Mr. Arnold, Mr.
Brenton, and others, struggle against your interest at Narraganset;
but I hope your presence might do much good amongst us in a few
days.

“Sir, I am, unworthy, yours,
“R. W.”

CHAPTER XXIII.

Infant baptism—half-way covenant—laws to support religion—charter from
Charles II.—first meeting of Assembly—Mr. Clarke—difficulties about
boundaries—charges against Rhode-Island, concerning Catholics and
Quakers.

It may be useful to look, for a moment, at the difficulties which arose,
about this time, in the other colonies, respecting infant baptism. This
rite had been hitherto administered to those children, whose immediate
parents were both members of a church. But as the country increased,
many persons, who were not members of a church, had children, for whom,
nevertheless, they desired baptism. The question accordingly arose,
whether the children of such parents could properly be admitted to
baptism. It was, on the one hand, a departure from the principle, that
as faith is required in the Scriptures as a prerequisite to baptism, and
as the infant could not exercise faith, it must consequently be baptized
on the ground of its parents’ faith. It seemed hard, on the other hand,
that if there was any virtue in infant baptism, the innocent child
should be deprived of it, because its parents were not pious. The
question began to be publicly agitated. The magistrates of Connecticut,
about the year 1656, sent several queries on the subject to the
magistrates of Massachusetts.[319] A meeting of ministers was held in
Boston, June 4, 1657, at which the “half-way covenant,” as it was
called, was adopted. “It provided, that all persons of sober life and
correct sentiments, without being examined as to a change of heart,
might profess religion, or become members of the church, and have their
children baptized, though they did not come to the Lord’s table.”[320]
This disastrous departure from the Scriptures, and from the former
practice of the churches, was not unanimously adopted. Many ministers
and churches were opposed to it. A synod was held, in Boston, in
September, 1662, including all the ministers in Massachusetts. This body
ratified the decision of the council of 1657. But parties were
immediately formed, for and against the synod. The Rev. Charles
Chauncey, President of Harvard College, and the Rev. Increase Mather,
wrote against the decision, while others wrote on the opposite side. The
country was thrown into a ferment. A division took place in the First
Church in Boston, and the Old South Church was formed in May, 1669, by a
minority of the First Church, the majority of whose members opposed the
decision of the synod, while the seceding minority approved it. The
General Court took up the subject, and at its session, in May, 1670,
pronounced the formation of the new church to be irreligious, illegal
and disorderly. But public opinion set in favor of the half-way
covenant. At the next election, the members who had opposed the new
church were left out, and others, of different opinions, elected. The
Court then passed a vote in favor of the new church, and the cause of
innovation and corruption of the purity of the churches triumphed.[321]
This result generally ensues, when questions pertaining to religion are
decided at the polls.

The half-way covenant was, at first, opposed by many churches, but it
afterwards extensively prevailed, and “wherever,” says Dr. Hawes, “it
did prevail, the consequences were eminently unhappy. Great numbers came
forward to own the covenant, as it was called, and had their children
baptized; but very few joined the church, in full communion, or partook
of the sacrament. Satisfied with being half-way in the church, and
enjoying a part of its privileges, they settled down in a state of dull
and heartless formality, and felt little or no concern respecting their
present condition, or future prospects.”[322]

But all men were not content to be half-way in the church. About the
year 1700, Mr. Stoddard, a distinguished minister of Northampton, came
to the conclusion, that the Lord’s Supper is a converting ordinance, and
that all persons ought to come to this ordinance. Thus all the barriers
which separate the church from the world were thrown down, and the
consequences were deplorable. Multitudes of unconverted persons rushed
into the churches, anxious for the privileges of church members, for
political purposes. The church at Northampton is a signal instance of
the effects of the system. The great President Edwards, after he had
been pastor for several years, endeavored to introduce the old practice
of discipline, and to require piety as a qualification for membership.
But the worldly feeling in his parish was too strong, and
notwithstanding his colossal reputation, and his faithful and successful
labors, he was expelled from his pastoral office, in a most ungrateful
and unkind manner.

We may mention, here, another cause of injury to the purity and
permanent prosperity of the churches. The support of the ministry, by
taxes, levied on all the inhabitants, operated oppressively on the
members of other denominations, created much distress to individuals,
and produced a wide-spread dissatisfaction in the community. As the
right of a voice in the election of a minister was justly claimed by
those who were obliged to pay taxes for his support, the character of
the minister depended, of course, on that of a majority of the voters in
a parish. The consequence has been, that in many instances, when the
majority have become opposed to the doctrines of the existing church,
the minister has been expelled, another of opposite sentiments has been
chosen, the meeting-house has been seized, and funds, contributed by
pious men of former generations, for the support of the ministry, have
been applied to the maintenance of men to whom those contributors would
have refused to listen. This is the natural effect of the system, and
those who uphold it have no right to complain. The American principle,
that representation accompanies taxation, is just. If men are taxed by
law to support a minister, they have a right to a voice in his election,
and they will, of course, choose a minister whose principles accord, as
nearly as possible, with their own. Reflecting and pious men, generally,
are now, it is believed, thoroughly convinced, that the principles of
Roger Williams furnish the only secure basis for the peace and
prosperity of a church. It is hoped that the laws of Massachusetts will,
ere long, be conformed to these principles, and religion be committed to
the protection of God and of the liberal and pure-hearted disciples of
the Redeemer.[323]

This subject has detained us from our main theme, though it is
appropriate to a work which we design to be an exposition of the nature
and effects both of the principles of religious liberty and of the
opposite doctrines.

Mr. Clarke continued his faithful labors in England, and on the 8th of
July, 1663, he obtained from Charles II. a charter, which continues,
till the present day, to be the fundamental law of the State.[324] It
commits the government of the colony to a Governor, Deputy Governor, and
ten Assistants, to be elected annually, and a House of Deputies,
consisting of six from Newport, four from each of the towns of
Providence, Portsmouth and Warwick, and two from each of the other
towns. It defines the boundaries of the colony, about which disputes
existed for many years. It contains this most important provision, in
which the principles on which the colony was founded are embodied: “No
person within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be any wise
molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
differences in opinion, in matters of religion, who do not actually
disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every
person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter,
freely and fully have and enjoy his own and their judgments and
consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract
of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and
quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness,
nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others.”[325]

This noble declaration is in accordance with the address of the
petitioners to his Majesty, in which they “freely declared, that it is
much on their hearts (if they be permitted) to hold forth a lively
experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
maintained, and that among, our English subjects, with a full liberty in
religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon
Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to
sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations
to true loyalty.”

This charter was received with great joy. It was brought from Boston, by
Capt. George Baxter, and was read publicly at Newport, November 24,
1663. The records say, that “the said letters, with his Majesty’s royal
stamp, and the broad seal, with much beseeming gravity, were held up on
high, and presented to the perfect view of the people.”

Thanks were voted to the King, to the Earl of Clarendon, and to Mr.
Clarke, together with a resolution to pay all his expenses, and to
present him with a hundred pounds. Thanks were also voted to Capt.
Baxter, with a present of thirty pounds, besides his expenses from
Boston.[326]

The first Assembly under the new charter was held March 1, 1663–4. Mr.
Benedict Arnold was created by the charter the first Governor, and among
the Assistants was Mr. Williams.

The Assembly now assumed a peremptory tone towards the disturbers of the
public peace at Pawtuxet and Warwick, and towards intruders at
Narraganset.

Mr. Williams was appointed to transcribe the charter.[327]

At the session, in May, 1664, Mr. Williams was again an Assistant. At
this session, the seal of the colony was fixed, an anchor, with the word
Hope over it, and the words Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.

Mr. Williams was this year appointed one of a committee to review the
laws, and one of another committee to fix the eastern line of the state.

At this session, a committee was appointed to audit Mr. Clarke’s
accounts. The sum of £343 15_s._ 6_d._, was found to be due to him. Mr.
Clarke returned from England, in June, 1664, after an absence, in the
service of the colony, of twelve years. He was afterwards elected Deputy
Governor three years successively. He was an able and good man, whom the
State of Rhode-Island ought to remember with respect and gratitude, as
one of her chief benefactors. He died April 20, 1676. The money due to
him from the colony was never paid, during his life, though the Assembly
frequently urged the towns to pay it, and Mr. Williams used his
influence to accomplish this act of public justice.[328] Mr. Clarke, in
his will, left a considerable estate, to be appropriated to “the relief
of the poor, or bringing up children unto learning.”

An account of the difficulties with Massachusetts, Connecticut and
Plymouth, respecting boundaries, belongs rather to a history of
Rhode-Island, than to this work. They continued for several years.
Commissioners were appointed by the King, in 1664, to settle the
disputes respecting the Narraganset country, which was claimed by
Connecticut, and by individuals, who had purchased lands there. But the
matter was not settled for many years. The boundaries fixed by the
charter were at length ascertained and acknowledged.[329]

Two topics deserve notice here, because they affect the character of
Roger Williams, and of Rhode-Island. We allude to the charges, that in
1663–4, Roman Catholics were excluded from the rights of citizens, and
that in 1665, oppressive laws were enacted against the Quakers.

The first of these charges is made by Chalmers,[330] whose situation, as
chief clerk in the Plantation Office, in England, gave him access to
original documents. He asserts, that at the meeting of the General
Assembly, March 1, 1663–4, it was enacted, “that no freeman shall be
imprisoned, or deprived of his freehold, or condemned, but by the
judgment of his peers, or the law of the colony; that no tax shall be
imposed or required of the colonists, but by the act of the General
Assembly; that all men [professing Christianity] of competent estates,
and of civil conversation, who acknowledge and are obedient to the civil
magistrates, though of different judgments in religious affairs, [Roman
Catholics only excepted] shall be admitted freemen, or may choose, or be
chosen, colonial officers.”[331]

Such an act would, indeed, have been an anomaly in the legislation of
Rhode-Island, and it has been alleged as an evidence of inconsistency in
Roger Williams and the colony. The subject has, therefore, been examined
with great care. The Hon. Samuel Eddy, for many years the Secretary of
State in Rhode-Island, declares:[332] “I have formerly examined the
records of the State, from its first settlement, with a view to
historical information, and lately from 1663 to 1719, with a particular
view to this law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of
freemen, and can find nothing that has any reference to it, nor any
thing that gives any preference or privileges to men of one set of
religious opinions over those of another, until the revision of 1745.”

This testimony might, alone, be sufficient to disprove the allegation,
though it is possible, that such an act might be passed, and not be
recorded. But it is not probable, and when the uniform policy of the
colony from the beginning, and other circumstances, are considered, it
becomes morally certain, that no such act ever received the sanction of
the Legislature of Rhode-Island.

That entire liberty was professed and maintained, from the commencement
of the colony, is certain. It was one of the fundamental regulations in
the respective towns, and when they were united, under the first
charter, it was expressly enacted, that, while the civil laws should be
obeyed, “all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one
in the name of his God.”[333]

The second charter declared, that “no person within the said colony, at
any time hereafter, shall be anywise molested, punished or disquieted,
or called in question, for any differences in opinion, in matters of
religion, and do not actually disturb the civil peace of our said
colony.”

It is utterly incredible, that the Assembly, while they were passing
votes of thanks to the King for the charter, would enact a law in
violation of his positive declaration in the instrument itself, and at
variance with their previous policy and with all their institutions. An
exclusion of Catholics, moreover, would not only have violated the
charter, and thus offended the King, but the legislators of Rhode-Island
had sufficient knowledge of Charles, to be aware, that nothing would be
less acceptable to him than a law against the Catholics, for whom he
endeavored to obtain toleration in England.

It may be added, that there were no Catholics in Rhode-Island, so late
as 1695, according to Cotton Mather.[334] Mr. Eddy well remarks: “Why a
law should be made to exclude from the privileges of freemen, those who
were not inhabitants, by those who believed all to be equally entitled
to their religious opinions, is difficult to conceive.”

At the next session, in May, 1664, the Assembly enacted, that, “at
present this General Assembly judgeth it their duty to signify his
Majesty’s gracious pleasure vouchsafed in these words to us, verbatim,
(viz.)”—quoting the declaration from the charter which is cited above.

At the session in May, 1665, in answer to certain propositions of the
King’s Commissioners, in which the King requires, that all the citizens
shall enjoy equal civil and religious rights, without regard to their
opinions, the Assembly say: “This Assembly do, with all gladness of
heart, and humbleness of mind, acknowledge the great goodness of God and
favor of his Majesty in that respect, declaring, that as it hath been a
principle set forth and maintained in this colony, _from the very
beginning thereof_, so it is much on their hearts to preserve the same
liberty to all persons within this colony forever, as to the worship of
God therein, taking care for the preservation of the civil government,
to the doing of justice and preserving each other’s privileges from
wrong and violence to others.”

Mr. Eddy accounts for the existence of the spurious words in the copy of
the laws from which Mr. Chalmers quoted, by supposing, that they were
inserted, without authority, at some period subsequent to 1719, by a
revising committee, who might be desirous to please the government in
England. Mr. Eddy says, in conclusion: “Thus you have positive and
indubitable evidence, that the law excluding Roman Catholics from the
privileges of freemen was not passed in 1663–4, but that they were by
law, at this time, and long after, entitled to all the privileges of
other citizens; and satisfactory evidence that these privileges were
continued by law until 1719, when, or in one of the subsequent
revisions, the words _professing Christianity_, and _Roman Catholics
only excepted_, were inserted by the revising committee.”

If, however, such an act had been passed, it would not necessarily
impeach the character of Mr. Williams. He was an Assistant, only, in the
Legislature of 1663–4, and could not be responsible for its acts. His
own principles are on record. He contended for liberty of conscience to
all men without any restriction. In his “Hireling Ministry none of
Christ’s,” printed in 1652—only eleven years before—he says: “All these
consciences, (yea, the very conscience of Papists, Jews, &c. as I have
proved at large in my answer to Mr. Cotton’s washings) ought freely and
impartially to be permitted their several respective worships, their
ministers of worships, and what way of maintaining them they please.”

We proceed, now, to the other charge. It is contained in an article, in
1 His. Col. v. pp. 216–220, signed Francis Brinley, whose statement is
repeated in Holmes’ American Annals, vol. i. p. 341. Mr. Brinley says:
“1665. The government and council of Rhode-Island, &c. passed an order
for outlawing the people called Quakers, because they would not bear
arms, and to seize their estates; but the people in general rose up
against these severe orders, and would not suffer it.”

We are again indebted to Mr. Eddy for the means of correcting a mistake.
He says (2 His. Col. vii. p. 97,) that the account of Mr. Brinley “is
incorrect and partial.” There was a difficulty, in which the Quakers, it
seems, felt themselves aggrieved, but it was not the result of any acts
aimed directly at them. The origin of it, as Mr. Eddy thinks, was this:
The commissioners of the King required, in his name, “that all
householders, inhabiting this colony, take the oath of allegiance.” The
Assembly, in reply, stated, that it had been the uniform practice of the
colony, in pursuance of their great principles of religious liberty, to
allow those who objected to take an oath, to make an engagement, under
the penalty for false swearing. An engagement was accordingly drawn up,
in which the individual promised to bear true allegiance to the King and
his successors, and to yield “due obedience unto the laws established
from time to time.” The Quakers, it appears, objected to this part of
the engagement, because it bound them to pay obedience to the militia
laws. The Assembly had enacted, that those who did not take the
engagement, should not be permitted to “vote for public officers or
deputies, or enjoy any privilege of freemen.” Those persons,
consequently, who refused to take the engagement, were disfranchised;
and to this effect, Mr. Brinley probably alludes, when he says that the
Quakers were outlawed. If so, his statement is very loose and injurious,
for it implies, that the act was expressly directed against them. But
there was no design, apparently, on the part of the Assembly to affect
them. The King commanded the General Assembly to require an oath of
allegiance. They dispensed with the oath, but required an engagement,
promising, in general terms, obedience to the laws. It would seem, that
all the citizens might have safely taken the engagement, reserving their
opposition to particular laws, to which they might be conscientiously
opposed. An engagement to obey the laws would, of course, mean such laws
only as were consistent with the laws of God and with the rights of
conscience. The Assembly cannot, at any rate, be justly charged with an
assault on the Quakers. The engagement was mitigated, the very next
year, to suit their views, and every disposition was manifested to
consult their feelings and respect their rights. One of their number
was, the next year, elected Deputy Governor.

CHAPTER XXIV.

Mr. Williams’ public services—religious habits—efforts as a
minister—Indians—private affairs—letter to John Whipple.

We are now approaching the close of Mr. Williams’ life. Years were
increasing upon him, and abating the vigor of his body and the ardor of
his mind. Yet we find his name in the records both of the town and
colony, so frequently, as to prove, that he retained his zeal for the
public welfare, and that he enjoyed, to the end of his life, a large
measure of public confidence. In the town meetings, he was often
appointed moderator. He was appointed as a member of numerous
committees, and was usually selected, when a skilful pen was needed for
the public service.

After serving the colony for two years, as President, and repeatedly as
Assistant, or Commissioner, under the first charter, he occupied a seat
in the General Assembly, under the new charter, as an Assistant, in the
years 1664, 1670, and 1671. He was chosen, in 1677, but he refused to
serve, on account, probably, of his age. He was a Deputy from
Providence, in May, 1667.

Of his religious habits we have little knowledge. We have satisfactory
reasons, however, for believing, that he preserved the character of an
upright Christian. His books and letters are distinguished by the
language of piety, and his general conduct exhibited its influence. Even
Cotton Mather confesses, that “in many things he acquitted himself so
laudably, that many judicious persons judged him to have had the root of
the matter in him, during the long winter of this retirement.”[335] He
had, it is true, no connection with any church; a circumstance, which we
must regret, because it injured his reputation and his usefulness, while
it diminished his personal enjoyment and spiritual growth. But we know
that his reason for this course was, an erroneous idea, that the true
church was, for a time, lost. He did not undervalue the benefits of
church fellowship, but ardently longed for the restoration of the
church. In his reply to George Fox, written about 1672, he says, (p.
66,) “After all my search, and examinations, and considerations, I said,
I do profess to believe, that some come nearer to the first primitive
churches, and the institutions and appointments of Christ, than others;
as in many respects, so in that gallant, and heavenly, and fundamental
principle, of the true matter of a Christian congregation, flock or
society, viz. actual believers, true disciples and converts, living
stones, such as can give some account how the grace of God hath appeared
unto them, and wrought that change in them. I professed, that if my soul
could find rest, in joining unto any of the churches professing Christ
Jesus now extant, I would readily and gladly do it, yea unto themselves,
whom I now opposed.”[336]

As a minister of the Gospel, we have evidence that he did not wholly
discontinue his labors; though he must, according to his principles,
have confined himself to “prophecy,” or a declaration of truth and
witness against error. Mr. Callender says, (p. 57,) “Mr. Williams used
to uphold a public worship, sometimes, though not weekly, as many now
alive [1738] remember, and he used to go once a month, for many years,
to Mr. Smith’s, in the Narraganset, for the same end.” If persons alive
in 1738, were present at Mr. Williams’ meetings, as Mr. Callender’s
expression seems to imply, those meetings must have been held towards
the close of his life. His visits to Narraganset were designed, it has
been supposed, for the benefit of the Indians; but this is doubtful.
There is reason to believe, that his object was to instruct the whites,
who either lived in that neighborhood, far from any Christian teacher,
or who were occasionally at Mr. Smith’s trading-house.[337]

He did, however, endeavor to instruct the Indians. “He made,” says Mr.
Callender, (p. 84) “some laudable attempts to instruct them, yet he was
much discouraged, not only by want of a lawful warrant, or an immediate
commission to be an apostle to them, but especially by (as he thought)
the insuperable difficulty of preaching Christianity to them in their
own language, with any propriety, without inspiration.” On this subject,
he speaks, in his “Bloody Tenet more Bloody.” He says, that he and
others have found “how hard it is for any man to attain a little
propriety of their language in common things, (so as to escape derision
among them) in many years, without abundant of conversing with them, in
eating, travelling and lodging with them.” He refers, for proof, to the
case of Mr. Eliot, who, notwithstanding his intimacy with the Indians,
could not always make himself understood.[338] Mr. Williams seemed to
think, that when the ministry should be restored, the gift of tongues
would be bestowed on missionaries, to qualify them for their work.

The Narraganset Indians were strongly opposed to the Gospel. It is said,
that they allowed Mr. Williams to preach to them, but would permit no
one else. They loved him, but they rejected his doctrines. His Key and
his letters prove, nevertheless, that his benevolent efforts were not
entirely in vain, and authorize the hope, that at the last day, he may
share, with Eliot, Mayhew and Brainerd, the blessing of ransomed souls
from among the unhappy native tribes.

Of Mr. Williams’ private affairs, we know little. Notices respecting
lands occasionally appear on the records of the town.[339]

His public spirit, and disposition to serve his fellow-citizens, appear
on various occasions. In 1666, a vote of the town was passed, “remitting
to him an engagement made by him to the town, for clapboards and nails
for the building of a town house.” The inference is, that the project
which he, perhaps, devised, and offered to promote, failed.

The following letter to the town, relates to a bridge. On the first
Monday of June, 1662, the town had ordered a bridge to be built over
Moshassuck river, “by Thomas Olney his house,” to be done before the
next hay-time. It would seem, that this order was not accomplished, and
that the following letter refers to the same project:

“_Providence, 10 Feb. 1667–8._

“Loving friends and neighbors,

“Unto this day, it pleased the town to adjourn for the answering of
the bill for the bridge and others. I have conferred with Shadrach
Manton and Nathaniel Waterman, about their proposal, and their
result is, that they cannot obtain such a number as will join with
them, to undertake the bridge upon the hopes of meadow. I am,
therefore, bold, after so many anchors come home, and so much
trouble and long debates and deliberations, to offer, that if you
please, I will, with God’s help, take this bridge unto my care, by
that moderate toll of strangers of all sorts, which hath been
mentioned; will maintain it so long as it pleaseth God that I live
in this town.

“2. The town shall be free from all toll, only I desire one day’s
work of one man in a year from every family, but from those that
have teams, and have much use of the bridge, one day’s work of a man
and team, and of those that have less use, half a day.

“3. I shall join with any of the town, more or few, who will venture
their labor with me for the gaining of meadow.

“4. I promise, if it please God, that I gain meadow in equal value
to the town’s yearly help, I shall then release that.

“5. I desire, if it please God to be with me, to go through such a
charge and trouble as will be to bring this to a settled way, and
then suddenly to take me from hence, I desire that before another,
my wife and children, if they desire it, may engage in my stead to
these conditions.

“6. If the town please to consent, I desire that one of yourselves
be nominated, to join with the clerk to draw up the writing.

R. W.”

It does not appear, whether the bridge was built, at this time, or not.
In February, 1711–12, Mr. Daniel Abbot was sent as an agent to
Massachusetts and Connecticut, to solicit aid in building “three great
bridges, upon the road leading from Connecticut toward Boston, viz. one
at Pawtuxet Falls, one at Weybosset in Providence,[340] and the other
over Pawtucket river.”

Mr. Williams omitted no opportunity of serving the Indians. The
following letter was written apparently, to the government of
Massachusetts:

“_Providence, 7th of May, 1668, (so called.)_

“I humbly offer to consideration my long and constant experience,
since it pleased God to bring me unto these parts, as to the
Narraganset and Nipmuck people.

“First, that all the Nipmucks were, unquestionably, subject to the
Narraganset sachems, and, in a special manner to Mexham, the son of
Canonicus, and late husband to this old squaw sachem, now only
surviving. I have abundant and daily proof of it, as plain and clear
as that the inhabitants of Newbury or Ipswich, &c. are subject to
the government of the Massachusetts colony.

“2. I was called by his Majesty’s Commissioners to testify in a like
case between Philip and the Plymouth Indians, on the one party, and
the Narragansets on the other, and it pleased the committee to
declare, that the King had not given them any commission to alter
the Indians’ laws and customs, which they observed amongst
themselves: most of which, although they are, like themselves,
barbarous, yet in the case of their mournings, they are more,
humane, and it seems to be more inhumane in those that professed
subjection to this the very last year, under some kind of feigned
protection of the English, to be singing and dancing, drinking, &c.
while the rest were lamenting their sachems’ deaths.

“I abhor most of their customs; I know they are barbarous. I respect
not one party more than the other, but I desire to witness truth;
and as I desire to witness against oppression, so, also, against the
slighting of civil, yea, of barbarous order and government, as
respecting every shadow of God’s gracious appointments.

“This I humbly offer, as in the holy presence of God.

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following letter[341] gives us a view of some of the trials which
Mr. Williams suffered:

“For John Whipple, jun. these.

“Neighbor Whipple,

“I kindly thank you, that you so far have regarded my lines as to
return me your thoughts, whether sweet or sour I desire not to mind.
I humbly hope, that as you shall never find me self-conceited nor
self-seeking, so, as to others, not pragmatical and a busy-body as
you insinuate. My study is to be swift to hear, and slow to speak,
and I could tell you of five or six grounds (it may be more) why I
give this my testimony against this unrighteous and monstrous
proceeding of Christian brethren helping to hale one another before
the world, whose song was lately and loudly sung in my ears, viz.
the world would be quiet enough, were it not for these holy
brethren, their divisions and contentions. The last night, Shadrach
Manton told me that I had spoken bad words of Gregory Dexter (though
Shadrach deals more ingenuously than yourself saying the same thing,
for he tells me wherein,) viz. that I said he makes a fool of his
conscience. I told him I said so, and I think to our neighbor Dexter
himself; for I believe he might as well be moderator or general
deputy or general assistant, as go so far as he goes, in many
particulars; but what if I or my conscience be a fool, yet it is
commendable and admirable in him, that being a man of education, and
of a noble calling, and versed in militaries, that his conscience
forced him to be such a child in his own house, when W. Har.
strained for the rate (which I approve of) with such imperious
insulting over his conscience, which all conscientious men will
abhor to hear of. However, I commend that man, whether Jew, or Turk,
or Papist, or whoever, that steers no otherwise than his conscience
dares, till his conscience tells him that God gives him a greater
latitude. For, neighbor, you shall find it rare to meet with men of
conscience, men that for fear and love of God dare not lie, nor be
drunk, nor be contentious, nor steal, nor be covetous, nor
voluptuous, nor ambitious, nor lazy-bodies, nor busy-bodies, nor
dare displease God by omitting either service or suffering, though
of reproach, imprisonment, banishment and death, because of the fear
and love of God.

“If W. Wickenden received a beast of W. Field, for ground of the
same hold, I knew it not, and so spake the truth, as I understood
it. 2. Though I have not spoke with him, yet I hear it was not of
that hold or tenure, for we have had four sorts of bounds at least.

“First, the grant of as large accommodations as any English in
New-England had. This the sachems always promised me, and they had
cause, for I was as a right hand unto them, to my great cost and
travail. Hence I was sure of the Toceheunguanit meadows, and what
could with any show of reason have been desired; but some, (that
never did this town nor colony good, and, it is feared, never will,)
cried out, when Roger Williams had laid himself down as a stone in
the dust, for after-comers to step on in town and colony, ‘Who is
Roger Williams? We know the Indians and the sachems as well as he.
We will trust Roger Williams no longer. We will have our bounds
confirmed us under the sachems’ hands before us.’

“2. Hence arose, to my soul cutting and grief, the second sort of
bounds, viz. the bounds set under the hands of those great sachems
Canonicus and Miantinomo, and were set so short (as to Mashapaug and
Pawtucket, and at that time,) because they would not intrench upon
the Indians inhabiting round about us, for the prevention of strife
between us.

“The third sort of bounds were of favor and grace, invented, as I
think, and prosecuted by that noble spirit, now with God, Chad
Brown. Presuming upon the sachems’ grant to me, they exceeded the
letter of the sachems’ deed, so far as reasonably they judged, and
this with promise of satisfaction to any native who should
reasonably desire it. In this third sort of bounds, lay this piece
of meadow hard by Captain Fenner’s ground, which, with two hogs,
William Wickenden gave to W. Field for a small beast, &c.

“Beside these three sort of bounds, there arose a fourth, like the
fourth beast in Daniel, exceeding dreadful and terrible, unto which
the Spirit of God gave no name nor bounds, nor can we in the first
rise of ours, only boundless bounds, or a monstrous beast, above all
other beasts or monsters. Now, as from this fourth wild beast in
Daniel, in the greater world, have arisen all the storms and
tempests, factions and divisions, in our little world amongst us,
and what the tearing consequences yet will be, is only known to the
Most Holy and Only Wise.

“You conclude with your innocence and patience under my clamorous
tongue, but I pray you not to forget that there are two basins.
David had one, Pilate another. David washed his hands in innocence,
and so did Pilate, and so do all parties, all the world over. As to
innocence, my former paper saith something. As to patience, how can
you say you are patient under my clamorous tongue, when that very
speech is most impatient and unchristian? My clamor and crying shall
be to God and men (I hope without revenge or wrath) but for a little
ease, and that yourselves, and they that scorn and hate me most,
may, if the Eternal please, find cooling in that hot, eternal day
that is near approaching. This shall be the continual clamor or cry
of

“Your unworthy
friend and neighbor,
“R. W.

“_Providence, 8th July, 1669, (so called.)_”

This letter is interesting for several reasons. The reference to Mr.
Dexter’s refusal to pay his taxes, from conscientious scruples, shows,
that Mr. Williams accurately discriminated between the rights of
conscience, and a perversion of those rights. It is worthy of notice,
too, that Mr. Williams condemned the conduct of Mr. Dexter, though an
intimate friend; and approved, in part, at least, that of Mr. Harris,
though a bitter hostility existed between them.

CHAPTER XXV.

Controversy with the Quakers—Philip’s war—letters—Mr. Williams’ death.

We will now give a brief account of Mr. Williams’ controversy with the
Quakers. It was an unhappy strife, in which all parties displayed more
zeal than Christian meekness or charity. It was especially unfortunate
for Mr. Williams, for it plunged him, in his old age, into a dispute, in
which he could not hope to effect much good, and which was certain to
draw upon him much odium.

His motives, however, ought to be clearly understood. The colony of
Rhode-Island had incurred reproach among the other colonies, because she
refused to join in a persecution of the Quakers. Rhode-Island was the
refuge of these persons, some of the magistrates, at this time, were of
that sect, and it was asserted, that the public feeling in Rhode-Island
was friendly to their doctrines and practices. Mr. Williams declares, in
his book on the controversy, that he was induced to engage in a dispute
with them, in order to bear public testimony, that while he was
decidedly opposed to any measures which tended to impair liberty of
conscience, he nevertheless disapproved the principles of the
Quakers.[342] He says, that when he met them at Newport, on the first
day of the dispute, “I took my seat at the other end of the house
opposite to them, and began telling them, that the Most High was my
witness, that not out of any prejudice against, or disrespect to, the
persons of the Quakers, many of whom I knew and did love and honor, nor
any foolish passion of pride or boldness, for I desired to be sensible
of my many decays of my house of clay, and other ways; nor any earthly
or worldly ends I had, that occasioned this trouble to myself and them.”
p. 26.

Candor must admit, that his motives were laudable—a zeal for the honor
of the colony, and for what he believed to be the truth. He accordingly
took occasion, when the celebrated George Fox[343] was in Rhode-Island,
to propose a public discussion, at Newport and Providence, in which the
principles of the Quakers should be examined, in a friendly debate.

The challenge was in these words:

“To George Fox, or any other of my countrymen at Newport, who say they
are the apostles and messengers of Christ Jesus. In humble confidence of
the help of the Most High, I offer to maintain, in public, against all
comers, these fourteen propositions following, to wit: the first seven
at Newport, and the other seven at Providence. For the time when, I
refer it to George Fox and his friends, at Newport.”

Such public debates were not uncommon during the reformation, in
Germany, and in later times, in England. They have been held, in our own
days, but their effect has seldom been beneficial to the cause of truth.
They are more adapted to irritate than to convince. Few men have
sufficient self-command to preserve their temper, in a controversy
conducted through the press. When brought into personal contact, before
a large assembly, the meekest men could scarcely avoid being chafed and
petulant. Such contests are like the battles of old times, when the
spear or the sword was the chief weapon, and the combatants, being
brought hand to hand, fought with embittered rancor and dreadful
carnage. Modern battles, in which the parties are at a greater distance,
are less sanguinary. The result of these disputes, moreover, is as
uncertain a test of truth and justice, as the termination of the ancient
appeals to personal combat. Stronger lungs and greater self-conceit have
sometimes enabled the advocate of error to win the victory.

The fourteen propositions of Mr. Williams we shall not quote. They
affirmed, that the principles of the Quakers were unscriptural and
pernicious.

Mr. Williams sent these propositions to Newport, but George Fox left the
town for England, without seeing them. Mr. Williams asserted, that Fox
departed in order to avoid the debate, and he condescended to a pun on
“George Fox’s _slily_ departing.” This insinuation was unfounded and
unjustifiable. Fox unceremoniously charged him with lying, but this
gross accusation cannot be admitted. Mr. Williams undoubtedly thought
his assertion true,[344] though he ought not to have made it without
better authority.

The debate commenced, however, at Newport, on the 9th of August, 1672.
Mr. Williams rowed, in a boat, to Newport, thirty miles, a feat which
few men of seventy-three years could perform, in these degenerate days.
He arrived at Newport about midnight.[345] The next day the debate
commenced, in the Quaker meeting-house. John Stubs, John Burnyeat and
William Edmundson were the champions opposed to him. He speaks of the
two former as able and learned men. The debate continued three days. It
was, according to his account, a very disorderly scene. There was no
moderator, and Mr. Williams complains of frequent and rude
interruptions. His health was feeble, and he says, that, on the morning
of the second day, “I heartily wished that I might rather have kept my
bed, than have gone forth to a whole day’s fresh disputes.” His brother,
Robert Williams, then a schoolmaster in Newport, attempted to aid him,
but his interference was not permitted by his opponents. Mr. Williams’
demeanor, during the controversy, was, apparently, patient and
collected. The debate was renewed at Providence on the 17th, and
continued one day, when it was terminated, without producing any change
of opinion on either side.

Mr. Williams wrote an account of this dispute, in a large book, of 327
pages. It was entitled, “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes,” &c., in
allusion to a book which Fox and his friend Edward Burrowes (or
Burrough) had written. Of Mr. Williams’ book we shall give a further
account. It is able and acute, but it is disfigured by much severe
language.

Fox and Burnyeat wrote a reply, entitled, “A New-England Firebrand
Quenched,” in which they railed at Mr. Williams, in a coarse and bitter
style.[346]

The following letter of Mr. Williams alludes to the publication of his
book against Fox:[347]

“My dear friend, Samuel Hubbard,

“To yourself and aged companion, my loving respects in the Lord
Jesus, who ought to be our hope of glory, begun in this life, and
enjoyed to all eternity. I have herein returned your little, yet
great remembrance of the hand of the Lord to yourself and your son,
late departed. I praise the Lord for your humble kissing of his holy
rod, and acknowledging his just and righteous, together with his
gracious and merciful, dispensation to you. I rejoice, also, to read
your heavenly desires and endeavors, that your trials may be gain to
your own souls, and the souls of the youth of the place, and all of
us. You are not unwilling, I judge, that I deal plainly and friendly
with you. After all that I have seen and read and compared about the
seventh day, (and I have earnestly and carefully read and weighed
all I could come at in God’s holy presence) I cannot be removed from
Calvin’s mind, and indeed Paul’s mind, Col. ii. that all those
sabbaths of seven days were figures, types and shadows, and
forerunners of the Son of God, and that the change is made from the
remembrance of the first creation, and that (figurative) rest on the
seventh day, to the remembrance of the second creation on the first,
on which our Lord arose conqueror from the dead. Accordingly, I have
read many, but see no satisfying answer to those three Scriptures,
chiefly Acts 20, 1 Cor. 16, Rev. 1, in conscience to which I make
some poor conscience to God as to the rest day. As for thoughts for
England, I humbly hope the Lord hath hewed me to write a large
narrative of all those four days’ agitation between the Quakers and
myself; if it please God I cannot get it printed in New-England, I
have great thoughts and purposes for old. My age, lameness, and many
other weaknesses, and the dreadful hand of God at sea, calls for
deep consideration. What God may please to bring forth in the
spring, his holy wisdom knows. If he please to bring to an absolute
purpose, I will send you word, and my dear friend, Obadiah Holmes,
who sent me a message to the same purpose. At present, I pray salute
respectively Mr. John Clarke and his brothers, Mr. Tory, Mr. Edes,
Edward Smith, William Hiscox, Stephen Mumford, and other friends,
whose preservation, of the island, and this country, I humbly beg of
the Father of Mercies, in whom I am yours unworthy,

R. W.”

The calamitous and decisive war with Philip claims our notice. This
chief, whose Indian name was Metacom, but who received the name of
Philip from the English, was the second son of Massassoit, the principal
sachem of the Pokanokets. Philip succeeded his brother Alexander, who
died in 1662, in consequence, it has been supposed, of his shame and
resentment for what he thought an insult from the whites. Philip was an
able and ambitious chief. He saw the increasing power of the colonists,
and clearly perceived, that the utter extinction of the Indians would be
the result, unless the progress of the whites could be arrested. It is
said, however, that he was averse to commencing hostilities, being aware
that the colonists were too powerful to be successfully resisted;[348]
but he was forced into the war by the ardor of his young warriors. All
the Indian tribes remained quiet, with the exception of a few hostile
indications, for nearly forty years after the destruction of the
Pequods.

Rumors of intended war on the part of Philip were circulated in 1671.
The Governor of Plymouth, and several other gentlemen from Plymouth and
Massachusetts, invited Philip to meet them at Taunton; but he refused to
come, till, it is said,[349] Mr. Williams and Mr. Brown, of Swansea,
were employed as mediators. Mr. Williams’ agency was, as usual,
successful, and Philip met the Governor, disclaimed all hostile designs,
promised future fidelity, and surrendered about seventy guns, as a proof
of his sincerity. The war was thus delayed four years.

The interval was, it appears, employed by Philip in making preparations
for war. He endeavored to concert a general league among the Indians in
New-England, and it is said, that most of the tribes entered into his
plans. The Narragansets, especially, who still nourished a desire of
vengeance for the treacherous murder, as they viewed it, of their
sachem, Miantinomo, engaged to aid Philip, with a force of four thousand
warriors, in the spring of 1676.[350]

But, for some cause, hostilities commenced before the time appointed.
Philip is supposed to have been urged to begin the war, by the death of
John Sassamon, an Indian, who had served Philip as a secretary. He
communicated to the English the designs of Philip, and he was soon after
found murdered. Three Indians, who were believed to be his murderers,
were tried and executed, at Plymouth, in June, 1675. Philip, who was
thought to be implicated in the murder, immediately commenced
hostilities, by attacking the town of Swansea, on the 24th of June. The
war, being commenced, was prosecuted with great fury, many towns were
burnt, and many of the inhabitants killed. It was a mercy to the whites,
that the Indians had not fully matured their plans and begun the contest
in concert. The Narragansets renewed their league with the
colonists,[351] though they afterwards joined in the war against them.

The following letter of Mr. Williams to Governor Leverett, of
Massachusetts, is very interesting and characteristic:

“To the Governor at Boston, present. Per neighbor Samuel Whiffel.

“_Providence, 11, 8, 75, (so accounted.)_

“Sir,

“Yours of the 7th I gladly and thankfully received, and humbly
desire to praise that Most High and Holy Hand, invisible and only
wise, who casts you down, by so many public and personal trials, and
lifts you up again with any (_lucida intervalla_) mitigations and
refreshments. _Ab inferno nulla redemptio_: from the grave and hell
no return. Here, like Noah’s dove, we have our checker work, blacks
and whites come out and go into the ark, out and in again till the
last, whom we never see back again.

“The business of the day in New-England is not only to keep
ourselves from murdering, our houses, barns, &c. from firing, to
destroy and cut off the barbarians, or subdue and reduce them, but
our main and principal _opus diei_ is, to listen to what the Eternal
speaketh to the whole ship, (the country, colonies, towns, &c.) and
each private cabin, family, person, &c. He will speak peace to his
people; therefore, saith David, ‘I will listen to what Jehovah
speaketh.’ Oliver, in straits and defeats, especially at Hispaniola,
desired all to speak and declare freely what they thought the mind
of God was. H. Vane (then laid by) wrote his discourse, entitled “A
Healing Question,” but for touching upon (that _noli me tangere_)
State sins, H. Vane went prisoner to Carisbrook Castle, in the Isle
of Wight. Oh, Sir, I humbly subscribe (_ex animo_) to your short and
long prayer, in your letter. The Lord keep us from our own
deceivings. I know there have been, and are, many precious and
excellent spirits amongst you, (if you take flight before me, I will
then say you are one of them, without daubing,) but _rebus sic
stantibus_, as the wind blows, the united colonies dare not permit,
_candida et bona fide_, two dangerous (supposed) enemies: 1.
dissenting and non-conforming worshippers, and 2. liberty of free
(really free) disputes, debates, writing, printing, &c.; the Most
High hath begun and given some taste of these two dainties in some
parts, and will more and more advance them when (as Luther and
Erasmus to the Emperor, Charles V., and the Duke of Saxony,) those
two gods are famished, the Pope’s crown and the Monks’ bellies. The
same Luther was wont to say, that every man had a pope in his belly,
and Calvin expressly wrote to Melancthon, that Luther made himself
another Pope; yet, which of us will not say, Jeremiah, thou liest,
when he tells us (and from God) we must not go down to Egypt?

“Sir, I use a bolder pen to your noble spirit than to many, because
the Father of Lights hath shown your soul more of the mysteries of
iniquity than other excellent heads and hearts dream of, and
because, whatever you or I be in other respects, yet in this you
will act a pope, and grant me your love, pardon and indulgence.

“Sir, since the doleful news from Springfield, here it is said that
Philip, with a strong body of many hundred cutthroats, steers for
Providence and Seekonk, some say for Norwich and Stonington, and
some say your forces have had a loss by their cutting off some of
your men, in their passing over a river. _Fiat voluntas Dei_, there
I humbly rest, and let all go but himself. Yet, Sir, I am requested
by our Capt. Fenner to give you notice, that at his farm, in the
woods, he had it from a native, that Philip’s great design is (among
all other possible advantages and treacheries) to draw C. Mosely and
others, your forces, by training and drilling and seeming flights,
into such places as are full of long grass, flags, sedge, &c. and
then inviron them round with fire, smoke and bullets. Some say no
wise soldier will so be caught; but as I told the young prince, on
his return lately from you, all their war is commootin; they have
commootined our houses, our cattle, our heads, &c., and that not by
their artillery, but our weapons; that yet they were so cowardly,
that they have not taken one poor fort from us in all the country,
nor won, nor scarce fought, one battle since the beginning. I told
him and his men, being then in my canoe, with his men with him, that
Philip was his cawkakinnamuck, that is, looking glass. He was deaf
to all advice, and now was overset, Cooshkowwawy, and catcht at
every part of the country to save himself, but he shall never get
ashore, &c. He answered me in a consenting, considering kind of way,
Philip Cooshkowwawy: I went with my great canoe to help him over
from Seekonk (for to Providence no Indian comes) to Pawtuxet side. I
told him I would not ask him news, for I knew matters were private;
only I told him that if he were false to his engagements, we would
pursue them with a winter’s war, when they should not, as musketoes
and rattlesnakes in warm weather, bite us, &c.

“Sir, I carried him and Mr. Smith a glass of wine, but Mr. Smith not
coming, I gave wine and glass to himself, and a bushel of apples to
his men, and being therewith (as beasts are) caught, they gave me
leave to say any thing, acknowledged loudly your great kindness in
Boston, and mine, and yet Capt. Fenner told me yesterday, that he
thinks they will prove our worst enemies at last. I am between fear
and hope, and humbly wait, making sure, as Haselrig’s motto was,
sure of my anchor in heaven, _Tantum in Coelis_, only in heaven.
Sir, there I long to meet you.

“Your most unworthy,
ROGER WILLIAMS.

“To Mrs. Leverett, and other honored and beloved friends, humble
respects, &c.

“Sir, I hope your men fire all the woods before them, &c.

“Sir, I pray not a line to me, except on necessary business; only
give me leave (as you do) to use my foolish boldness to visit
yourself, as I have occasion. I would not add to your troubles.”

The war occasioned great alarm and distress. It spread over New-England,
and threatened, for a while, the destruction of the colonies.

Many of the inhabitants of Providence and of other towns removed to
Newport, for safety; but a considerable number remained, among whom was
Mr. Williams, though it seems his wife and family removed to the
island.[352]

Mr. Williams was very active, notwithstanding his age. He accepted a
military commission, and the title, “Captain Roger Williams,” appears on
the records. It certainly displayed spirit and patriotism in a man of
seventy-seven years, to buckle on his armor for the defence of his home
and his fellow-citizens. He sent the following proposition to the town:
“I pray the town, in the sense of the late bloody practices of the
natives, to give leave to so many as can agree with William Field, to
bestow some charge upon fortifying his house, for security to women and
children. Also to give me leave, and so many as shall agree, to put up
some defence on the hill, between the mill and the highway, for the like
safety of the women and children in that part of the town.” This
proposal was signed by eleven persons, who subscribed various sums, to
defray the expense. The highest subscription was two pounds, six
shillings, except that of Mr. Williams, which was ten pounds, though we
may presume that he was not the richest man among them.

A garrison was established at Providence, by the General Assembly, with
seven men, under the command of Captain Arthur Fenner, with a provision,
however, that it should “not eclipse Captain Williams’ power in the
exercise of the train bands there.”

The town was attacked by the Indians, on the 29th of March, 1676, and
twenty-nine houses were burnt, among which was that, in which the
records of the town were kept. These were thrown into the mill-pond, and
afterwards recovered, though much injured.

It is said, that when the Indians approached Providence, Mr. Williams
took his staff, and went to meet them on the heights north of the cove.
He remonstrated with the sachems, and warned them of the power and
vengeance of the English. “Massachusetts,” said he, “can raise thousands
of men at this moment, and if you kill them, the King of England will
supply their place as fast as they fall.” “Well,” answered one of the
chieftains, “let them come. We are ready for them. But as for you,
brother Williams, you are a good man. You have been kind to us many
years. Not a hair of your head shall be touched.”[353]

We cannot narrate the incidents of this dreadful war. The Indians
suffered a severe defeat, December 19, 1675, at the capture of their
fort, situated in a swamp in the present town of South-Kingstown. In the
battle, about a thousand of the Indians are supposed to have been
killed, and about two hundred of the whites, including six captains.

Philip was finally killed, August 12, 1676, near Mount Hope, by an
Indian, under the command of Col. Church. The war now closed. It decided
the fate of the New-England Indians. The Pokanokets were nearly
exterminated. The Narragansets never recovered from the blow. Thousands
of the natives were killed, and many who were made prisoners, were sent
out of the country and sold as slaves.

But the victory was dearly bought by the colonists. Their whole
disposable force was put in requisition. Thirteen towns were entirely
destroyed by the Indians; six hundred dwelling-houses were burnt, and
about the same number of the colonists, including twelve captains, were
killed, so that almost every family lost a relative. The destruction of
property, and the cost of the war, were immense. The disbursements of
the colonies were estimated at one hundred and fifty thousand pounds
sterling.[354]

The terror and distress which this war produced may explain, if they
cannot justify, many acts of the whites. The body of Philip was treated
with an indignity, which dishonored his captors. His head was sent to
Plymouth, where it was exposed on a gibbet, and his hand was sent to
Boston. His little son was taken prisoner, and several of the divines
were of opinion, that he ought to be put to death, on the strength of
Jewish precedents; but he was spared, only to be sold as a slave in
Bermuda.

At Providence, the following occurrence took place, in August, after the
death of Philip:

“August 25. One Chuff, an Indian, so called in time of peace, because of
his surliness against the English, could scarcely come in, being wounded
some few days before, by Providence men. His wounds were corrupted and
stank, and because he had been a ring-leader all the war to most of the
mischiefs to our houses and cattle, and what English he could, the
inhabitants of the town cried out for justice against him, threatening
themselves to kill him, if the authority did not. For which reason the
Captain Roger Williams caused the drum to be beat, the town council and
council of war to be called. All called for justice and execution. The
council of war gave sentence, and he was shot to death, to the great
satisfaction of the town.”

At a town meeting, August 14, 1676, a list was made of persons “who
stayed and went not away,” and to these persons, it was judged, certain
Indians, who were captives, ought to be delivered as slaves, or
servants, for a term of years. A committee was appointed on the subject,
who presented the following report:

“_Report of the Committee on sale of Indians._

“We, whose names are underwritten, being chosen by the town, to set
the disposal of the Indians now in town, we agree, that Roger
Williams, Nathan Waterman, Thomas Fenner, Henry Ashton, John Mowry,
Daniel Abbott, James Olney, Valentine Whitman, John Whipple, sen.,
Ephraim Pray, John Pray, John Angell, James Angell, Thomas Arnold,
Abraham Mann, Thomas Field, Edward Bennett, Thomas Clements, William
Lancaster, William Hopkins, William Hawkins, William Harris,
Zachariah Field, Samuel Winsor, and Captain Fenner, shall have each
a whole share in the product. Joseph Woodward, and Richard Pray,
each three fourths of a share. John Smith, miller, Edward Smith,
Samuel Whipple, Nelle Whipple, and Thomas Walim, each half share.

“Inhabitants wanting to have Indians at the price they sell at
Rhode-Island or elsewhere:

“All under five years, to serve till thirty; above five and under
ten, till twenty-eight; above ten to fifteen, till twenty-seven;
above fifteen to twenty, till twenty-six years; from twenty to
thirty, shall serve eight years; all above thirty, seven years.

ROGER WILLIAMS,
THOMAS HARRIS, sen.
THOMAS ANGELL, (his mark.)
THOMAS FIELD,
JOHN WHIPPLE, jr.

_August 14, 1676._”

We cannot, at this day, determine, fairly, the question, how far the
sale of the Indian captives was necessary or just. It is, however,
painful to our feelings; and we cannot but be surprised and sorry, to
see the name of Roger Williams connected with such a transaction.

In May, 1677, Mr. Williams was elected an Assistant, but he declined, on
account, probably, of his age. About this time, he wrote thus to the
town of Providence: “I pray the town, that the place of meeting be
certain, and some course settled for payment; that the clerk and
sergeant be satisfied, according to moderation, that the town business
may go on cheerfully; that the business of the rate (paid by so many
already) be finished; that the old custom of order be kept in our
meetings, and those unruly be reproved, or upon obstinacy, cast out from
sober and free men’s company; that our ancient use of arbitration be
brought into esteem again; that (it being constantly reported, that
Connecticut is upon the gaining of his Majesty’s consent to _enslave us
to their parish worship_) we consider what we ought to do.”[355]

In October, 1677, commissioners from the several colonies met at
Providence, to settle the long contested disputes between Mr. Harris and
others about lands. Mr. Harris laid before the Court a long statement,
in which he preferred heavy charges against Mr. Williams, and the latter
made counter statements, in a similar style. The result of the
examination was favorable to the claims of Mr. Harris and his friends,
who obtained five verdicts from a jury. But the disputes were not
settled, till more than thirty years afterwards.[356] Our limits do not
allow us to enter into particulars, which could not be detailed without
a tedious and unprofitable prolixity. They properly belong to a history
of the State.

Of the few last years of Mr. Williams’ life, we have scanty notices. The
following letter[357] contains a reference to his age and health, and is
a specimen of his constant zeal to serve his friends:

“_Narraganset, 21 July, 1679, (ut vulgo.)_

“Roger Williams, of Providence, in the Narraganset Bay, in
New-England, being (by God’s mercy) the first beginner of the mother
town of Providence, and of the colony of Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations, being now near to fourscore years of age, yet (by God’s
mercy) of sound understanding and memory; do humbly and faithfully
declare, that Mr. Richard Smith, senior, who for his conscience to
God left fair possessions in Glocestershire, and adventured, with
his relations and estate, to New-England, and was a most acceptable
inhabitant, and a prime leading man in Taunton and Plymouth colony;
for his conscience sake, many differences arising, he left Taunton
and came to the Narraganset country, where, (by God’s mercy and the
favor of the Narraganset sachems) he broke the ice at his great
charge and hazard, and put up in the thickest of the barbarians, the
first English house amongst them. 2. I humbly testify, that about
forty years from this date, he kept possession, coming and going
himself, children and servants, and he had quiet possession of his
housing, lands and meadow; and there, in his own house, with much
serenity of soul and comfort, he yielded up his spirit to God, (the
Father of spirits) in peace. 3. I do humbly and faithfully testify
as abovesaid, that since his departure, his honored son, Capt.
Richard Smith, hath kept possession, (with much acceptance with
English and pagans) of his father’s housing, lands and meadows, with
great improvement also by his great cost and industry. And in the
late bloody Pagan war, I knowingly testify and declare, that it
pleased the Most High to make use of himself in person, his housing,
goods, corn, provisions and cattle, for a garrison and supply for
the whole army of New-England, under the command of the ever to be
honored General Winslow, for the service of his Majesty’s honor and
country of New-England. 4. I do also humbly declare, that the said
Capt. Richard Smith, junior, ought, by all the rules of equity,
justice and gratitude, (to his honored father and himself) to be
fairly treated with, considered, recruited, honored, and, by his
Majesty’s authority, confirmed and established in a peaceful
possession of his father’s and his own possessions in this pagan
wilderness, and Narraganset country. The premises I humbly testify,
as now leaving this country and this world.

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

The following note was directed to Mr. Daniel Abbott, the town clerk of
Providence.[358] The “considerations presented touching rates,” seem to
have accompanied it. They deserve to be preserved, for many reasons.
They show the unabated zeal of Mr. Williams, for the public welfare. The
opposition to the payment of taxes was a sore evil, which he often
mentioned and condemned:

“My good friend, loving remembrance to you. It has pleased the
Most High and Only Wise, to stir up your spirit to be one of the
chiefest stakes in our poor hedge. I, therefore, not being able to
come to you, present you with a few thoughts about the great
stumbling-block, to them that are willing to stumble and trouble
themselves, our rates. James Matison had one copy of me, and
Thomas Arnold another. This I send to yourself and the town, (for
it may be I shall not be able to be at meeting.) I am grieved that
you do so much service for so bad recompense; but I am persuaded
you shall find cause to say, the Most High God of recompense, who
was Abraham’s great reward, hath paid me.

_Considerations presented touching rates._

“1. Government and order in families, towns, &c. is the ordinance of
the Most High, Rom. 13, for the peace and good of mankind. 2. Six
things are written in the hearts of all mankind, yea, even in
pagans: 1st. That there is a Deity; 2d. That some actions are
nought; 3d. That the Deity will punish; 4th. That there is another
life; 5th. That marriage is honorable; 6th. That mankind cannot keep
together without some government. 3. There is no Englishman in his
Majesty’s dominions or elsewhere, who is not forced to submit to
government. 4. There is not a man in the world, except robbers,
pirates and rebels, but doth submit to government. 5. Even robbers,
pirates and rebels themselves cannot hold together, but by some law
among themselves and government. 6. One of these two great laws in
the world must prevail, either that of judges and justices of peace
in courts of peace, or the law of arms, the sword and blood. 7. If
it comes from the courts of trials of peace, to the trial of the
sword and blood, the conquered is forced to seek law and government.
8. Till matters come to a settled government, no man is ordinarily
sure of his house, goods, lands, cattle, wife, children or life. 9.
Hence is that ancient maxim, _It is better to live under a tyrant in
peace, than under the sword, or where every man is a tyrant_. 10.
His Majesty sends governors to Barbadoes, Virginia, &c. but to us he
shews greater favor in our charter, to choose whom we please. 11. No
charters are obtained without great suit, favor or charges. Our
first cost a hundred pounds (though I never received it all;) our
second about a thousand; Connecticut about six thousand, &c. 12. No
government is maintained without tribute, custom, rates, taxes, &c.
13. Our charter excels all in New-England, or _in the world, as to
the souls of men_. 14. It pleased God, Rom. 13, to command tribute,
custom, and consequently rates, not only for fear, but for
conscience sake. 15. Our rates are the least, by far, of any colony
in New-England. 16. There is no man that hath a vote in town or
colony, but _he hath a hand in making the rates by himself or his
deputies_. 17. In our colony the General Assembly, Governor,
magistrates, deputies, towns, town-clerks, raters, constables, &c.
have done their duties, the failing lies upon particular persons.
18. It is but folly to resist, (one or more, and if one, why not
more?) God hath stirred up the spirit of the Governor, magistrates
and officers, driven to it by necessity, to be unanimously resolved
to see the matter finished; and it is the duty of every man to
maintain, encourage, and strengthen the hand of authority. 19. Black
clouds (some years) have hung over Old and New-England heads. God
hath been wonderfully patient and long-suffering to us; but who sees
not changes and calamities hanging over us? 20. All men fear, that
this blazing herald from heaven[359] denounceth from the Most High,
wars, pestilence, famines; is it not then our wisdom to make and
keep peace with God and man?

“Your old unworthy servant,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.
“_Providence, 15th Jan. 1680–1, (so called.)_”

The following letter to Governor Bradstreet,[360] of Massachusetts,
contains a notice of Mr. Williams’ health, and other interesting topics:

“To my much honored, kind friend, the Gov. Bradstreet, at Boston,
present.

“_Providence, 6 May, 1682, (ut vulgo.)_

“Sir,

“Your person and place are born to trouble as the sparks fly upward;
yet I am grieved to disturb your thoughts or hands with any thing
from me, and yet am refreshed with the thought, that sometimes you
subscribe [your willing servant:] and that your love and willingness
will turn to your account also.

“Sir, by John Whipple of Providence, I wrote lately (though the
letter lay long by him) touching the widow Messinger’s daughter,
Sarah Weld, of Boston, whom I believe Joseph Homan, of Boston, hath
miserably deluded, slandered, oppressed (her and his child) by
barbarous inhumanity, so that I humbly hope your mercy and justice
will gloriously in public kiss each other.

“Sir, this enclosed tells you that being old and weak and bruised
(with rupture and colic) and lameness on both my feet, I am
directed, by the Father of our spirits, to desire to attend his
infinite Majesty with a poor mite, (which makes but two farthings.)
By my fire-side I have recollected the discourses which (by many
tedious journeys) I have had with the scattered English at
Narraganset, before the war and since. I have reduced them unto
those twenty two heads, (enclosed) which is near thirty sheets of my
writing: I would send them to the Narragansets and others; there is
no controversy in them, only an endeavor of a particular match of
each poor sinner to his Maker. For printing, I am forced to write to
my friends at Massachusetts, Connecticut, Plymouth, and our own
colony, that he that hath a shilling and a heart to countenance and
promote such a soul work, may trust the great Paymaster (who is
beforehand with us already) for an hundreth for one in this life.
Sir, I have many friends at Boston, but pray you to call in my kind
friends Capt. Brattle and Mr. Seth Perry, who may, by your wise
discretions, ease yourself of any burthen. I write to my honored
acquaintance at Roxbury, Mr. Dudley and Mr. Eliot, and Mr.
Stoughton, at Dorchester, and to Capt. Gookins, at Cambridge, and
pray yourself and him to consult about a little help from
Charlestown, where death has stript me of all my acquaintance. Sir,
if you can return that chapter of my reply to G——ton, concerning
New-England, I am advised to let it sleep, and forbear public
contests with Protestants, since it is the design of hell and Rome
to cut the throats of all the protestors in the world. Yet I am
occasioned, in this book, to say much for the honor and peace of
New-England.

“Sir, I shall humbly wait for your advice where it may be best
printed, at Boston or Cambridge, and for how much, the printer
finding paper. We have tidings here of Shaftsbury’s and Howard’s
beheading, and contrarily, their release, London manifestations of
joy, and the King’s calling a Parliament. But all these are but
sublunaries, temporaries and trivials. Eternity (O eternity!) is our
business, to which end I am most unworthy to be

“Your willing and faithful servant,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“My humble respects to Mrs. Bradstreet, and other honored friends.”

The foregoing letter furnishes proof, that Mr. Williams, even after
Philip’s war, and consequently after he had passed his 77th year, went
to Narraganset, and delivered discourses. His zeal for the salvation of
men was not extinguished by his age, nor was he prevented from efforts
to save them, by his theory respecting the ministry. That zeal is
displayed in his desire to print these discourses, after disease
confined him to his home. The letter, too, leads us to infer his
poverty. He would not, probably, have solicited aid to print so small a
work, if he had possessed the means. His son’s letter, quoted in a
preceding page,[361] intimates, that Mr. Williams was dependent on his
children, to some extent, at least, during the last years of his life.
Poverty was honorable in a man, who had spent his best days in the
public service, and who had been more intent on making others happy,
than on the promotion of his own private interests.

Of the immediate cause and exact time of Mr. Williams’ death, we are not
informed. It is certain, however, that he died, at some time between
January 16, 1682–3, and May 10, 1683. On the former day, he signed a
document which was intended as a settlement of the controversy
respecting the Pawtuxet lands. On the 10th of May, Mr. John Thornton
wrote to the Rev. Samuel Hubbard, from Providence: “The Lord hath
arrested by death our ancient and approved friend, Mr. Roger Williams,
with divers others here.”[362] He was in the 84th year of his age. It
would be gratifying to have some account of his last hours, but we have
every reason to believe, that his end was peace. He “was buried,” says
Mr. Callender (p. 93,) “with all the solemnity the colony was able to
show.” His remains were deposited, in his own family burying-ground, on
his town-lot, a short distance only from the place where he landed, and
from the spot where his dwelling-house stood. His wife probably survived
him,[363] and all his children, it is believed, were living at his
death.[364]

Thus terminated the long and active life of the founder of Rhode-Island,
fifty-two years of which elapsed, after his arrival in America. It now
remains, to present a summary view of his writings, and some comments on
his character.

CHAPTER XXVI.

Mr. Williams’ writings—Key—Bloody Tenet—liberty of conscience—Mr.
Cotton’s Reply—Mr. Williams’ Rejoinder.

Our examination of the writings of Mr. Williams must be brief.
Sufficient specimens of his style have been given in the preceding
pages. We shall, therefore, present no extracts from his books, except
such as may be necessary to explain their character, or to illustrate
his principles.

His first printed book was his Key. The title page is in these words: “A
Key into the Language of America, or a Help to the Language of the
Natives, in that part of America called New-England; together with brief
Observations of the Customs, Manners and Worships, &c. of the aforesaid
Natives, in Peace and War, in Life and Death. On all which are added,
Spiritual Observations, general and particular, by the Author, of chief
and special use (upon all occasions) to all the English inhabiting those
Parts; yet pleasant and profitable to the View of all Men. By Roger
Williams, of Providence, in New-England. London. Printed by Gregory
Dexter, 1643.”

It was dedicated “to my dear and well-beloved friends and countrymen in
Old and New-England.” In this dedication, he says, “This Key respects
the native language of it, and happily may unlock some rarities
concerning the natives themselves, not yet discovered. A little key may
open a box, where lies a bunch of keys.” He professes his hope, that his
book may contribute to the spread of Christianity among the natives,
“being comfortably persuaded, that that Father of spirits, who was
graciously pleased to persuade Japhet (the Gentile) to dwell in the
tents of Shem (the Jews) will, in his holy season, (I hope approaching)
persuade these Gentiles of America to partake of the mercies of Europe;
and then shall be fulfilled what is written by the prophet Malachi, from
the rising of the sun (in Europe) to the going down of the same (in
America) my name shall be great among the Gentiles.”

The book is divided into thirty-two chapters, the titles of which are,
Of Salutation. Of Eating and Entertainment. Of Sleep. Of their Numbers.
Of Relations and Consanguinity, &c. Of Houses, Family, &c. Of Parts of
Body. Of Discourse and News. Of Time of Day. Of Seasons of the Year. Of
Travel. Of the Heavenly Lights. Of the Weather. Of the Winds. Of Fowl.
Of the Earth and Fruits thereof. Of Beasts and Cattle. Of the Sea. Of
Fish and Fishing. Of their Nakedness and Clothing. Of their Religion,
Soul, &c. Of their Government. Of their Marriages. Of their Coin. Of
their Trading. Of their Debts and Trusting. Of their Hunting. Of their
Sports and Gaming. Of their Wars. Of their Paintings. Of their Sickness.
Of their Death and Burial.

The work is ingeniously constructed in such a manner, as to present a
vocabulary of Indian words, with their significations, while valuable
information is given concerning the various topics enumerated in the
titles of the chapters. Appended to each chapter are some pious
reflections, and a few lines of rude poetry.

An extract from the twenty-first chapter, “Of Religion, the Soul, &c.”
will furnish a specimen of the work.

“Manit Manittowock, God, Gods.

“Obs. He that questions whether God made the world, the Indians will
teach him. I must acknowledge, I have received, in my converse with
them, many confirmations of those two great points, Heb. 11:6. viz:

“1. That God is.

“2. That he is a rewarder of all them that diligently seek him.

“They will generally confess that God made all; but then, in
special, although they deny not that Englishman’s God made English
men, and the heavens and earth there; yet their Gods made them, and
the heaven and the earth where they dwell.

“Nummus quauna-muckqun manit. God is angry with me.

“Obs. I heard a poor Indian lamenting the loss of a child, at break
of day, call up his wife and children, and all about him, to
lamentation, and with abundance of tears, cry out, O, God, thou hast
taken away my child! thou art angry with me: O, turn thine anger
from me, and spare the rest of my children.

“If they receive any good in hunting, fishing, harvest, &c. they
acknowledge God in it.

“Yea, if it be but an ordinary accident, a fall, &c. they will say,
God was angry and did it.

“Musquantum manit. God is angry.

“But herein is their misery:

“First. They branch their godhead into many gods.

“Secondly. Attribute it to creatures.

“First. Many gods: they have given me the names of thirty-seven,
which I have, all which, in their solemn worships, they invocate:
as,

“Kautantowwit. The great southwest god, to whose house all souls go,
and from whom came their corn and beans, as they say.

Wompanand. The eastern god.
Chekesuwand. The western god.
Wunnanameanit. The northern god.
Sowwanand. The southern god.
Wetuomanit. The house god.

“Even as the papists have their he and she saint protectors, as St.
George, St. Patrick, St. Dennis, Virgin Mary, &c.

Squauanit. The woman’s god.
Muckquachuckquand. The children’s god.

“Secondly. As they have many of these feigned deities, so worship
they the creatures in whom they conceive doth rest some deity:

Keesuckquand. The sun god.
Nanepaushat. The moon god.
Paumpagussit. The sea.
Yotaanit. The fire god.

“Supposing that deities be in these, &c.”

_“The general Observation of Religion, &c._

“The wandering generations of Adam’s lost posterity, having lost the
true and living God, their Maker, have created, out of the nothing
of their own inventions, many false and feigned gods and creators.

“More particular,

“Two sorts of men shall naked stand,
Before the burning ire
Of him, that shortly shall appear,
In dreadful flaming fire.
First, millions know not God, nor for
His knowledge care to seek;
Millions have knowledge store, but, in
Obedience, are not meek.
If woe to Indians, where shall Turk,
Where shall appear the Jew?
O, where shall stand the Christian false?
O, blessed then the true.”

The work displays genius, industry and benevolence. It was very valuable
when it was written, and it is still one of the best works on the
subject. It breathes, throughout, a spirit of piety, and it closes in
the following devout strain:

“Now, to the Most High and Most Holy, Immortal, Invisible, and only
wise God, who alone is Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the
ending, the first and the last, who was, and is, and is to come;
from whom, by whom, and to whom are all things; by whose gracious
assistance and wonderful supportment in so many varieties of
hardship and outward miseries, I have had such converse with
barbarous nations, and have been mercifully assisted, to frame this
poor Key, which may (through his blessing, in his own holy season,)
open a door, yea, doors of unknown mercies to us and them, be honor,
glory, power, riches, wisdom, goodness and dominion ascribed by all
his in Jesus Christ to eternity. Amen.”

Of the original edition, the copy in the library of the Massachusetts
Historical Society is probably the only one in this country. In the
third and fifth volumes of the Society’s Collections, first series, a
large part of the work was republished. The first volume of the
Collections of the Rhode-Island Historical Society contains a handsome
edition of the Key, with a well written preface, and a brief memoir of
the author.

His next publication was entitled “The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, for
Cause of Conscience, discussed, in a Conference between Truth and Peace,
who, in all tender affection, present to the High Court of Parliament
(as the result of their Discourse) these, (amongst other passages) of
highest consideration. Printed in the year 1644.” It was published
without the name of the author.

The origin of this work was this: A person, who was confined in Newgate,
on account of his religious opinions, wrote a paper against persecution.
“Having not the use of pen and ink, he wrote these arguments in milk, in
sheets of paper, brought to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend
in London, as the stopples of his milk bottle. In such paper, written
with milk, nothing will appear; but the way of reading it by fire being
known to this friend, who received the papers, he transcribed and kept
together the papers.”[365]

This essay was sent to Mr. Cotton, of Boston. He wrote a reply, of which
Mr. Williams’ book is an examination. Its title, “The Bloody Tenet,” is
a fanciful reference to the circumstance, that the original paper of the
prisoner was written with milk. “These arguments against such
persecution, and the answer pleading for it, written (as love hopes)
from godly intentions, hearts and hands, yet in a marvellous different
style and manner—the arguments against persecution in _milk_, the answer
for it (as I may say) in _blood_.”

The book is dedicated “To the Right Honorable, both Houses of the High
Court of Parliament.” After an address “To every courteous reader,” and
a minute table of contents, the essay of the prisoner and Mr. Cotton’s
reply are inserted. Then follows the main work, divided into one hundred
and thirty-eight short chapters, eighty-one of which are employed in
discussing Mr. Cotton’s reply, and the remainder in examining “A Model
of Church and Civil Power, composed by Mr. Cotton and the Ministers of
New-England, and sent to the Church at Salem, as a further Confirmation
of the Bloody Doctrine of Persecution for Cause of Conscience.” The
whole work forms a small quarto, of two hundred and forty-seven pages. A
few copies exist, in the large libraries in this country.[366] It ought
to be reprinted, and it is hoped that the Rhode-Island Historical
Society will make it one of the volumes of their Collections. It is the
best work of its author, and it contains a full exhibition of his
principles. Its style is animated, and often beautiful.[367] It is in
the form of a dialogue between Truth and Peace, and the colloquy is
sustained with great skill. It commences thus:

“_Truth._ In what dark corner of the world (sweet Peace) are we two
met? How hath this present evil world banished me from all the
coasts and quarters of it, and how hath the righteous God in
judgment taken thee from the earth? Rev. 6:4.

“_Peace._ ’Tis lamentably true, (blessed Truth) the foundations of
the world have long been out of course. The gates of earth and hell
have conspired together to intercept our joyful meeting, and our
holy kisses. With what a weary, tired wing, have I flown over
nations, kingdoms, cities, towns, to find out precious Truth.

“_Truth._ The like inquiries, in my flights and travels, have I made
for Peace, and still am told, she hath left the earth and fled to
heaven.

“_Peace._ Dear Truth, what is the earth but a dungeon of darkness,
where Truth is not?”

An analysis of this book would occupy too much space. The author himself
presents a summary view of its contents in the introduction:

“First. That the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of
protestants and papists, spilt in the wars of present and former
ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted
by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

“Secondly. Pregnant Scriptures and arguments are throughout the work
proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience.

“Thirdly. Satisfactory answers are given to Scriptures, and
objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the
ministers of the New English churches, and others former and later,
tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of
conscience.

“Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is
proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance
under the altar.

“Fifthly. All civil states, with their officers of justice, in the
irrespective constitutions and administrations, are proved
essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders
of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

“Sixthly. It is the will and command of God, that since the coming
of his Son, the Lord Jesus, a permission of the most Paganish,
Jewish, Turkish or Antichristian consciences and worships, be
granted to all men in all nations and countries: and they are to be
fought against with that sword, which is only in soul matters able
to conquer, to wit, the sword of God’s Spirit, the word of God.

“Seventhly. The state of the land of Israel, the kings and people
thereof, in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and
no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world
to follow.

“Eighthly. God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted
or enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity sooner or
later is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of
conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the
hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

“Ninthly. In holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil
state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the
Jews’ conversion to Christ.

“Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or
civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the
principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is
come in the flesh.

“Eleventhly. The permission of other consciences and worships, than
a state professeth, only can according to God procure a firm and
lasting peace, good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of
the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all sorts.

“Twelfthly. Lastly, true civility and christianity may both flourish
in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and
contrary consciences, either of Jews or Gentiles.”

Without examining the numerous arguments and texts, with which Mr.
Williams fortifies his doctrine, we will briefly state the general
principles of liberty of conscience.

All men are bound by the laws of God, and are responsible to Him for
their conduct. He requires them to love, worship and obey Him. From this
duty, they cannot be released. The conscience cannot be freed from this
obligation. God has not granted any liberty to disobey His commands.

As God is the Supreme Ruler, He may prescribe the modes in which He
chooses to be worshipped, and may enforce conformity by temporal
penalties. This he did in the Jewish commonwealth. He established a
system of rites, and armed the magistrate with power to coerce the
consciences of the Jews. The civil sword was rightly used to maintain
the national religion, because the magistrate acted in the name and by
the authority of Jehovah. The destruction of several heathen nations, by
the Jews, was just, because God commanded the act. He uses what
instruments he pleases to punish men, and the chastisement was deserved,
whether it was inflicted by the Jewish sword, or by famine or
pestilence.

But since the introduction of the christian system, the case is altered.
The obligation to love God and obey the Gospel, binds the conscience of
every man; but he is responsible to God alone. His fellow men have no
right to interfere. God has not delegated to any man this authority over
the conscience.

All human laws, therefore, which either prescribe or prohibit certain
doctrines or rites, that are not inconsistent with the civil peace, are
unjust, and are an invasion of the prerogatives of God. They are
consequently null and void, and no man is bound to obey them. The
reasons are obvious:

Such laws are inconsistent with the spirit and letter of the New
Testament. The Saviour gave no intimation to his ministers, that force
should be employed in the diffusion of his Gospel. He appointed, on the
contrary, the preaching of the truth, an appeal to the understandings
and hearts of men, as the means by which his kingdom was to be
established. His apostles accordingly went abroad among the nations,
proclaiming the Gospel, and by moral suasion, endeavoring to bring men
to the obedience of faith. They represented themselves to be
ambassadors, commissioned to declare the will of their Sovereign, but
not authorized to employ force. “We are ambassadors for Christ; as
though God did _beseech_ you by us, we _pray_ you, in Christ’s stead, be
ye reconciled to God.” “Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we
_persuade_ men.”[368] The great commission of the ministers of the
Gospel is, “Go ye into all the world, and _preach the Gospel_ to every
creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that
believeth not shall be damned.”[369] The only legitimate means,
therefore, of operating on the wills of men, in reference to religion,
are the affecting truths, the precious promises, and the terrific
threatenings of the word of God. These are to be presented to the minds
and hearts of men, with solemnity and urgent affection; but here the
agency of man ceases. If men choose to disobey the Gospel, they do it on
their responsibility to God, who will bring them into judgment for the
deeds done in the body.

The early believers acted on this principle; and after Christians
obtained possession of the civil power, the employment of force to
constrain the conscience was not introduced, till the purity of
Christianity became corrupted by her alliance with the state.[370] The
remark of Tertullian,[371] expresses the feelings of the early
Christians: “It is the natural civil right of every man to worship
whatever he pleases. It is inconsistent with the nature of religion to
propagate it by force, for it must be received by voluntary consent, not
by coercion.”

This remark suggests another argument. Religion essentially consists in
love to God. Its seat is the soul. External acts of worship are merely
manifestations of this inward principle, and derive from it all their
value. When they do not spring from it, they are not acceptable to God.
The principle may exist, in vigor and purity, without any external
expressions; and much of the intercourse of every Christian with God
consists in this silent communion of his soul with the great Invisible.
But, from the nature of man, he needs external modes of manifesting his
feelings, in order to preserve those feelings in healthful action. God
accordingly requires worship, and obedience to certain rites. The social
principle is brought into action, and individual Christians increase
their own strength, by union with their fellow Christians in acts of
devotion.

But when force is employed, to constrain men to the performance of
religious duties, the end proposed is not attained. Men may be made to
assume attitudes, and to repeat words, and to visit certain places; but
they cannot be forced, by human power, to love God. They cannot thus be
made religious. The soul is not subject to human constraint. Men cannot
penetrate the interior sanctuary, where she resides, in the awful
presence of God alone. It is absurd, therefore, to attempt to
accomplish, by human laws, what they are incompetent, from their nature,
to effect. No legislator ever enacted a law, requiring the citizens to
love the state. The law provides for the punishment of actions
inconsistent with this love; but beyond the external manifestations of
the inward feelings, it does not attempt to extend its jurisdiction.
Laws requiring men to perform religious duties are vain, as well as
unjust. They attempt an impossibility, because the duty is not
performed, unless it springs from love to God; which love no human power
can create in the soul.

But such laws are unjust, because God has given to men no power over the
conscience, and because men cannot grant this power to each other. Civil
society is necessary to the happiness of men, and a sufficient amount of
power must be confided to the hands of rulers, for the protection of
society. But the degree of this delegated authority is limited by its
objects. The regulation of the conscience is not one of the purposes for
which men combine in civil society. The object of such a society is the
promotion of civil interests. Those interests must be guarded and
promoted. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness must be secured to
every citizen. When these ends are attained, government has fulfilled
its purpose. It has no power to dictate to the citizen, in what mode he
shall pursue happiness. It cannot interfere with his domestic or social
relations, unless the public welfare is injured. It cannot, above all,
intrude into the hallowed asylum, where the religious affections reign.
It is inconsistent with the theory of the social compact, to suppose,
that men have surrendered to the state the right to control their
faith,—a surrender which is not necessary to the ends for which men
unite in political communities.

But if men were willing to yield this right, they could not do it. God
holds every man personally responsible. Every individual must stand at
the judgment seat of Christ, and give an account of his own actions. No
man, therefore, can surrender to another the control over his
conscience. His soul is committed to his own responsibility, and of him
God will require it. He must not commit himself implicitly to the
control or guidance of any man; but, seeking for light from Heaven, he
must strive for the perfection of his moral nature, and for a
preparation for the eternal life beyond the grave.

The absurdity of permitting the civil magistrate to regulate the
conscience, is shown by the fact, that the magistrate will make his own
views the standard of orthodoxy; and, consequently, it has happened,
that successive rulers have maintained, by force, totally opposite
systems of faith and practice. Mr. Williams says, on this point, “Who
knows not, that within the compass of one poor span of twelve years’
revolution, all England hath become from half Papist, half Protestant,
to be absolute Protestants; from absolute Protestants to be absolute
Papists; from absolute Papists, (changing as fashions) to absolute
Protestants.”[372]

The magistrate must be infallible, in order to be a safe guide to the
consciences of men. This consideration is a sufficient answer to Mr.
Cotton’s sophism, that a man must not be persecuted for his opinions,
but he may be punished for acting in contradiction to his own
conscience. But who is to be the judge? Fundamentals, says Mr. Cotton,
are so clear, that a man must be criminally blind and obstinate, who
does not receive and obey them. But what are these fundamentals? is a
question which different magistrates will decide differently; and men
may be successively rewarded and punished, by successive
administrations, for the same opinions.

The great and true principle, then, is, that men are not responsible to
each other, for their religious opinions or practices, as such; and that
every man has a right, as a citizen, to hold any opinions, and to
practise any ceremonies, which he pleases, unless he disturbs the civil
peace. The duty of the magistrate, in relation to religion, consists in
personal obedience to the truth, and impartial protection to all the
citizens in the exercise of their religious privileges. Mr. Williams has
well stated this point. In answer to the question, “What may the
magistrate lawfully do with his civil power in matters of religion?” he
says:

“The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship, which
his conscience is persuaded is true and upon which he ventures his soul;
or else, that and those which he is persuaded are false. Concerning the
first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say
he owes a three-fold duty to it.

“First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable
testimony (according to Isaiah 49, and Rev. 31) with a tender respect of
truth, and of the professors of it.

“Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord
Jesus, in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18,
and 1 Cor. 5.

“Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart,
or met together, as also of their estates, from violence or injury,
according to Rom. 13.

“Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil
magistrate dare not adjoin,) yet he owes:

“First, _permission_ (for _approbation_ he owes not to what is evil) and
thus according to Matthew 13: 30, for public peace and quiet sake.

“Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of
a false worship) that no injury be offered either to the persons or
goods of any. Rom. 13.”[373]

It follows, from this last position, that no man can be lawfully
compelled to support a system of worship which he disapproves; for this
is, in effect, to tax and punish him for his religious opinions.

The duty of the magistrate is thus very clear. With the religious
opinions or practices of the citizens, he has no concern. They are not
civil matters, which, alone, come within his cognizance. If a man’s
religious views lead him to actions which injure society, those actions
become civil offences, and are within the jurisdiction of the
magistrate, who is appointed to guard the interests of the civil
community. If a company of Hindoos should remove to Boston, and should
erect a temple to Juggernaut, they ought to be protected in their
worship, if they confined themselves to such acts, as made no
disturbance, and violated no civil law. If, however, they should attempt
to drag the idol through the streets, the magistrates ought to
interfere. If they should sacrifice one of their children, the
perpetrators ought to be tried and punished for murder. If a man
violates the third commandment, in such a way as to disturb the
community, he may be punished, though experience has proved, that it is
not wise to enforce laws against blasphemy. If a man breaks the fourth
commandment, by actions which interrupt or disturb the devotions of
others, the law may restrain and punish him, not for the breach of the
commandment, but for interfering with the religious privileges of other
citizens. If a man chose to labor on the Sabbath, on his farm or in his
shop, the law could not rightfully interfere; but if by his labor he
disturbed the devotions of his neighbors, he might be restrained;
though, here, too, experience proves, that the interference of the law
is odious, and seldom beneficial.

Such cases as those specified present no difficulty. There is a broad,
clear line, running between religious opinions and actions. The actions,
and not the opinions, are the subjects of law. If it is alleged, that
the opinions necessarily lead to illegal conduct, the reply is, wait
till the actions are attempted or performed. They, then, come within the
cognizance of civil law. If, indeed, a case could be supposed to happen,
in which a religious sect avowed it as their creed, that they were
required, or permitted, to murder their fellow-citizens, or burn their
dwellings, the magistrates would be bound to take the necessary
precautions to prevent such results. In such a case, the creed would
involve a criminal design, against which the community would have a
right to guard itself; but the mere design could not be punished; just
as a purpose to commit murder cannot be punished, though it justifies
the magistrate in taking measures to prevent its execution.

Liberty of conscience, however, has some limitations. It does not
prohibit churches from excluding members whose opinions or conduct are
inconsistent with the principles on which the church is founded. The
Bible makes it the duty of churches to maintain suitable discipline. A
church is a voluntary society, founded on certain fundamental rules, to
which every member assents, when he enters it. If he adopts other
principles, or in any way violates the rules, he makes himself liable to
expulsion from the church, as from any other voluntary association.

Neither does liberty of conscience imply, that a man has a claim to our
confidence, our patronage, our votes, whatever may be his religious
opinions. I would not intrust my children to the care of an infidel, but
I do not deprive him, by such refusal, of any right; yet a law
forbidding infidels to be employed as instructors, would be unjust. I
would not vote for a man holding certain principles, but I do not
thereby invade his privileges, for he has no title to my vote; yet a
law, making men ineligible to office, on account of certain opinions,
would be an invasion of their civil rights.[374] Every man must bear the
responsibility of his principles. Those principles cannot impair his
positive rights; but they may, and will, affect the opinions and
feelings of his fellow men. To their confidence, their patronage, or
their votes, he has no natural right, and no civil injustice is done to
him, if these are withheld.

We cannot prolong our remarks on this subject. It is expounded and
illustrated, with much ability, learning and eloquence, in the “Bloody
Tenet.” Roger Williams is entitled to the honor of being the first
writer, in modern times, who clearly maintained the absolute right of
every man, to a “full liberty in religious concernments.” Bishop Heber,
in his Life of Jeremy Taylor, says, of the “Liberty of Prophesying,” “It
is the first attempt on record, to conciliate the minds of Christians to
the reception of a doctrine, which, though now the rule of action
professed by all Christian sects, was then, by every sect alike,
regarded as a perilous and portentous novelty.”[375]

Bishop Heber has here fallen into a mistake. The “Liberty of
Prophesying” was published in 1647, three years after the “Bloody
Tenet,” in which the principles of religious liberty are more clearly
and consistently maintained, than in Taylor’s excellent work.[376]
Bishop Heber admits (p. 222) that this essay “can by no means lay claim
to the character which has been assigned to it, of a plea for universal
toleration. The forbearance which he claims, _he claims for those
Christians only, who unite in the confession of the Apostles’ creed_.”
Bishop Taylor himself, at the end of the sixteenth section of the work
referred to, says, that “opinions are to be dealt with,” if they tend to
disturb the public peace, and lead to vice. “If either themselves or
their doctrine do really and without color or feigned pretence, disturb
the public peace, and just interests, they are not to be suffered.” But
the magistrate must judge, in this case; and, of course, the door is
left wide open, for persecution. Roger Williams, on the contrary,
contended, that “a permission of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish or
Antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all
nations and countries;” and he left no discretion to the magistrate to
judge of opinions, any further than they should exhibit their effects in
action. His principles, too, claimed for men entire _liberty of
conscience_, and not merely a right to _toleration_. To tolerate implies
the power to interfere, and to regulate the conscience. If there is
power to _permit_, there is power to _forbid_.

The great Mr. Locke advocated the principles of religious liberty with
distinguished ability, in his Letters concerning Toleration, written
about the year 1690; but he maintained, by implication, that Papists
ought not to be tolerated, and expressly asserted that atheists must not
receive toleration.[377]

We may here take notice of an attempt to deprive Roger Williams and his
colony of their just praise, by claiming for Lord Baltimore the priority
in establishing religious liberty in Maryland. We would not detract from
the merit of Lord Baltimore and his colony; but the liberty established
in Maryland, though far beyond the spirit of those times, did not rise
to the Rhode-Island standard. It extended only to Christians.[378] Lord
Baltimore commenced his settlement in 1634, and established
Christianity, agreeably to the old common law, without allowing
pre-eminence to any particular sect. This was wise and liberal; but Mr.
Williams established his colony in 1636, two years afterwards, on the
broad principle of unlimited religious freedom; and the Jew, the
Mahometan or the Hindoo might have found a home in Rhode-Island, and
might have enjoyed his opinions unmolested, while he fulfilled his civil
duties. The first law of Maryland, respecting religious liberty, was
enacted in 1649. In 1647, at the first General Assembly held in
Rhode-Island, under the first charter, a code of laws was adopted,
relating exclusively to civil concerns, and concluding with these words:
“Otherwise than thus, what is herein forbidden, _all men may walk as
their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God. And
let the lambs of the Most High walk in this colony without molestation,
in the name of Jehovah their God, forever and ever._”[379] This noble
provision was a part of the code; and it was not only prior in date to
the law of Maryland, but it was more liberal, and more consistent with
the rights of conscience.

We must now return to Mr. Williams’ book. A reply was written by Mr.
Cotton, and published in London, in 1647. Its title was: “The Bloody
Tenet washed, and made white, in the Blood of the Lamb, being discussed
and discharged of Blood-Guiltiness, by just Defence. Wherein the great
Questions of this Time are handled, viz. How far Liberty of Conscience
ought to be given to those that truly fear God, and how far restraint to
turbulent and pestilent Persons, that not only rase the Foundation of
Godliness, but disturb the civil Peace, where they live. Also, how far
the Magistrates may proceed in the Duties of the first Table. And that
all Magistrates ought to study the Word and Will of God, that they may
frame their Government according to it. Discussed, as they are alleged,
from divers Scriptures, out of the Old and New Testaments. Wherein also
the Practice of Princes is debated, together with the Judgment of
ancient and late Writers, of most precious Esteem. Whereunto is added, a
Reply to Mr. Williams’ Answer to Mr. Cotton’s Letter. By John Cotton,
Bachelor in Divinity, and Teacher of the Church of Christ, at Boston, in
New-England. London, printed by Matthew Symmons, for Hannah Allen, at
the Crown, in Pope’s-Head Alley. 1647.” The book is a small quarto, of
339 pages. It is able and learned, but it maintains the right of the
magistrate to interfere, for the promotion of truth, and the suppression
of error.

Mr. Williams again took up his pen, and published a rejoinder, entitled,
“The Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody, by Mr. Cotton’s Endeavor to wash it
white in the Blood of the Lamb. Of whose precious Blood, spilt in the
Blood of his Servants, and of the Blood of Millions spilt in former and
later Wars for Conscience Sake, that most bloody Tenet of Persecution
for Cause of Conscience, upon a second Trial, is found now more
apparently and more notoriously guilty. In this Rejoinder to Mr. Cotton,
are principally, I. The Nature of Persecution. II. The Power of the
civil Sword in Spirituals, examined. III. The Parliament’s Permission of
Dissenting Consciences justified. Also, (as a Testimony to Mr. Clarke’s
Narrative) is added, a Letter to Mr. Endicott, Governor of the
Massachusetts, in New-England. By R. Williams, of Providence, in
New-England. London, printed for Giles Calvert, and are to be sold at
the Black-Spread-Eagle, at the West End of Paul’s, 1652.” It is a small
quarto, of 302 pages.[380]

This book discusses the same topics, as its predecessor, with additional
arguments. Though the controversy was maintained with spirit, yet the
tone of the book is courteous. Mr. Williams says: “The Most Holy and
All-Seeing knows, how bitterly I resent [lament] the least difference
with Mr. Cotton, yea with the least of the followers of Jesus, of what
conscience or worship soever.” He calls his book, “An Examination of the
worthily honored and beloved Mr. Cotton’s Reply.” It would be well if
all disputants cherished the same kind spirit.

The book contains an “Address to the High Court of Parliament,” in which
the author prays them to favor toleration, and to secure their personal
salvation.

There are also two addresses, the one “to the several respective General
Courts, especially that of the Massachusetts, in New-England,” and the
other “To the Merciful and Compassionate Reader.”

The body of the work is written, like the Bloody Tenet, in the form of a
“Conference between Truth and Peace,” and is divided into chapters, in
each of which, for the most part, a corresponding chapter of Mr.
Cotton’s book is examined.

At the close of the examination, is a letter to Governor Endicott, of
Massachusetts, in which Mr. Williams expresses great affection for him,
alludes to former days, and exhibitions of a different spirit, intimates
that the love of honor had affected the Governor, beseeches him to adopt
and practise the principles of toleration, and assures him, that if he
should follow out his principles he must proceed to bloodshed. This
prediction was soon after fulfilled in the execution of the Quakers.

In an appendix, is an address “To the Clergy of the four great Parties
(professing the name of Christ Jesus) in England, Scotland and Ireland,
viz. the Popish, Prelatical, Presbyterian and Independent.” It is mild
and respectful, though it accuses them all of persecuting each other,
when they possessed the power. He says: “Just like two men, whom I have
known break out to blows and wrestling, so have the Protestant Bishops
wrestled with the Popish, and the Popish with the Protestant, the
Presbyterian with the Independent, and the Independent with the
Presbyterian. And our chronicles and experiences have told this nation
and the world, how he whose turn it is to be brought under, hath ever
felt a heavy, wrathful hand of an unbrotherly and unchristian
persecution,” (p. 316.) He says, that they all pleaded for freedom when
they were persecuted, and adds, “What excellent subscriptions to this
soul freedom are interwoven in many passages of the late King’s book (if
his.)”[381]

He alludes to the ejected clergy, and makes the following appeal, which
is very honorable to his feelings:—“I make another humble plea (and
that, I believe, with all the reason and justice in the world) that such
who are ejected, undone, impoverished, might, some way, from the state
or you, receive relief and succor; considering that the very nation’s
constitution hath occasioned parents to train up, and persons to give
themselves to studies (though, in truth, but in a way of trading and
bargaining before God) yet it is according to the custom of the nation,
who ought, therefore, to share also in the fault of such parents and
ministers, who, in all changes, are ejected.” How different is this
language from that of a rash, proscriptive reformer, who, in his zeal
for what he esteems right, disregards every consideration of justice or
humanity! The clergy whom Mr. Williams had especially in view were the
Episcopal ministers, who had been expelled from their benefices. He did
not believe them, in general, to be fit to preach, but he wished them to
be treated with kindness and liberality.

CHAPTER XXVII.

Hireling Ministry none of Christ’s—the ministry—controversy with
George Fox—other writings—character as a writer—his general
character.

In the same year, 1652, in which the last mentioned book was published,
Mr. Williams printed a pamphlet, with the title, “The Hireling Ministry
none of Christ’s, or a Discourse touching the Propagating the Gospel of
Christ Jesus. Humbly presented to such pious and honorable hands, whom
the present debate thereof concerns. By Roger Williams, of Providence,
in New-England. London. Printed in the second month.” It is a small
quarto, of thirty-six pages. No copy is known to the writer to exist in
this country, except in the Library of the American Antiquarian Society,
in Worcester, which contains a duplicate. One of the copies was loaned
to the author, by the politeness of the Librarian.

This pamphlet is valuable, because it contains a more clear exposition
of Mr. Williams’ views respecting the ministry, than any other of his
works. It begins with an “Epistle Dedicatory, to all such honorable and
pious hands, whom the present debate touching the propagating of
Christ’s Gospel concerns; and to all such gentle Bereans, who, with
ingenious civility, desire to search, whether what’s presented
concerning Christ Jesus be so or not.” In this epistle, the author says,
“I have not been altogether a stranger to the learning of the Egyptians,
and have trod the hopefullest paths to worldly preferment, which, for
Christ’s sake, I have forsaken. I know what it is to study, to preach,
to be an elder, to be applauded, and yet also what it is to tug at the
oar, to dig with the spade and plough, and to labor and travel day and
night, amongst English, amongst barbarians.”

The chief purpose of the work is, to oppose a legal establishment of
religion, and the compulsory support of the clergy.

The principal points maintained are three: 1. There is now no ministry,
which is authorized to preach to the heathen, or to exercise pastoral
functions. 2. There ought to be a perfect liberty to all men to maintain
such worship and ministry as they please. 3. Ministers ought be
supported, by voluntary donations, and not by legal provision.

1. On the first point, he partially stated his views, in his preceding
works on the Bloody Tenet; but in this pamphlet, he expounds them more
fully. His opinions appear to have rested entirely on a misconception of
passages in the Revelations. He believed, that the “white troopers”
mentioned in the 6th and 19th chapters of Revelations, were the true
ministers, and that they were utterly routed, till after the slaying of
the witnesses and their resurrection. “The apostolical commission and
ministry is long since interrupted and discontinued, yet ever since the
beast Antichrist rose, the Lord Jesus hath stirred up the ministry of
prophecy, who must continue their witness and prophecy, until their
witness be finished, and slaughters, probably near approaching, be
accomplished.” “In the poor small span of my life, I desired to have
been a diligent and constant observer, and have been myself many ways
engaged, in city, in country, in court, in schools, in universities, in
churches, in Old and New-England; and yet cannot, in the holy presence
of God, bring in the result of a satisfying discovery, that either the
begetting ministry of the apostles or messengers to the churches, or the
feeding and nourishing ministry of pastors and teachers, according to
the first institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored and
extant.”—p. 4.

In his “Bloody Tenet made more Bloody,” he says, that “Christ Jesus
sends out preachers three ways: 1st. In his own person, as the twelve
and seventy. 2dly. By his visible, kingly power, left in the hands of
his true churches, and the officers and governors thereof. 3dly. Christ
Jesus, as King of the Church and Head of his body, during the
distractions of his house and kingdom, under Antichrist’s apostacy,
immediately by his own Holy Spirit, stirs up and sends out those fiery
witnesses to testify against Antichrist and his several
abominations.”—p. 99.

He says, in the work before us: “All (of what rank soever) that have
knowledge and utterance of heavenly mysteries, and therein are the
Lord’s prophets and witnesses against Antichrist, must prophesy against
false Christs, false faith, false love, false joy, false worship and
ministrations, false hope and false Heaven, which poor souls in a golden
dream expect and look for.

“This prophecy ought to be (chiefly) exercised among the saints, in the
companies, meetings and assemblies of the fellow-mourners, and witnesses
against the falsehoods of Antichrist. If any come in (as 1 Cor: 14,)
yea, if they come to _catch_, God will graciously more or less vouchsafe
to _catch them_, if he intends to save them.

“But for the going out to the nations, cities, towns, as to the nations,
cities, and towns of the world, unconverted, until the downfall of the
Papacy, (Rev. 18,) and so the mounting of the Lord Jesus and his white
troopers again (Rev. 19, &c.) for the going out to preach upon hire; for
the going out to convert sinners, and yet to hold communion with them as
saints in prayer; for the going out without such a powerful call from
Christ, as the twelve and the seventy had, or without such suitable
gifts as the first ministry was furnished with, and this especially
without a due knowledge of the prophecies to be fulfilled, I have no
faith to act, nor in the actings and ministries of others.”—pp. 21, 22.

He avers, nevertheless, that he had strong desires to labor for the good
of all men: “By the merciful assistance of the Most High, I have desired
to labor in Europe, in America, with English, with Barbarians, yea, and
also, I have longed after some trading with the Jews themselves, for
whose hard measure, I fear the nations and England hath yet a score to
pay.”—p. 13. He states his opinion, however, that no remarkable
conversion of the nations is yet to be expected, because smoke filled
the temple till Antichrist was overthrown. Rev. 15: 8.

In the “Bloody Tenet made more Bloody,” he says, on this subject, that
though he approved endeavors to teach the Indians, yet, “that any of the
ministers spoken of are furnished with true apostolical commission
(Matt. 28,) I see not, for these reasons: 1st. The ordinary ministry, is
not the apostolical, Eph. 4. 1 Cor. 12. 2dly. The churches of
New-England are not pure churches. 3dly. Men cannot preach to the
Indians in any propriety of their speech or language.”—p. 219.

These extracts sufficiently explain his views. It is remarkable, that a
man, whose mind was so strong and clear, on most subjects, should become
perplexed with such difficulties, in relation to the ministry and the
church. That the passages in the Apocalypse, to which he refers, do not
authorize his conclusions, we need not attempt to prove. He might well
deny, that most of the communities which then claimed to be Christian
churches, were entitled to the name; and might, with truth, maintain,
that a large proportion of those who professed, at that time, to be
ministers of Christ, were not sanctioned by his commission. But it did
not follow, that no church, formed according to the models furnished in
the New Testament, then existed, and that no true ministers could be
found. A company of true believers, united in one society, for worship,
for mutual watchfulness, for the maintenance of discipline, and for the
celebration of the ordinances, is a church. A pious man, who can teach
others, and who is moved, by a proper conviction of duty, and is
authorized by a church, to preach the Gospel, is a duly appointed
minister. It is manifest, from the tenor of the New Testament, that an
order of ministers was intended to be continued. The same ends for which
the first ministers were appointed,—the conversion of the impenitent,
and the edification of believers,—still require, that, ministers be
employed in the work of spreading and upholding Christianity. The same
means are to be employed,—the declaration of divine truth. The
supernatural gifts of the first ministers were necessary, as an
attestation of the truth of Christianity; but it was not by the
miracles, but by the truth, accompanied by the influences of the Holy
Spirit, that men were converted. The experience of modern missions
demonstrates, that men can learn to speak “with propriety” the languages
of the heathen, and that the Gospel, when preached now, in Burmah, or in
Hindostan, or in Greenland, or in our western forests, is “the power of
God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” Rom. 1: 16.

But it is needless to argue a point, so clear as this. Mr. Williams’
erroneous views on the subject before us, did not affect his feelings on
the great question of religious liberty. He was willing, that others
should establish churches and maintain ministers, if they chose. This is
the second point which we mentioned.

2. He says, “I desire not that liberty to myself, which I would not
freely and impartially weigh out to all the consciences of the world
beside. And, therefore, I do humbly conceive, that it is the will of the
Most High, and the express and absolute duty of the civil powers, to
proclaim an absolute freedom in all the three nations, yea, in all the
world, (were their power so large) that each town and division of
people, yea, and each person, may freely enjoy what worship, what
ministry, what maintenance to afford them, their soul desireth.”—p. 19.
In a subsequent page, he adds: “All these consciences (yea, the very
consciences of the Papists, Jews, &c. as I have proved at large in my
answer to Master Cotton’s washings) ought freely and impartially to be
permitted their several respective worships, their ministers of
worships, and what way of maintaining them, they freely choose.”

3. On the subject of maintenance, he strongly objects to a “stated
salary,” by which he evidently means a stipend, fixed and raised by law.
He contends, that ministers ought to be supported, like the first
preachers, by voluntary donations. He does not fully explain his views,
but it does not appear, that he had any objection to a fixed sum, or to
any particular mode of collecting it, provided that it was voluntarily
paid. The compulsory maintenance of the clergy, by tithes, and other
modes of taxation, without any concurrence of the persons taxed, was the
system against which he argued. He insisted, nevertheless, that
ministers are entitled to a maintenance, and that the members of a
church may be compelled, by the proper use of spiritual power, to
perform their duty, in contributing to the support of a minister. In the
“Bloody Tenet,” (p. 168) he says: “To that Scripture, Gal. 6: 6. ‘Let
him that is taught in the word make him that teacheth partake of all his
goods,’ I answer, that teaching was of persons converted, believers
entered into the school and family of Christ, the Church, which Church,
being rightly gathered, is also rightly invested with the power of the
Lord Jesus, to force every soul therein by spiritual weapons and
penalties to do its duty.”

The doctrines of Roger Williams, on this subject, as well as on the
general principle of liberty of conscience, are rapidly gaining the
victory over the old system. A legal provision for the clergy, by which
all the citizens are compelled to pay for the support of religious
teachers, whether they choose to hear them or not, is unjust in
principle, and pernicious in practice; producing discontent and odium
among the people, and tending to introduce mere worldly and mercenary
men into the ministry. Its effects, even in Massachusetts, have
convinced men, of all parties, of its inexpediency. It is a coincidence,
which the author views with pleasure, that, while this book has been
passing through the press, the citizens of Massachusetts have adopted an
amendment of the Constitution, which, in its results, will sweep away
the last relic of the old system. The principles of Roger Williams will
soon be triumphantly established in Massachusetts, and there will not
be, even in theory, any dominant and favored sect, in this venerable
commonwealth. In every other State in our Union, entire religious
freedom is enjoyed. In England, the march is onward. In a few years, her
establishment must fall, and religion be placed, where it should be,
under the protection of the Saviour, drawing her revenues from the
willing hands of his followers, and renewing her strength and beauty, by
taking her appropriate station, like the angel in the sun, high above
the contaminations of the earth.

The book before us ends, with what the author calls the “_summa
totalis_:”

“1st. The civil state is bound, before God, to take off that bond and
yoke of soul oppression [the national establishment] and to proclaim
free and impartial liberty to all the people of the three nations, to
choose and maintain what worship and ministry their souls and
consciences are persuaded of.

“2dly. The civil state is humbly to be implored to provide, in their
high wisdom, for the security of all these respective consciences, in
their respective meetings, assemblings, worshippings, preachings,
disputings, &c. and that civil peace, and the beauty of civility and
humanity, be maintained among the chief opposers and dissenters.

“3dly. It is the duty of all that are in authority, and of all that are
able, to countenance, and encourage and supply all such true volunteers,
as give and devote themselves to the service and ministry of Christ
Jesus in any kind; although it be also the duty, and will be the
practice, of all such, whom the Spirit of God sends upon any work of
Christ’s, rather to work, as Paul did among the Corinthians and
Thessalonians, than the work and service of their Lord and Master should
be neglected.” pp. 29, 30.

Mr. Williams is said to have published, in London, in the same year,
1652, a work, entitled, “Experiments of Spiritual Life and Health, and
their Preservatives.” Of this book, no copy has come to our knowledge.

The only remaining printed book of Mr. Williams, is his narrative of the
dispute with the Quakers. It is entitled, “George Fox digged out of his
Burrowes, or an Offer of Disputation on fourteen Proposals, made this
last Summer, 1672, (so called,) unto G. Fox, then present on
Rhode-Island, in New-England, by R. W. As also how (G. Fox slily
departing) the Disputation went on, being managed three Days at Newport,
on Rhode-Island, and one day at Providence, between John Stubs, John
Burnet, and William Edmundson, on the one Part, and R. W. on the other.
In which many Quotations out of G. Fox and Ed. Burrowes’ Book in Folio
are alleged. With an Appendix, of some Scores of G. F. his simple and
lame Answers to his Opposites, in that Book, quoted and replied to, by
R. W. of Providence, in N. E. Boston. Printed by John Foster, 1676.” It
is a small quarto volume, of 327 pages. Its execution is creditable to
the American press, at that early day.

The book is dedicated to the King, Charles II. in a courteous epistle,
in which Mr. Williams calls New-England a “miserable, cold, howling
wilderness,” yet says, that God “hath made it His glory, your Majesty’s
glory, and a glory to the English and Protestant name.”

There is also an epistle “To the People called Quakers,” in which the
author says, “From my childhood, (now above threescore years) the Father
of Lights and Mercies touched my soul with a love to himself, to his
only-begotten, the true Lord Jesus, to his Holy Scriptures, &c. His
infinite wisdom hath given me to see the city, court and country, the
schools and universities of my native country, to converse with some
Turks, Jews, Papists, and all sorts of Protestants, and by books, to
know the affairs and religions of all countries, &c. My conclusion is,
that _Be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee_ (Matt. 9) is one of
the joyfullest sounds that ever came to poor sinful ears.”

He says, “I have used some sharp, scripture language, but not (as
commonly you do) passionately and unjustly.”

He adds a letter “to those many learned and pious men whom G. Fox hath
so sillily and scornfully answered in his book in folio, especially to
those whose names I have been bold to mention in the Narrative and
Appendix, Mr. Richard Baxter, Mr. John Owen, &c.” In this letter is this
kind and liberal sentence: “As to matters in dispute between yourselves
and me, I willingly omitted them, as knowing, that many able and honest
seamen, in their observations of this sun (one picture of Christ Jesus)
differ sometimes in their reckonings, though uprightly aiming at, and
bound for, one port and harbor.”

Then follows the main body of the work, containing an interesting
account of the dispute, and a long and tedious examination of numerous
points of doctrine, which Mr. Fox and his friends maintained. We cannot
present an analysis of the book. It would afford neither profit nor
pleasure. Much of the discussion is a dispute about dark questions, and
many of Mr. Williams’ objections arose, probably, from the uncouth
phraseology with which Mr. Fox obscured his real meaning. Mr. Williams
might easily misunderstand his opponents, while they insisted so
strongly on the teachings of the inward light, on the formation of
Christ in the soul, and other similar doctrines. Mr. Fox, too, assumed
some positions, which none of the Friends would now approve. He
justified, for example, the abominable conduct of the females who
appeared naked in the streets, and contended that they acted under
divine inspiration. Mr. Williams said, “You shall never persuade souls
(not bewitched) that the Holy Spirit of God should persuade your women
and maidens to appear in public streets and assemblies stark naked.” Mr.
Fox replied, “We do believe thee in that dark, persecuting, bloody
spirit that thou and the New-England priests are bewitched in, you
cannot believe, that you are _naked_ from God, and his clothing, and
blind. And therefore hath the Lord in his power moved some of his sons
and daughters to go naked; yea, and they did tell them, in Oliver’s
days, and the Long Parliament’s, that God would strip them of their
Church profession, and of their power, as naked as they were. And so
they were true prophets and prophetesses to the nation, as many sober
men have confessed since, though thou and the old persecuting priests in
New-England remain in your blindness and nakedness.”[382] Mr. Williams
might well abhor Mr. Fox’s principles, if this had been a fair specimen
of their tendency.

Mr. Williams was accused by Mr. Fox and others of advocating
persecution, because he condemned the use of _Thee_ and _Thou_ to
superiors, as uncivil, and declared, that “a due and moderate restraint
and punishing of these incivilities (though pretending conscience) is as
far from persecution (properly so called) as that it is a duty and
command of God unto all mankind, first in families, and thence unto all
mankind societies.” p. 200. Mr. Williams did not reason on this point
with his usual clearness. If a man is conscientious about using the
terms Thee and Thou, and wearing his hat, he ought to be allowed to do
so, because these customs do not necessarily interfere with any other
man’s rights. But Mr. Williams viewed them as offences against civil
decorum, and thought that they should be restrained and punished as
such. He cannot, therefore, be justly accused of inconsistency in
relation to his principles of religious liberty. He probably had in his
view the offensive language, which some of the persons called Quakers
used toward magistrates and others.[383] It is, indeed, a curious
circumstance, that many of the early Quakers were remarkable for a
spirit of bitter railing. Mr. Baxter says: “The Quakers, in their shops,
when I go along London streets, say, ‘Alas! poor man, thou art yet in
darkness.’ They have oft come into the congregation, when I had liberty
to preach Christ’s Gospel, and cried out against me as a deceiver of the
people. They have followed me home, crying out in the streets, ‘The day
of the Lord is coming, when thou shalt perish as a deceiver.’ They have
stood in the market-place, and under my window year after year, crying
out to the people, ‘Take heed of your priests, they deceive your souls!’
and if they saw any one wear a lace or a rich clothing, they cried out
to me, ‘These are the fruit of thy ministry.’”[384] Similar scenes were
exhibited in this country. There was a remarkable contrast, at that
time, between the language and the general demeanor of the Quakers. They
used no force, and made no resistance, but they uttered, without stint,
the most virulent epithets. It might seem, that they had literally
adopted the counsel of Minerva to Achilles—not to unsheathe the sword,
but to reproach their adversaries with words:

“Μηδὲ ξιφος ἕλκεο χειρί,
Ἀλλ’ ήτοι έπεσιν μεν ονειδισον.”[385]

Mr. Williams, in writing his book, caught some of the same spirit, and
used a style of contemptuous bitterness, which was not natural to him.
Mr. Fox and Mr. Burnyeat replied in the same strain, though with more
coarseness. Their book is a quarto, of 489 pages. It is entitled, “A
New-England Firebrand Quenched,” &c. They filled twenty-four pages with
words and phrases culled from Mr. Williams’ book, with this preface: “A
catalogue of R. W’s. envious, malicious, scornful, railing stuff, false
accusations and blasphemies, which he foully and unchristianlike hath
scattered and dispersed through his book.” At the end are two letters,
the one from Mr. Coddington, and the other from Mr. Richard Scott, in
both of which Mr. Williams is spoken of with much harshness.

But we have done with these books. It would be well, for the reputation
of all the parties, if they could be forgotten.

We have thus reviewed all the printed books of Mr. Williams, of which we
have been able to obtain copies. Two or three treatises, which he wrote,
were not, it is presumed, printed. Among these, was the essay concerning
the patent, which excited the displeasure of the magistrates in
Massachusetts, before his banishment.[386] At the end of his Key, he
says, “I have further treated of these natives of New-England, and that
great point of their conversion, in a little additional discourse to
this.” This discourse we have never seen. In the letter to Governor
Bradstreet, (page 353 of this volume) Mr. Williams speaks of a
collection of heads of discourses preached to the “scattered English at
Narraganset,” and which Mr. Williams requests the Governor to assist him
in printing. It does not appear that it was printed. Dr. Holmes,
(Annals, vol. i. p. 411) says, “In the Prince Collection of MSS. are
heads of discourses, which he delivered to the Narraganset Indians.” An
ineffectual search has been made among the MSS. referred to, for these
heads of discourses, which may have been mislaid. They may be the same
as those mentioned in the letter to Governor Bradstreet.

There is said to be a MS. of one hundred and six quarto pages, in the
library of the Massachusetts Historical Society, entitled, “Esau and
Jacob’s Mystical Harmony,” &c. written in 1666, with a memorandum in Dr.
Stiles’ hand writing, “I suppose Roger Williams.” We have not had an
opportunity to examine this manuscript.

The letters of Mr. Williams were very numerous. He held an extensive
correspondence. Many of these letters are preserved, and many others are
referred to, which have perished.

Of the character of Mr. Williams, as a writer, those who have read the
letters and extracts from his books, contained in this volume, can form
a judgment. His style is very original and characteristic. It is the
outpouring of a full and ardent mind, too intent on the thought, to be
very careful of the expression. It is, consequently, not always correct;
but it is always clear and forcible. He exhibits ample learning, and
quotations from the classics are scattered through his writings, in an
easy and natural manner. He was very familiar with the Scriptures, which
he read in the original languages; though he, like most theological
writers of that time, was imperfectly acquainted with the laws of
interpretation. He had a very active imagination, and his style is full
of figures, always striking, and often happy, but not uniformly selected
and applied, with a pure taste. This liveliness of his fancy made him
fond of puns and quaint expressions, which he used, however, with no
design to amuse the reader, but to illustrate and enforce his meaning.
He had, indeed, a poetical mind, and some passages of his works remind
us of the magnificent periods of Milton and Taylor. The specimens of his
verses in his Key, though superior to much of the contemporary rhyme
contained in Morton’s Memorial and Mather’s Magnalia, are inferior, in
real poetic feeling and expression, to some paragraphs of his prose
works. He was one of those poets mentioned by Wordsworth,

“That are sown
By nature; men endowed with highest gifts,
The vision and the faculty divine,
Yet wanting the accomplishment of verse.”

His writings, in short, like those of all great minds, are a reflection
of his own character, and are marked with his excellencies and his
faults.

We must now close this book with a few observations concerning his
character. It is unnecessary to dwell minutely on this point, for no man
was ever more transparent; and those who have traced his history, have
had ample means of forming their own judgment.

His mental faculties were of a high order. His mind was strong, original
and independent. The clearness with which he discerned the true
principles of religious liberty, and the steadiness with which he
maintained them, in opposition to the general theory and practice of
that age, show a superior intellect. Few men are far in advance of their
contemporaries; and this is a wise arrangement of Providence, for such
men are not so immediately useful, as many others of inferior powers.
They are not understood—they offend the prejudices, and wound the
self-love of men. Their influence is of the nature of prophecy. They
plant principles, which are of slow growth, but which will eventually
produce rich fruit. Such individuals must be content to live for
posterity. They must be steadfast in upholding the truth, though amid
ingratitude and opposition, cheered by the bright prospect of future
triumph.

Mr. Williams was of this class of men, and his station in that class is
a proof of the elevation and vigor of his mind.

It is an evidence, also, of superior moral qualities. It requires a
spirit of self-sacrifice, a pure love of truth, a benevolent zeal for
the welfare of mankind, an elevation above selfish ends. All these
traits of character Mr. Williams possessed. He was sincerely pious. Love
to God dwelt habitually in his soul, and controlled his feelings and his
actions. In his books and letters, every topic takes a hue from his
piety. His magnanimous forgiveness of injuries, his zeal for the welfare
of all who sought his aid, his untiring benevolence towards the hapless
savages, his patriotic and self-denying toils for the prosperity of his
colony, all show the efficacy and fervor of those religious principles
which governed him. Mr. Callender said of him, “Mr. Williams appears, by
the whole course and tenor of his life and conduct here, to have been
one of the most disinterested men that ever lived, a most pious and
heavenly minded soul.”[387] Dr. Bentley says: “In Salem, every person
loved Mr. Williams. He had no personal enemies, under any pretence. All
valued his friendship. Kind treatment could win him, but opposition
could not conquer him. He was not afraid to stand alone for truth
against the world, and he had address enough with his firmness, never to
be forsaken by the friends he had ever gained. He had always a
tenderness of conscience, and feared every offence against moral truth.
He breathed the purest devotion. He was a friend of human nature,
forgiving, upright and pious. He understood the Indians better than any
man of his age. He made not so many converts, but he made more sincere
friends.”[388]

His religious principles were those of Calvin. His views of the
ordinances of the Gospel were, undoubtedly, after his baptism, those now
held by the Baptists. But he did not acknowledge himself as belonging to
any denomination; because he believed, that there are now neither true
churches, nor persons authorized to administer the ordinances.

His political principles were decidedly in favor of the rights of the
people. He not only displayed them, in the civil constitution of his
colony, but he repeatedly stated them in his books. Such passages as the
following contain his political creed:

“Kings and magistrates must be considered invested with no more power
than the people betrust them with.” “The sovereign power of all civil
authority is founded in the consent of the people.”[389]

The faults of Mr. Williams sprung, in part, from the imperfection of
human nature, and in part from his temperament and the constitution of
his mind. He was ardent, and his imagination was the most active of his
intellectual faculties. He sometimes adopted opinions, rather by a
sudden bound of the imagination, than by a regular process of reasoning.
His ardor, and his conscientious and fearless love of truth, impelled
him to act on his opinions, with a degree of energy and firmness which
exposed him to the charge of obstinacy. Such a man will occasionally
fall into error, and into rapid transitions, which will give to his
conduct the appearance of inconsistency. This was the case with Mr.
Williams, in some of his actions, but the inconsistency never affected
his great principles. These he never abandoned for a moment. His course
was steadily onward, like that of a planet, though disturbing causes
occasionally produced slight eccentricities.

In his domestic relations, he seems to have been amiable and happy. His
expressions of attachment to his family prove the strength of his
conjugal and parental affection. His children grew up to maturity. A
numerous posterity have arisen to bless his memory, and to feel pleasure
in the contemplation of his character and the diffusion of his fame.

He is dead, but his principles survive, and are destined to spread over
the earth. The State which he founded is his monument.[390] Her sons,
when asked for a record of Roger Williams, may point to her history,
unstained by a single act of persecution; to her prosperity, her perfect
freedom, her tranquil happiness, and may reply, in the spirit of the
epitaph on the tomb of Sir Christopher Wren, in St. Paul’s Cathedral,
“_look around!_”

“Si monumentum quæris, circumspice.”

APPENDIX.

NOTE A. p. 23.

On the subject of the relationship between Cromwell and Roger Williams,
an obliging antiquarian friend says:

“As to the relationship between Mr. Williams and Oliver Cromwell, I can
only say, that it was quite remote, if it existed at all. In the London
Review, for March, 1772, is a genealogy of the Cromwell family. As you
may not have seen this account, and as it may interest you, I will give
you an abridgment of it, that you may see how near related he was to the
Protector.

“The genealogy was extracted from Welch chronicles, about the year 1602,
to show the descent of Sir Henry Cromwell, who was then living. It
commences in the person of Glothyan, fifth Lord of Powes, who married
Morpeth, daughter and heiress of Edwin ap Tydwall, Lord of Cardigan, who
was lineally descended from Cavedig, of whom the county of Cardigan took
the name of Cavedigion. His son, Gwaith Voyd, was Lord of Cardigan,
Powes, Gwayte and Gwaynesaye. He died about 1066.

“From Gwynstan ap Gwaith, second son of the above Gwaith Voyd, was
lineally descended, through about thirteen generations, or in about four
hundred and forty years, Morgan Williams, who, in the reign of Henry
VIII., married the sister of Thomas Cromwell. This Morgan Williams had a
son Richard, who was knighted by Henry VIII., not by the name of
Williams, but by the name of Cromwell, after his uncle, whose heir he
became. This Sir Richard had a son Henry, who was knighted by Queen
Elizabeth in 1563, and married Joan, daughter of Sir Ralph Warren, and
had six sons and four daughters. The sons were Oliver, Robert, Henry,
Richard, Philip and Ralph. Oliver, the Protector, was the only son of
Robert, and born in the parish of St. John, in Huntingdon, April 25,
1599.

“The above will satisfy us, that the tradition in the family of their
being a connection by blood with the Protector, may be true. You will
see, however, that the connection was quite remote.”

Concerning the parents of Mr. Williams, I have discovered nothing. The
name “Roger Williams” occurs in Welsh genealogies, but without any clue
to guide us. I have written to Wales for information, but have received
no reply. A brother of Mr. Williams, named Robert, was one of the early
inhabitants of Providence, and was afterwards a schoolmaster in Newport.
He mentions, in one of his books, another brother, “a Turkey merchant.”
Richard Williams, who settled in Taunton, has been supposed to have been
a brother of Roger.

NOTE B. p. 54.

Our note respecting the Anabaptists must be brief. An Anabaptist is one
who baptizes again a person previously baptized. The Cathari, of the
third century, were accustomed to baptize again those who joined them
from other sects.—Murdock’s Mosheim, vol. i. p. 247. The name was early
applied to those who opposed infant baptism, and who baptized those who
joined them, though they had been baptized in infancy. The name, of
course, expressed the views of their opponents, and not their own,
because they did not consider such persons as having been baptized.

Of the history of the Anabaptists, (retaining this name for the sake of
convenience,) we cannot now speak. The odium and alarm which are alluded
to in the text, arose from the disturbances that occurred in Germany,
about the year 1535. It would be tedious to narrate these events; but it
may be stated, briefly, that the peasants, oppressed by their feudal
lords, made a desperate effort to obtain their freedom. Among them were
some Anabaptists, mingled with Lutherans, Catholics and others. They
obtained possession of the city of Munster, in Westphalia, and held it
about three years; but they were finally overpowered, and the war
terminated, after immense slaughter. It seems to have been a just
revolt, and a struggle for liberty; but it failed, and the leaders have
been stigmatized as fanatics, and as guilty of every species of crime.
The story has been told by their oppressors and enemies, and it is
entitled to very little credit. Mosheim seems to have been unable to
find words to express his abhorrence of the Anabaptists, to whom he
imputes most of the disorders of the Rustic War. Other writers are more
candid. Benedict (vol. i. pp. 246, 265) has vindicated the Baptists from
the charges which have been alleged against them in connection with that
war. Admitting that very dangerous doctrines were then avowed, and wrong
actions committed, it is unjust to make the Baptists of England and
America responsible for them. It would be as fair, to impute to
Pedobaptists all the atrocities of the Papal church. It is sufficient
for our present purpose, to prove, that the English and American
Baptists have never held the principles which have been ascribed to the
Anabaptists of Germany. The rejection of magistracy has been the most
prominent charge. A company of persons, called Anabaptists, in London,
published a Confession of Faith, about the year 1611, in which they say:
“The office of the magistrate is a permissive ordinance of God.” And in
the following article, they anticipated the doctrines of Roger Williams:
“The magistrate is not to meddle with religion, or matters of
conscience, nor to compel men to this or that form of religion; because
Christ is the King or Lawgiver of the church and conscience.”—Crosby,
vol. i. p. 71, appendix. In a “Confession of Faith of seven
congregations, or churches of Christ, in London, which are commonly, but
unjustly, called Anabaptists,” published in 1646, they say: “A civil
magistracy is an ordinance of God, set up by him for the punishment of
evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well; and that in all
lawful things, commanded by them, subjection ought to be given by us in
the Lord, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake; and that we are
to make supplications and prayers for kings, and for all that are in
authority, that under them we may live a quiet and peaceable life, in
all godliness and honesty.”—Crosby, vol. i. appendix, p. 23. These
extracts express the doctrines of the English Baptist churches on the
point in question. The principles of Roger Williams, respecting
religious and civil duties, are sufficiently exhibited in the Memoir.
They are the principles of the American Baptist churches, and have been
so from the beginning. In the Confession of Faith of the First Baptist
Church in Boston, founded in 1665, and the oldest church in what was
then the colony of Massachusetts, the church say: “We acknowledge
magistracy to be an ordinance of God, and to submit ourselves to them in
the Lord, not because of wrath only, but for conscience
sake.”—Winchell’s Historical Discourses, p. 10.

NOTE C. p. 74.

The following very interesting letter was first published in the first
volume of the Massachusetts Historical Collections:

“_Providence, June 22, 1670, (ut vulgo.)_

“Major Mason,[391]

“My honored, dear and ancient friend, my due respects and earnest
desires to God, for your eternal peace, &c.

“I crave your leave and patience to present you with some few
considerations, occasioned by the late transactions between your
colony and ours. The last year you were pleased, in one of your
lines to me, to tell me that you longed to see my face once more
before you died. I embraced your love, though I feared my old lame
bones, and yours, had arrested travelling in this world, and
therefore I was and am ready to lay hold on all occasions of
writing, as I do at present.

“The occasion, I confess, is sorrowful, because I see yourselves,
with others, embarked in a resolution to invade and despoil your
poor countrymen, in a wilderness, and your ancient friends, of our
temporal and soul liberties.

“It is sorrowful, also, because mine eye beholds a black and doleful
train of grievous, and, I fear, bloody consequences, at the heel of
this business, both to you and us. The Lord is righteous in all our
afflictions, that is a maxim; the Lord is gracious to all oppressed,
that is another; he is most gracious to the soul that cries and
waits on him: that is silver, tried in the fire seven times.

“Sir, I am not out of hopes, but that while your aged eyes and mine
are yet in their orbs, and not yet sunk down into their holes of
rottenness, we shall leave our friends and countrymen, our children
and relations, and this land, in peace, behind us. To this end, Sir,
please you with a calm and steady and a Christian hand, to hold the
balance and to weigh these few considerations, in much love and due
respect presented:

“First. When I was unkindly and unchristianly, as I believe, driven
from my house and land and wife and children, (in the midst of a
New-England winter, now about thirty-five years past,) at Salem,
that ever-honored Governor, Mr. Winthrop, privately wrote to me to
steer my course to the Narraganset Bay and Indians, for many high
and heavenly and public ends, encouraging me, from the freeness of
the place from any English claims or patents. I took his prudent
motion as a hint and voice from God, and waving all other thoughts
and motions, I steered my course from Salem (though in winter snow,
which I feel yet) unto these parts, wherein I may say Peniel, that
is, I have seen the face of God.

“Second. I first pitched, and begun to build and plant at Seekonk,
now Rehoboth, but I received a letter from my ancient friend, Mr.
Winslow, then Governor of Plymouth, professing his own and others’
love and respect to me, yet lovingly advising me, since I was fallen
into the edge of their bounds, and they were loth to displease the
Bay, to remove but to the other side of the water, and then, he
said, I had the country free before me, and might be as free as
themselves, and we should be loving neighbors together. These were
the joint understandings of these two eminently wise and Christian
Governors and others, in their day, together with their counsel and
advice as to the freedom and vacancy of this place, which in this
respect, and many other Providences of the Most Holy and Only Wise,
I called _Providence_.

“Third. Sometime after, the Plymouth great sachem, (Ousamaquin[392])
upon occasion, affirming that Providence was his land, and therefore
Plymouth’s land, and some resenting it, the then prudent and godly
Governor, Mr. Bradford, and others of his godly council, answered,
that if, after due examination, it should be found true what the
barbarian said, yet having, to my loss of a harvest that year, been
now (though by their gentle advice) as good as banished from
Plymouth as from the Massachusetts, and I had quietly and patiently
departed from them, at their motion, to the place where now I was, I
should not be molested and tossed up and down again, while they had
breath in their bodies; and surely, between those, my friends of the
Bay and Plymouth, I was sorely tossed, for one fourteen weeks, in a
bitter winter season, not knowing what bread of bed did mean, beside
the yearly loss of no small matter in my trading with English and
natives, being debarred from Boston, the chief mart and port of
New-England. God knows that many thousand pounds cannot repay the
very temporary losses I have sustained. It lies upon the
Massachusetts and me, yea, and other colonies joining with them, to
examine, with fear and trembling, before the eyes of flaming fire,
the true cause of all my sorrows and sufferings. It pleased the
Father of spirits to touch many hearts, dear to him, with some
relentings; amongst which, that great and pious soul, Mr. Winslow,
melted, and kindly visited me, at Providence, and put a piece of
gold into the hands of my wife, for our supply.

“Fourth. When, the next year after my banishment, the Lord drew the
bow of the Pequod war against the country, in which, Sir, the Lord
made yourself, with others, a blessed instrument of peace to all
New-England, I had my share of service to the whole land in that
Pequod business, inferior to very few that acted, for,

“1. Upon letters received from the Governor and Council at Boston,
requesting me to use my utmost and speediest endeavors to break and
hinder the league labored for by the Pequods against the Mohegans,
and Pequods against the English, (excusing the not sending of
company and supplies, by the haste of the business,) the Lord helped
me immediately to put my life into my hand, and, scarce acquainting
my wife, to ship myself, all alone, in a poor canoe, and to cut
through a stormy wind, with great seas, every minute in hazard of
life, to the sachem’s house.

“2. Three days and nights my business forced me to lodge and mix
with the bloody Pequod ambassadors, whose hands and arms, methought,
wreaked with the blood of my countrymen, murdered and massacred by
them on Connecticut river, and from whom I could not but nightly
look for their bloody knives at my own throat also.

“3. When God wondrously preserved me, and helped me to break to
pieces the Pequods’ negotiation and design, and to make, and promote
and finish, by many travels and charges, the English league with the
Narragansets and Mohegans against the Pequods, and that the English
forces marched up to the Narraganset country against the Pequods, I
gladly entertained, at my house in Providence, the General Stoughton
and his officers, and used my utmost care that all his officers and
soldiers should be well accommodated with us.

“4. I marched up with them to the Narraganset sachems, and brought
my countrymen and the barbarians, sachems and captains, to a mutual
confidence and complacence, each in other.

“5. Though I was ready to have marched further, yet, upon agreement
that I should keep at Providence, as an agent between the Bay and
the army, I returned, and was interpreter and intelligencer,
constantly receiving and sending letters to the Governor and Council
at Boston, &c., in which work I judge it no impertinent digression
to recite (out of the many scores of letters, at times, from Mr.
Winthrop,) this one pious and heavenly prophecy, touching all
New-England, of that gallant man, viz: “If the Lord turn away his
face from our sins, and bless our endeavors and yours, at this time,
against our bloody enemy, we and our children shall long enjoy
peace, in this, our wilderness condition.” And himself and some
other of the Council motioned, and it was debated, whether or no I
had not merited, not only to be recalled from banishment, but also
to be honored with some remark of favor. It is known who hindered,
who never promoted the liberty of other men’s consciences. These
things, and ten times more, I could relate, to show that I am not a
stranger to the Pequod wars and lands, and possibly not far from the
merit of a foot of land in either country, which I have not.

“5. Considering (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 us was more friendly, and
wrote to us, and treated us as an authorized colony; only the
difference of our consciences much obstructed. The bounds of this,
our first charter, I (having occular knowledge of persons, places
and transactions) did honestly and conscientiously, as in the holy
presence of God, draw up from Pawcatuck river, which I then
believed, and still do, is free from all English claims and
conquests; for although there were some Pequods on this side the
river, who, by reason of some sachems’ marriages with some on this
side, lived in a kind of neutrality with both sides, yet, upon the
breaking out of the war, they relinquished their land to the
possession of their enemies, the Narragansets and Nianticks, and
their land never came into the condition of the lands on the other
side, which the English, by conquest, challenged; so that I must
still affirm, as in God’s holy presence, I tenderly waved to touch a
foot of land in which I knew the Pequod wars were maintained and
were properly Pequod, being a gallant country; and from Pawcatuck
river hitherward, being but a patch of ground, full of troublesome
inhabitants, I did, as I judged, inoffensively, draw our poor and
inconsiderable line.

“It is true, when at Portsmouth, on Rhode-Island, some of ours, in a
General Assembly, motioned their planting on this side Pawcatuck. I,
hearing that some of the Massachusetts reckoned this land theirs, by
conquest, dissuaded from the motion, until the matter should be
amicably debated and composed; for though I questioned not our
right, &c., yet I feared it would be inexpedient and offensive, and
procreative of these heats and fires, to the dishonoring of the
King’s Majesty, and the dishonoring and blaspheming of God and of
religion in the eyes of the English and barbarians about us.

“6. 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 requesting me to exercise no more
authority, &c., for, they wrote, their charter was granted some few
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.

“7. Upon our humble address, by our agent, Mr. Clarke, to his
Majesty, and his gracious promise of renewing our former charter,
Mr. Winthrop, upon some mistake, had entrenched upon our line, and
not only so, but, as it is said, upon the lines of other charters
also. Upon Mr. Clarke’s complaint, your grant was called in again,
and it had never been returned, but upon a report that the agents,
Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Clarke, were agreed, by mediation of friends,
(and it is true, they came to a solemn agreement, under hands and
seals,) which agreement was never violated on our part.

“8. But the King’s Majesty sending his commissioners (among other of
his royal purposes) to reconcile the differences of, and to settle
the bounds between the colonies, yourselves know how the King
himself therefore hath given a decision to this controversy.
Accordingly, the King’s Majesty’s aforesaid commissioners at Rhode
Island, (where, as a commissioner for this colony, I transacted with
them, as did also commissioners from Plymouth,) they composed a
controversy between Plymouth and us, and settled the bounds between
us, in which we rest.

“9. However you satisfy yourselves with the Pequod conquest; with
the sealing of your charter some few weeks before ours; with the
complaints of particular men to your colony; yet, upon a due and
serious examination of the matter, in the sight of God, you will
find the business at bottom to be,

“First, a depraved appetite after the great vanities, dreams and
shadows of this vanishing life, great portions of land, land in this
wilderness, as if men were in as great necessity and danger for want
of great portions of land, as poor, hungry, thirsty seamen have,
after a sick and stormy, a long and starving passage. This is one of
the gods of New-England, which the living and most high Eternal will
destroy and famish.

“2. An unneighborly and unchristian intrusion upon us, as being the
weaker, contrary to your laws, as well as ours, concerning
purchasing of lands without the consent of the General Court. This I
told Major Atherton, at his first going up to the Narraganset about
this business. I refused all their proffers of land, and refused to
interpret for them to the sachems.

“3. From these violations and intrusions arise the complaint of many
privateers, not dealing as they would be dealt with, according to
law of nature, the law of the prophets and Christ Jesus, complaining
against others, in a design, when they themselves are delinquents
and wrong doers. I could aggravate this many ways with Scripture
rhetoric and similitudes, but I see need of anodynes, (as physicians
speak,) and not of irritations. Only this I must crave leave to say,
that it looks like a prodigy or monster, that countrymen among
savages in a wilderness; that professors of God and one Mediator, of
an eternal life, and that this is like a dream, should not be
content with those vast and large tracts which all the other
colonies have, (like platters and tables full of dainties,) but pull
and snatch away their poor neighbors’ bit or crust; and a crust it
is, and a dry, hard one, too, because of the natives’ continual
troubles, trials and vexations.

“10. Alas! Sir, in calm midnight thoughts, what are these leaves and
flowers, and smoke and shadows, and dreams of earthly nothings,
about which we poor fools and children, as David saith, disquiet
ourselves in vain? Alas! what is all the scuffling of this world
for, but, _come, will you smoke it_? What are all the contentions
and wars of this world about, generally, but for greater dishes and
bowls of porridge, of which, if we believe God’s Spirit in
Scripture, Esau and Jacob were types? Esau will part with the
heavenly birthright for his supping, after his hunting, for god
belly; and Jacob will part with his porridge for an eternal
inheritance. O Lord, give me to make Jacob’s and Mary’s choice,
which shall never be taken from me.

“11. How much sweeter is the counsel of the Son of God, to mind
first the matters of his kingdom; to take no care for to-morrow; to
pluck out, cut off and fling away right eyes, hands and feet, rather
than to be cast whole into hell-fire; to consider the ravens and the
lilies whom a heavenly Father so clothes and feeds; and the counsel
of his servant Paul, to roll our cares, for this life also, upon the
most high Lord, steward of his people, the eternal God; to be
content with food and raiment; to mind not our own, but every man
the things of another; yea, and to suffer wrong, and part with what
we judge is right, yea, our lives and (as poor women martyrs have
said) as many as there be hairs upon our heads, for the name of God
and the son of God his sake. This is humanity, yea this is
Christianity. The rest is but formality and picture, courteous
idolatry and Jewish and Popish blasphemy against the Christian
religion, the Father of spirits and his Son, the Lord Jesus.
Besides, Sir, the matter with us is not about these children’s toys
of land, meadows, cattle, government, &c. But here, all over this
colony, a great number of weak and distressed souls, scattered, are
flying hither from Old and New-England, the Most High and Only Wise
hath, in his infinite wisdom, provided this country and this corner
as a shelter for the poor and persecuted, according to their several
persuasions. And thus that heavenly man, Mr. Haynes, Governor of
Connecticut, though he pronounced the sentence of my long banishment
against me, at Cambridge, then Newtown, yet said unto me, in his own
house at Hartford, being then in some difference with the Bay: “I
think, Mr. Williams, I must now confess to you, that the most wise
God hath provided and cut out this part of his world for a refuge
and receptacle for all sorts of consciences. I am now under a cloud,
and my brother Hooker; with the Bay, as you have been, we have
removed from them thus far, and yet they are not satisfied.”

“Thus, Sir, the King’s Majesty, though his father’s and his own
conscience favored Lord Bishops, which their father and grandfather
King James, whom I have spoke with, sore against his will, also did,
yet all the world may see, by his Majesty’s declarations and
engagements before his return, and his declarations and Parliament
speeches since, and many suitable actings, how the Father of spirits
hath mightily impressed and touched his royal spirit, though the
Bishops much disturbed him, with deep inclination of favor and
gentleness to different consciences and apprehensions as to the
invisible King and way of his worship. Hence he hath vouchsafed his
royal promise under his hand and broad seal, that no person in this
colony shall be molested or questioned for the matters of his
conscience to God, so he be loyal and keep the civil peace. Sir, we
must part with lands and lives before we part with such a jewel. I
judge you may yield some land and the government of it to us, and
we, for peace sake, the like to you, as being but subjects to one
king, &c. and I think the King’s Majesty would thank us, for many
reasons. But to part with this jewel, we may as soon do it as the
Jews with the favor of Cyrus, Darius and Artaxerxes. Yourselves
pretend liberty of conscience, but alas! it is but self, the great
god self, only to yourselves. The King’s Majesty winks at Barbadoes,
where Jews and all sorts of Christian and Antichristian persuasions
are free, but our grant, some few weeks after yours sealed, though
granted as soon, if not before yours, is crowned with the King’s
extraordinary favor to this colony, as being a banished one, in
which his Majesty declared himself that he would experiment, whether
civil government could consist with such liberty of conscience. This
his Majesty’s grant was startled at by his Majesty’s high officers
of state, who were to view it in course before the sealing, but
fearing the lion’s roaring, they couched, against their wills, in
obedience to his Majesty’s pleasure.

“Some of yours, as I heard lately, told tales to the Archbishop of
Canterbury, viz. that we are a profane people, and do not keep the
Sabbath, but some do plough, &c. But, first, you told him not how we
suffer freely all other persuasions, yea the common prayer, which
yourselves will not suffer. If you say you will, you confess you
must suffer more, as we do.

“2. You know this is but a color to your design, for, first, you
know that all England itself (after the formality and superstition
of morning and evening prayer) play away their Sabbath. 2d. You know
yourselves do not keep the Sabbath, that is the seventh day, &c.

“3. You know that famous Calvin and thousands more held it but
ceremonial and figurative, from Colossians 2, &c. and vanished; and
that the day of worship was alterable at the churches’ pleasure.
Thus also all the Romanists confess, saying, viz. that there is no
express scripture, first, for infants’ baptisms; nor, second, for
abolishing the seventh day, and instituting of the eighth day
worship, but that it is at the churches’ pleasure.

“4. You know, that generally, all this whole colony observe the
first day, only here and there one out of conscience, another out of
covetousness, make no conscience of it.

“5. You know the greatest part of the world make no conscience of a
seventh day. The next part of the world, Turks, Jews and Christians,
keep three different days, Friday, Saturday, Sunday for their
Sabbath and day of worship, and every one maintains his own by the
longest sword.

“6. I have offered, and do, by these presents, to discuss by
disputation, writing or printing, among other points of differences,
these three positions; first, that forced worship stinks in God’s
nostrils. 2d. That it denies Christ Jesus yet to be come, and makes
the church yet national, figurative and ceremonial. 3d. That in
these flames about religion, as his Majesty, his father and
grandfather have yielded, there is no other prudent, Christian way
of preserving peace in the world, but by permission of differing
consciences. Accordingly, I do now offer to dispute these points and
other points of difference, if you please, at Hartford, Boston and
Plymouth. For the manner of the dispute and the discussion, if you
think fit, one whole day each month in summer, at each place, by
course, I am ready, if the Lord permit, and, as I humbly hope,
assist me.

“It is said, that you intend not to invade our spiritual or civil
liberties, but only (under the advantage of first sealing your
charter) to right the privateers that petition to you. It is said,
also, that if you had but Mishquomacuck and Narraganset lands
quietly yielded, you would stop at Coweset, &c. Oh, Sir, what do
these thoughts preach, but that private cabins rule all, whatever
become of the ship of common safety and religion, which is so much
pretended in New-England? Sir, I have heard further, and by some
that say they know, that something deeper than all which hath been
mentioned lies in the three colonies’ breasts and consultations. I
judge it not fit to commit such matter to the trust of paper, &c.
but only beseech the Father of spirits to guide our poor bewildered
spirits, for his name and mercy sake.

“15. Whereas our case seems to be the case of Paul appealing to
Cæsar against the plots of his religious, zealous adversaries, I
hear you pass not of our petitions and appeals to his Majesty, for
partly you think the King will not own a profane people that do not
keep the Sabbath; partly you think that the King incompetent judge,
but you will force him to law also, to confirm your first-born Esau,
though Jacob had him by the heels, and in God’s holy time must carry
the birthright and inheritance. I judge your surmise is a dangerous
mistake, for patents, grants and charters, and such like royal
favors, are not laws of England, and acts of Parliament, nor matters
of propriety and _meum_ and _tuum_ between the King and his
subjects, which, as the times have been, have been sometimes triable
in inferior Courts; but such kind of grants have been like high
offices in England, of high honor, and ten, yea twenty thousand
pounds gain per annum, yet revocable or curtable upon pleasure,
according to the King’s better information, or upon his Majesty’s
sight, or misbehavior, ingratefulness, or designs fraudulently
plotted, private and distinct from him.

“16. Sir, I lament that such designs should be carried on at such a
time, while we are stript and whipt, and are still under (the whole
country) the dreadful rods of God, in our wheat, hay, corn, cattle,
shipping, trading, bodies and lives; when, on the other side of the
water, all sorts of consciences (yours and ours) are frying in the
Bishops’ pan and furnace; when the French and Romish Jesuits, the
firebrands of the world for their god belly sake, are kindling at
our back, in this country, especially with the Mohawks and Mohegans,
against us, of which I know and have daily information.

“17. If any please to say, is there no medicine for this malady?
Must the nakedness of New-England, like some notorious strumpet, be
prostituted to the blaspheming eyes of all nations? Must we be put
to plead before his Majesty, and consequently the Lord Bishops, our
common enemies, &c. I answer, the Father of mercies and God of all
consolations hath graciously discovered to me, as I believe, a
remedy, which, if taken, will quiet all minds, yours and ours, will
keep yours and ours in quiet possession and enjoyment of their
lands, which you all have so dearly bought and purchased in this
barbarous country, and so long possessed amongst these wild savages;
will preserve you both in the liberties and honors of your charters
and governments, without the least impeachment of yielding one to
another; with a strong curb also to those wild barbarians and all
the barbarians of this country, without troubling of compromisers
and arbitrators between you; without any delay, or long and
chargeable and grievous address to our King’s Majesty, whose gentle
and serene soul must needs be afflicted to be troubled again with
us. If you please to ask me what my prescription is, I will not put
you off to Christian moderation or Christian humility, or Christian
prudence, or Christian love, or Christian self-denial, or Christian
contention or patience. For I design a civil, a humane and political
medicine, which, if the God of Heaven please to bless, you will find
it effectual to all the ends I have proposed. Only I must crave your
pardon, both parties of you, if I judge it not fit to discover it at
present. I know you are both of you hot; I fear myself, also. If
both desire, in a loving and calm spirit, to enjoy your rights, I
promise you, with God’s help, to help you to them, in a fair and
sweet and easy way. My receipt will not please you all. If it should
so please God to frown upon us that you should not like it, I can
but humbly mourn, and say with the prophet, that which must perish
must perish. And as to myself, in endeavoring after your temporal
and spiritual peace, I humbly desire to say, if I perish, I perish.
It is but a shadow vanished, a bubble broke, a dream finished.
Eternity will pay for all.

“Sir, I am your old and true friend and servant,
“R. W.

“To my honored and ancient friend, Mr. Thomas Prince, Governor of
Plymouth Colony, these present. And by his honored hand this copy,
sent to Connecticut, whom it most concerneth, I humbly present to
the General Court of Plymouth, when next assembled.”

The following documents are inserted here, as belonging to the history
of Roger Williams, though a suitable opportunity did not occur to insert
them in the text.

The subjoined letter was copied for Mr. Backus, by the late Judge
Howell, of Providence, and was accompanied by the following note, in his
hand writing: “This remonstrance was sent in to the town, upon their
concluding to divide among themselves certain common lands, out of which
R. Williams wanted some to remain still common, for the town afterwards
to give occasionally to such as fled to them, or were banished for
conscience sake, as he at first gave it all to them.”

“Loving friends and neighbors,

“I have again considered on these papers, and find many considerable
things in both of them. My desire is, that after a friendly debate
of particulars, every man may sit down and rest in quiet with the
final sentence and determination of the town, for all experience
tells us that public peace and love is better than abundance of corn
and cattle, &c. I have one only motion and petition, which I
earnestly pray the town to lay to heart, as ever they look for a
blessing from God on the town, on your families, your corn and
cattle, and your children after you; it is this, that after you have
got over the black brook of some soul bondage yourselves, you tear
not down the bridge after you, by leaving no small pittance for
distressed souls that may come after you. What though your division
or allotment be never so small, yet ourselves know that some men’s
distresses are such, that a piece of a dry crust and a dish of cold
water, is sweet, which if this town will give sincerely unto God,
(setting aside some little portions for other distressed souls to
get bread on) you know who hath engaged His heavenly word for your
reward and recompense.

“Yours, ROGER WILLIAMS.

To the town of Providence.”

The following letter is an honorable evidence of his benevolent spirit:

“_Nar. 22, 11, 50, (so called.)_

“Well beloved friends,

“Loving respects to each of you presented, with hearty desires of
your present and eternal peace. I am sorry that I am occasioned to
trouble you in the midst of many your other troubles, yet upon the
experience of your wonted loving-kindness and gentleness toward all
men and myself also, I pray you hear me patiently. I had proposed to
have personally attended this Court, and to have presented, myself,
these few requests following, but being much lamed and broken with
such travels, I am forced to present you in writing these five
requests. The first four concern others living and dead amongst us;
the fifth, concerns myself.

“First, then, I pray be pleased to review the propositions between
us and our dead friend, John Smith; and since it hath pleased the
God of all mercies, to vouchsafe this town and others such a mercy,
by his means, I beseech you study how to put an end to that
controversy depending between us and him, (as I may so speak) and
his; ’tis true, you have referred that business to some of our
loving neighbors amongst you; but since there are some obstructions,
I beseech you put forth your wisdoms, who know more ways to the wood
than one. Ease the first, and appoint others, or some other course,
that the dead clamor not from his grave against us, but that the
country about us may say, that Providence is not only a wise, but a
grateful people to the God of mercies, and all his instruments of
mercy towards us.

“My second request concerns the dead still. I understand, that one
of the orphans of our dead friend, Daniel Abbott, is likely (as she
herself told me) to be disposed of in marriage. ’Tis true she is now
come to some years, but who knows not what need the poor maid hath
of your fatherly care, counsel and direction. I would not disparage
the young man (for I hear he hath been laborious) yet with your
leave, I might say, I doubt not you will not give your daughters in
marriage to such, whose lives have been in such a course, without
some good assurance and certificate of his not being engaged to
other women, or otherways criminous, as also of his resolution to
forsake his former course, lest (this inquiry being neglected) the
maid and ourselves repent when misery hath befallen her, and a just
reproof and charges befall ourselves, of which we have no need.

“For, thirdly, I crave your consideration of that lamentable object
(what shall I say, of all our censure or pity, I am sure) of all our
wonder and astonishment, Mrs. Weston. My experience of the
distempers of persons elsewhere, makes me confident, that although
not in all things, yet in a great measure, she is a distracted
woman. My request is, that you would be pleased to take what is left
of hers into your own hands, and appoint some to order it for her
supply, and if it may be, let some public act of mercy to her
necessities, stand upon record amongst the merciful acts of a
merciful town, that hath received many mercies from heaven, and
remember that we know not how soon our wives may be widows, and our
children orphans, yea, and ourselves be deprived of all or most of
our reason, before we go from hence, except mercy from the God of
mercies prevent it.

“Fourthly. Let me crave your patience, while once more I lead your
consideration to the grave, amongst the dead, the widows and the
fatherless. From some neighbors and the widow Mann herself, I
understand, that notwithstanding her motherly affection, which will
make all burthens lighter for her children’s good, yet she is not
without fears, that if the town be not favorable to her in after
times, some hard measure and pressures may befall her. My request
is, therefore, that it would please you to appoint some of
yourselves to review the will, and to consider whether the pains of
the father, deceased, or want of time, hath not occasioned him to
leave some of his purposes and desires imperfect, as also to propose
to the town wherein, according to the rules of justice and mercy,
what the deceased intended, may be perfected, for the greater
comfort both of his widow and orphans.

“Fifth. My last request concerns myself. I cannot be so unthankful
to you, and so insensible of mine own and family’s comfort, as not
to take notice of your continued and constant love and care in your
many public and solemn orders for the payment of that money due unto
me about the charter: ’tis true I have never demanded it; yea, I
have been truly desirous that it might have been laid out for some
further public benefit in each town, but observing your loving
resolution to the contrary, I have at last resolved to write unto
you (as I have also lately done to Portsmouth and Newport) about the
better ordering it to my advantage. I have here (through God’s
providence) convenience of improving some goats; my request is,
therefore, that if it may be without much trouble, you would please
to order the payment of it in cattle of that kind. I have been
solicited and have promised my help, about iron works, when the
matter is ripe, earnestly desirous every way to further the good of
the town of Providence, to which I am so much engaged, and to
yourselves the loving inhabitants thereof, to whom I desire to be

“Your truly loving and ever faithful,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“For my well beloved and much respected, the inhabitants of the town
of Providence.

“To Mr. Robert Williams and Mr. Thomas Harris, deputies, or either
of them.”

* * * * *

[Copied from 3 His. Col. i. p. 178.]

“_Cawcawmsqussick, 11, 7, 48, (so called.)_

“Dear and worthy Sir,

“Best salutations to you both and loving sister premised, wishing
you eternal peace in the only Prince of it. I have longed to hear
from you and to send to you since this storm arose. The report was
(as most commonly all Indian reports are) absolutely false, of my
removing my goods, or the least rag, &c. A fortnight since, I heard
of the Mohawks coming to Pawcatuck, their rendezvous; that they were
provoked by Uncas’ wronging and robbing some Pawcatuck Indians the
last year, and that he had dared the Mohawks, threatening, if they
came, to set his ground with gobbets of their flesh; that our
neighbors had given them play, (as they do every year;) yet withal I
heard they were divided; some resolved to proceed, others pleaded
their hunting season. We have here one Waupinhommin, a proud,
desperate abuser of us, and a firebrand to stir up the natives
against us, who makes it all his trade to run between the Mohawks
and these, and (being a captain also himself) renders the Mohawks
more terrible and powerful than the English. Between him and the
chief sachems hath been great consultations, and to my knowledge, he
hath persuaded them to desert their country and become one
rebellious body or rout with the Mohawks, and so to defy the
English, &c. I have sent also what I can inform to the
commissioners. At present, (through mercy) we are in peace.

“Sir, I desire to be ever
“Yours in Christ Jesus,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“The letter I have sent by Warwick, twenty miles nearer than by
Seekonk.

“For his much honored, kind friend, Mr. John Winthrop, at his house,
in Nameag, these.”

* * * * *

“Loving friends and neighbors,

“Divers of yourselves have so cried out, of the contentions of your
late meetings, that (studying my quietness) I thought fit to present
you with these few lines. Two words I pray you to consider. First,
as to this plantation of Providence: then as to some new plantation,
if it shall please the same God of mercies who provided this, to
provide another in mercy for us. 1. As to this town, although I have
been called out, of late, to declare my understanding as to the
bounds of Providence and Pawtuxet; and, although divers have lands
and meadows in possession beyond these bounds, yet I hope that none
of you think me so senseless as to put on any barbarian to molest an
Englishman, or to demand a farthing of any of you.

“2. If any do (as formerly some have done, and divers have given
gratuities, as Mr. Field, about Notaquoncanot and others,) I
promise, that as I have been assistant to satisfy and pacify the
natives round about us, so I hope I shall still while I live be
helpful to any of you that may have occasion to use me.

“Now, as to some new plantation, I desire to propose that which may
quench contention, may accommodate such who want, and may also
return monies unto such as have of late disbursed.

“To this purpose, I desire that we be patient, and torment not
ourselves and the natives, (sachems and people,) putting them upon
mischievous remedies, with the great noise of twenty miles new or
old purchase.

“Let us consider, if Niswosakit and Wayunckeke, and the land
thereabout, may not afford a new and comfortable plantation, which
we may go through with an effectual endeavor for true public good.
To this end, I pray you consider, that the inhabitants of these
parts, with most of the Coweset and Nipmucks, have long since
forsaken the Narraganset sachems and subjected themselves to the
Massachusetts. And yet they are free to sell their lands to any whom
the Massachusetts shall not protest against. To this end (observing
their often flights, and to stop their running to the Massachusetts)
I have parlied with them, and find that about thirty pounds will
cause them to leave those parts, and yield peaceable possession. I
suppose, then, that the town may do well to give leave to about
twenty of your inhabitants (of which I offer to be one, and know
others willing) to lay down thirty shillings a man toward the
purchase. Let every one of this number have liberty to remove
himself, or to place a child or friend there. Let every person who
shall afterward be received into the purchase lay down thirty
shillings, as hath been done in Providence, which may be paid (by
some order agreed on) to such as lately have disbursed monies unto
the effecting of this. I offer, gratis, my time and pains, in hope
that such as want may have a comfortable supply amongst us, and
others made room for, who may be glad of shelter also.

“Yours to serve you,
“ROGER WILLIAMS.

“27, 8, 60 (_so called_.)”

* * * * *

“_Providence, 13, 10, 61 (so called.)_

“1. I testify and declare, in the holy presence of God, that when at
my first coming into these parts, I obtained the lands of Seekonk of
Ousamaquin, the then chief sachem on that side, the Governor of
Plymouth (Mr. Winslow) wrote to me, in the name of their government,
their claim of Seekonk to be in their jurisdiction, as also their
advice to remove but over the river unto this side, (where now, by
God’s merciful providence, we are,) and then I should be out of
their claim, and be as free as themselves, and loving neighbors
together.

“2. After I had obtained this place, now called Providence, of
Canonicus and Miantinomo, the chief Narraganset sachems deceased,
Ousamaquin, the sachem aforesaid, also deceased, laid his claim to
this place also. This forced me to repair to the Narraganset sachems
aforesaid, who declared that Ousamaquin was their subject, and had
solemnly himself, in person, with , subjected himself and his
lands unto them at the Narraganset: only now he seemed to revolt
from his loyalties under the shelter of the English at Plymouth.

“3. This I declared from the Narraganset sachems to Ousamaquin, who,
without any stick, acknowledged it to be true that he had so
subjected as the Narraganset sachems affirmed; but withal, he
affirmed that he was not subdued by war, which himself and his
father had maintained against the Narragansets, but God, said he,
subdued me by a plague, which swept away my people, and forced me to
yield.

“4. This conviction and confession of his, together with gratuities
to himself and brethren and followers, made him often profess, that
he was pleased that I should here be his neighbor, and that rather
because he and I had been great friends at Plymouth, and also
because that his and my friends at Plymouth advised him to be at
peace and friendship with me, and he hoped that our children after
us would be good friends together.

“5. And whereas, there hath been often spread of Providence falling
within Plymouth jurisdiction, by virtue of Ousamaquin’s claims, I
add unto the testimony abovesaid, that the Governor, Mr. Bradford,
and other of their magistrates, declared unto me, both by conference
and writing, that they and their government were satisfied, and
resolved never to molest Providence, nor to claim beyond Seekonk,
but to continue loving friends and neighbors (amongst the
barbarians) together.

“This is the true sum and substance of many passages between our
countrymen of Plymouth and Ousamaquin and me.

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

* * * * *

[Copied from 3 His. Col. i. p. 70.]

“_Providence, 16, 8, 76, (ut vulgo.)_

“Sir,

“With my humble and loving respects to yourself and other honored
friends, &c. I thought fit to tell you what the providence of the
Most High hath brought to my hand the evening before yesterday. Two
Indian children were brought to me by one Thomas Clements, who had
his house burnt on the other side of the river. He was in his
orchard, and two Indian children came boldly to him, the boy being
about seven or eight, and the girl (his sister) three or four years
old. The boy tells me, that a youth, one Mittonan, brought them to
the sight of Thomas Clements, and bid them go to that man, and he
would give them bread. He saith his father and mother were taken by
the Pequods and Mohegans about ten weeks ago, as they were clamming
(with many more Indians) at Coweset; that their dwelling was and is
at a place called Mittaubscut; that it is upon a branch of Pawtuxet
river, to Coweset (their nearest salt water) about seven or eight
miles; that there are about twenty houses. I cannot learn of him
that there are above twenty men, beside women and children; that
they live on ground-nuts, &c. and deer; that Aawaysewaukit is their
sachem; and twelve days ago he sent his son, Wunnawmeneeskat, to
Uncas, with a present of a basket or two of wampum. I know this
sachem is much related to Plymouth, to whom he is said to be
subject, but he said, (as all of them do) [he] deposited his land. I
know what bargains he made with the Browns and Willets and
Rhode-Island and Providence men, and the controversies between the
Narragansets and them, about those lands. I know the talk abroad of
the right of the three united colonies (by conquest) to this land,
and the plea of Rhode-Island by the charter and commissioners. I
humbly desire that this party may be brought in; the country
improved (if God in mercy so please;) the English not differ about
it and complaints run to the King (to unknown trouble, charge and
hazard, &c.) and therefore I humbly beg of God that a committee from
the four colonies may (by way of prudent and godly wisdom) prevent
many inconveniences and mischiefs. I write the sum of this to the
Governors of Connecticut and Rhode-Island, and humbly beg of the
Father of mercies to guide you in mercy, for his mercy sake.

“Sir, your unworthy,
“R. W.

“Excuse my want of paper.

“This boy saith, there is another town to the northeast of them,
with more houses than twenty, who, ’tis like, correspond to the
eastward.

“To the much honored the Governor Leverett, at Boston, or the
Governor Winslow, at Plymouth, present.”

* * * * *

The following document was presented to the Court of Commissioners,
mentioned on page 298 of this volume. It is inserted as valuable, though
mutilated and containing severe remarks on Mr. Harris’ conduct:

“The following is a true copy of an original manuscript, which is in
the hand writing of Roger Williams, and contains all that is written
on one sheet in my possession: the remainder of the original must
have been contained in another sheet which was attached, but that is
unfortunately lost, it never having come into my possession. The
original is much worn and broken in the folds, and several lines
required great care and attention to trace them, but I am confident
that all that is written here is contained in the original.

“JOHN HOWLAND.

_Providence, January 30, 1832._”

“_Providence, 18, 8, 1677, (ut vulgo.)_

“Honored Gentlemen,

“My humble respects presented, with congratulations and prayers to
the Most High, for your merciful preservations in and through these
late bloody and burning times, the peaceable travelling and
assembling amongst the ruins and rubbish of these late desolations,
which the Most High hath justly brought upon us. I crave your gently
leave to tell you, that I humbly conceive I am called of God to
present your wisdoms with what light I can, to make your
difficulties and travails the easier. I am sore grieved that a
self-seeking contentious soul, who has long afflicted this town and
colony, should now, with his unseasonable and unjust clamor, afflict
our Royal Sovereign, his honorable Council, New and Old England, and
now your honored selves, with these his contentious courses. For
myself, it hath pleased God to vouchsafe me knowledge and experience
of his providences in these parts, so that I should be ungratefully
and treacherously silent at such a time. When his Majesty’s
Commissioners, Col. Nichols, &c. were here, I was chosen by this
colony, one of the commissioners to treat with them and with the
commissioners from Plymouth, who then were their honored Governor
deceased, and honored present Governor, about our bounds. It then
pleased the Father of mercies, in whose most high and holy hands the
hearts of all men are, to give me such favor in their eyes, that
afterward, at a great assembly at Warwick, where (that firebrand)
Philip, his whole country, was challenged by the Narraganset
sachems, I was sent for, and declared such transactions between old
Canonicus and Ousamaquin, that the commissioners were satisfied, and
confirmed unto the ungrateful monster his country. The Narraganset
sachems (prompted by some English) told the commissioners, that Mr.
Williams was but one witness, but the commissioners answered that
they had such experience of my knowledge in these parts, and
fidelity, that they valued my testimony as much as twenty witnesses.

“Among so many passages since W. Har. (so long ago) kindled the
fires of contention, give me leave to trouble you with one, when if
W. H. had any desire by equal and peaceable converse with men, this
fire had been quenched; our General Court, Mishauntatuk men and W.
Har. agreed that arbitration should heal this old sore. Arbitrators
were chosen, and Mr. Thomas Willet was chosen umpire. He, when they
met, told them that the arbitrators should consider every plea with
equity, and allot to every one what the arbitrators’ consciences
told them was right and equal. Mishauntatuk men yielded, W.
Carpenter, then one with W. Har., yielded. W. Har. cried out no; he
was resolved, all or none; so the honored soul, Mr. Willet (as he
himself told me) could not proceed, but was forced to draw up a
protest to acquit himself and the arbitrators from this trust, that
the obstruction might only be laid on W. Har. his shoulders,
concerning whom a volume might be written, of his furious, covetous,
and contentious domineering over his poor neighbors. I have
presented a character of him to his Majesty, (in defence of myself
against him) in my narrative against George Fox, printed at Boston.
I think it not seasonable here to trouble your patience with
particulars as to the matter. I humbly refer myself to my large
testimony, given in writing, at a Court of Trials on the Island,
before the honored gentleman, deceased, Mr. W. Brenton, then
Governor. At the same time Mr. William Arnold, father to our honored
present Governor, and Stukely Westcott, father to our Governor’s
wife, gave in their testimony with mine, and W. Har. was cast. In
that testimony, I declare not only how unrighteous, but also how
simple is W. Harris his ground of pleading, viz. after Miantinomo
had set us our bounds here in his own person, because of the envious
clamors of some against myself, one amongst us (not I) recorded a
testimony or memorandum of a courtesy added (upon request) by the
sachem, in these words, _up stream without limits_. The courtesy was
requested and granted, that being shortened in bounds by the sachem
because of the Indians about us, it might be no offence if our few
cows fed up the rivers where nobody dwelt, and home again at night.
This hasty, unadvised memorandum W. H. interprets of bounds set to
our town by the sachems; but he would set no bounds to our cattle,
but up the streams so far as they branched or run, so far all the
meadows, and at last all the uplands, must be drawn into this
accidental courtesy, and yet, upon no consideration given, nor the
sachem’s knowledge or hand, nor witnesses, nor date, nor for what
term of time this kindness should continue.

“Second. In my testimony, I have declared that Miantinomo having set
such short bounds (because of the Indians) upon my motion, payments
were given by us to Alexander and Philip, and the Narraganset
sachems, near two hundred and fifty pounds, in their pay, for inland
enlargements, according to leave granted us by the General Court
upon our petition. This after purchase and satisfaction to all
claimers, W. Harris puts a rotten title upon it, and calls it
confirmation, a confirmation of the title and grant of _up streams
without limits_; but all the sachems and Indians, when they heard of
such an interpretation, they cried _commoobin_, lying and stealing,
as such a cheat as stunk in their pagan nostrils.

“Honored Sirs, let me now add to my testimony, a list of several
persons which the right and disposing of all or considerable part of
these Narragansets, and Coweset, and Nipmuck lands, &c.

“First. The colony of Connecticut, by the King’s grant and charter,
by the late wars, wherein they were honorably assistant.

“Second. The colony of Plymouth, by virtue of Tacommaicon’s
surrender of his person and lands to their protection, and I have
seen a letter from the present Governor Winslow, to Mr. Richard
Smith, about the matter.

“Third. The colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, by
grant from his Majesty and confirmation from his Majesty’s
commissioners, who called these lands the King’s Province, and
committed the ordering of it to this colony, until his Majesty
further order.

“Fourth. Many eminent gentlemen of the Massachusetts and other
colonies, claim by a mortgage and forfeiture of all lands belonging
to Narraganset.

“Fifth. Our honored Governor, Mr. Arnold, and divers with him, are
out of a round sum of money and cost, about a purchase from
Tacummanan.

“Sixth. The like claim was and is made by Mr. John Brown, and Mr.
Thomas Willet, honored gentlemen and their successors, * * * from
purchase with Tacummanan, and I have seen their deeds, and Col.
Nichols his confirmation of them, under hand and seal, in the name
of the King’s Majesty.

“Seventh. Wm. Harris pleads _up streams without limits_, and
confirmation from the other sachems of the _up streams, &c._

“Eighth. Mishuntatuk men claim by purchase from Indians by
possession, buildings, &c. * * * * [worn out and oblit.] * * *

“Ninth. Captain Hubbard and some others, of Hingham * * * by
purchase from the Indians.

“Tenth. John Tours, of Hingham, by three purchases from Indians.

“Eleventh. William Vaughan, of Newport, and others, by Indian
purchase.

[The next following No. is 13: there is no 12.]

“Thirteenth. Randall, of Scituate,[393] and White, of Taunton, and
others, by purchase from Indians.

“Fourteenth. Edward Inman, of Providence, by purchase from the
natives.

“Fifteenth. The town of Warwick, who challenge twenty miles, about
part of which, Will. Harris contending with them, it is said, was
the first occasion of W. Har. falling in love with this his
monstrous Diana _up streams without limits_, that so he might
antedate and prevent (as he speaks) the blades of Warwick.

“Sixteenth. The town of Providence, by virtue of Canonicus’ and
Miantinomo’s grant renewed to me again and again, viz. of as large a
plantation and accommodation as any town in the country of
New-England. It is known what favor God pleased to give me with old
Canonicus, (though at a dear-bought rate) so that I had what I would
(so that I observed my times of moderation;) but two or three
envious and ungrateful souls among us cried out, What is R.
Williams? We will have the sachem come and set our bounds for us;
which he did, and (because of his Indians round about us) so sudden
and so short, that we were forced to petition to our General Court
for enlargement.

“Honored Sirs, there be other claims, and therefore I presume your
wisdoms will send forth your proclamations to all the colonies, that
all the claims may come in before your next meeting; and Oh that it
would please the Most High to move the colonies’ hearts to empower
you, and move your hearts to be willing, (being honorably rewarded)
and the hearts of the claimers to acquiesce and rest in your
determination. And Oh let not the colonies of Connecticut and
Rhode-Island to be offended, if I humbly beseech them, for God’s
sake, for the King’s sake, for the country of New-England’s sake,
and for their own souls’ and selves’ and posterity’s sakes, to
prevent any more complaints and clamors to the King’s Majesty, and
agree to submit their differences to the wisdoms of such solemn
commissioners chosen out of the whole country. I know there are
objections, but also know that love to God, love to the country and
posterity, will conquer greater matters, and I believe the King’s
Majesty, himself, will give us thanks for sparing him and his
honorable Council from being troubled with us.

“Honored gentlemen, if his Majesty and honorable Council knew how
against all law of England, Wm. Harris thus affects New and Old
England, viz. that a vast country should be purchased, and yet be
but a poor courtesy from one sachem, who understood no such thing,
nor they that begged it of him, who had not, nor asked any
consideration for it, who was not desired to set his hand to it, nor
did; nor are there the hands of witnesses, but the parties
themselves, nor no date, nor term of time, for the use of feeding
cows, up streams without limits, and yet these words, (_up streams
without limits_) by a sudden and unwary hand so written, must be the
ground of W. Har. this raising a fire about these thirty years
unquenchable. If his Majesty and Council knew how many of his good
subjects are claimers and competitors to these lands and meadows up
the streams of Pawtuxet and Pawtucket, though only one comes thus
clamoring to him, to cheat all the rest. If his Majesty and Council
knew this confirmation W. H. talks of, what a grand cheat it is,
stinking in the nostrils of all Indians, who subscribed to and only
confirmed only such bounds as were formerly given us, and W. Harris
clamors that they confirmed Miantinomo’s grant of up streams without
limits, a thing which they abhor to hear of, and (amongst others)
was one great occasion of their late great burning and slaughtering
of us.” * * * *

* * * * *

“_Narraganset, 10th June, 1682 (ut vulgo.)_

“I testify, as in the presence of the all-making and all-seeing God,
that about fifty years since, I coming into this Narraganset
country, I found a great contest between three sachems, two (to wit,
Canonicus and Miantinomo) were against Ousamaquin, on Plymouth side,
I was forced to travel between them three, to pacify, to satisfy all
their and their dependents’ spirits of my honest intentions to live
peaceably by them. I testify, that it was the general and constant
declaration, that Canonicus his father had three sons, whereof
Canonicus was the heir, and his youngest brother’s son, Miantinomo,
(because of youth,) was his marshal and executioner, and did nothing
without his uncle Canonicus’ consent; and therefore I declare to
posterity, that were it not for the favor God gave me with
Canonicus, none of these parts, no, not Rhode-Island, had been
purchased or obtained, for I never got any thing out of Canonicus
but by gift. I also profess, that, very inquisitive of what the
title or denomination Narraganset should come, I heard that
Narraganset was so named from a little island between Puttiquomscut
and Musquomacuk on the sea and fresh water side. I went on purpose
to see it; and about the place called Sugar-Loaf Hill, I saw it, and
was within a pole of it, but could not learn why it was called
Narraganset. I had learnt, that the Massachusetts was called so,
from the Blue Hills, a little island thereabout; and Canonicus’
father and ancestors, living in those southern parts, transferred
and brought their authority and name into those northern parts, all
along by the sea-side, as appears by the great destruction of wood
all along near the sea-side; and I desire posterity to see the
gracious hand of the Most High, (in whose hands are all hearts) that
when the hearts of my countrymen and friends and brethren failed me,
his infinite wisdom and merits stirred up the barbarous heart of
Canonicus to love me as his son to his last gasp, by which means I
had not only Miantinomo and all the lowest sachems my friends, but
Ousamaquin also, who, because of my great friendship with him at
Plymouth, and the authority of Canonicus, consented freely, being
also well gratified by me, to the Governor Winthrop and my enjoyment
of Prudence, yea of Providence itself, and all the other lands I
procured of Canonicus which were upon the point, and in effect
whatsoever I desired of him; and I never denied him or Miantinomo
whatever they desired of me as to goods or gifts or use of my boats
or pinnace, and the travels of my own person, day and night, which,
though men know not, nor care to know, yet the all-seeing Eye hath
seen it, and his all-powerful hand hath helped me. Blessed be his
holy name to eternity.

ROGER WILLIAMS.”

“September 28th, 1704. I then, being at the house of Mr. Nathaniel
Coddington, there being presented with this written paper, which I
attest, upon oath, to be my father’s own hand writing.

JOSEPH WILLIAMS, _Assistant_.”

“February 11th, 1705. True copy of the original, placed to record,
and examined per me.

“WESTON CLARKE, _Recorder_.”

NOTE D. p. 180.

[From Hazard’s State Papers, vol. i.]

Report of Arbitrators at Providence, containing proposals for a form of
government:

_“Providence, the 27th of the 5th month,_ }
_in the year (so called) 1640._ }

“We, Robert Coles, Chad Browne, William Harris, and John Warren,
being freely chosen by the consent of our loving friends and
neighbors, the inhabitants of this town of Providence, having many
differences amongst us, they being freely willing, and also bound
themselves to stand to our arbitration, in all differences amongst
us, to rest contented in our determination, being so betrusted, we
have seriously and carefully endeavored to weigh and consider all
these differences, being desirous to bring to unity and peace,
although our abilities are far short in the due examination of such
weighty things, yet so far as we conceive in laying all things
together, we have gone the fairest and the equallest way to produce
our peace.

“I. Agreed. We have, with one consent, agreed, that in the parting
those particular proprieties which some of our friends and neighbors
have in Pawtuxet from the general common of our town of Providence,
to run upon a straight line upon a fresh spring, being in the gully
at the head of that cove, running by that point of land called
Sassafras, unto the town of Mashapaug, to an oak tree standing near
unto the corn-field, being at this time the nearest corn-field unto
Pawtuxet, the oak tree having four marks with an axe, till some
other landmark be set for a certain bound. Also we agree, that if
any meadow ground lying and joining to that meadow that borders upon
the river of Pawtuxet, come within the aforesaid line, which will
not come within a straight line from long cove to the marked tree,
then for that meadow to belong to Pawtuxet, and so beyond the town
of Mashapaug from the oak tree between the two fresh rivers Pawtuxet
and Wanasquatucket, of an even distance.

“II. Agreed. We have with one consent agreed that for the disposing
of those lands that shall be disposed, belonging to this town of
Providence, to be in the whole inhabitants by the choice of five men
for general disposal, to be betrusted with disposal of lands and
also of the town’s stock, and all general things, and not to receive
in any in six days as townsmen, but first to give the inhabitants
notice to consider if any have just cause to show against the
receiving of him, as you can apprehend, and to receive none but such
as subscribe to this our determination. Also we agree, that if any
of our neighbors do apprehend himself wronged by these or any of
these five disposers, that at the general town meeting he may have a
trial.

“Also, we agree for the town to choose, beside the other five men,
one or more to keep record of all things belonging to the town and
lying in common.

“We agree, as formerly hath been the liberties of the town, so still
to hold forth liberty of conscience.

“III. Agreed, that after many considerations and consultations of
our own State and also of other States abroad, in way of government,
we apprehend no way so suitable to our condition as government by
way of arbitration. But if men agree themselves by arbitration, no
State we know of disallows that, neither do we. But if men refuse
that which is but common humanity between man and man, then to
compel such unreasonable persons to a reasonable way, we agree that
the five disposers shall have power to compel him either to choose
two men himself, or if he refuse, for them to choose two men to
arbitrate his cause, and if these four men chosen by every party do
end the cause, then to see their determination performed, and the
faultive to pay the arbitrators for their time spent in it. But if
these four men do not end it, then for the five disposers to choose
three men to put an end to it. And for the certainty hereof we agree
the major part of the five disposers to choose the three men, and
the major part of the three men to end the cause, having power from
the five disposers, by a note under their hand, to perform it; and
the faultive not agreeing in the first to pay the charge of the
last, and for the arbitrators to follow no employment until the
cause be ended, without consent of the whole that have to do with
the cause.

“Instance. In the first arbitration, the offender may offer
reasonable terms of peace, and the offended may exact upon him, and
refuse and trouble men beyond reasonable satisfaction; so for the
last arbitrators to judge where the fault was, in not agreeing in
the first, to pay the charge in the last.

“IV. Agreed, that if any person damnify any man, either in goods or
good name, and the person offended follow not the cause upon the
offender, that if any person give notice to the five disposers, they
shall call the party delinquent to answer by arbitration.

“Instance. Thus, if any person abuse another in person or goods, may
be for peace sake a man will at present put it up, and it may so be
resolve to revenge: therefore, for the peace of the State, the
disposers are to look to it in the first place.

“V. Agreed, for all the whole inhabitants to combine ourselves to
assist any man in the pursuit of any party delinquent, with all our
best endeavors to attack him; but if any man raise a hubbub, and
there be no just cause, then for the party that raised the hubbub to
satisfy men for their time lost in it.

“VI. Agreed, that if any man have a difference with any of the five,
then he may have the clerk call the town together at his for a
trial.

“Instance. It may be a man may be to depart the land, or to a far
part of the land, or his estate may lie upon a speedy trial, or the
like case may fall out.

“VII. Agreed, that the town, by five men, shall give every man a
deed of all his lands lying within the bounds of the plantation to
hold it by for after ages.

“VIII. Agreed, that the five disposers shall, from the date hereof,
meet every month day upon general things, and at the quarter day to
yield a new choice, and give up their old accounts.

“IX. Agreed, that the clerk shall call the five disposers together
at the month day, and the general town together every quarter, to
meet upon general occasions, from the date hereof.

“X. Agreed, that the clerk is to receive for every cause that comes
to the town for a trial, 4_d._; for making each deed, 12_d._; and to
give up the book to the town at the year’s end, and yield to a new
choice.

“XI. Agreed, that all acts of disposal on both sides to stand
since the difference.

“XII. Agreed, that every man who hath not paid in his purchase money
for his plantation, shall make up his 10_s._ to be 30_s._ equal with
the first purchases; and for all that are received townsmen
hereafter to pay the like sum of money to the town stock.

“These being those things we have generally concluded on for our
peace, we desiring our loving friends to receive as our absolute
determination, laying ourselves down as subject to it.”

NOTE E. page 198.

_The first Charter, copied from 2 His. Coll. ix. pp. 185–8._

“Whereas, by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, now assembled in
Parliament, bearing date the second day of November, Anno Domini
1643, Robert, Earl of Warwick, is constituted, and ordained governor
in chief, and lord high admiral of all those islands and other
plantations inhabited or planted by, or belonging to any his Majesty
the King of England’s subjects, (or which hereafter may be inhabited
and planted by, or belong to them) within the bounds, and upon the
coasts of America:

“And whereas the said Lords have thought fit and thereby ordained
that Philip Earl of Pembroke, Edward Earl of Manchester, William
Viscount, Say and Seal, Philip Lord Wharton, John Lord Rolle,
members of the House of Peers; Sir Gilbert Gerrard, Baronet, Sir
Arthur Haslerig, Baronet, Sir Henry Vane, jr. Knight, Sir Benjamin
Rudyard, Knight, John Pym, Oliver Cromwell, Dennis Bond, Miles
Corbet, Cornelius Holland, Samuel Vassal, John Rolle, and William
Spurstow, Esqrs. members of the House of Commons, should be
commissioners to join in aid and assistance with the said Earl. And
whereas, for the better government and defence, it is thereby
ordained, that the aforesaid governor and commissioners, or the
greater number of them, shall have power, and authority, from time
to time, to nominate, appoint, and constitute all such subordinate
governors, counsellors, commanders, officers, and agents, as they
shall judge to be best affected, and most fit, and serviceable for
the said islands and plantations; and to provide for, order and
dispose all things, which they shall, from time to time, find most
advantageous for the said plantations: and for the better security
of the owners and inhabitants thereof, to assign, ratify, and
confirm, so much of their aforementioned authority and power, and in
such manner, and to such persons, as they shall judge to be fit for
the better governing and preserving of the said plantations and
islands, from open violences and private disturbances and
distractions. And whereas there is a tract of land in the continent
of America aforesaid, called by the name of Narraganset Bay,
bordering northward and northeast on the patent of Massachusetts,
east and southeast on Plymouth patent, south on the ocean, and on
the west and northwest by the Indians called Nahigganneucks, alias
Narragansets, the whole tract extending about twenty-five English
miles, unto the Pequod river and country.

“And whereas, well affected and industrious English inhabitants, of
the towns of Providence, Portsmouth and Newport, in the tract
aforesaid, have adventured to make a nearer neighborhood and society
with the great body of the Narragansets, which may, in time, by the
blessing of God upon their endeavors, lay a sure foundation of
happiness to all America; and have also purchased, and are
purchasing of and amongst the natives, some other places, which may
be convenient, both for plantations, and also for building of ships,
supply of pipe staves, and other merchandise.

“And whereas the said English have represented their desire to the
said Earl, and commissioners, to have their hopeful beginnings
approved and confirmed, by granting unto them a free charter of
civil incorporation and government; that they may order and govern
their plantation in such a manner, as to maintain justice and peace,
both among themselves, and towards all men with whom they shall have
to do. In due consideration of the said premises, the said Robert,
Earl of Warwick, governor in chief, and lord high admiral of the
said plantations, and the greater number of the said commissioners,
whose names and seals are hereunder written and subjoined, out of a
desire to encourage the good beginnings of the said planters, do, by
the authority of the aforesaid ordinance of the Lords and Commons,
give, grant, and confirm, to the aforesaid inhabitants of the towns
of Providence, Portsmouth and Newport, a free and absolute charter
of incorporation, to be known by the name of _The Incorporation of
Providence Plantation, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England_.
Together with full power and authority, to rule themselves, and such
others as shall hereafter inhabit within any part of the said tract
of land, by such a form of civil government, as by voluntary consent
of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable
to their estate and condition; and, for that end, to make and ordain
such civil laws and constitutions, and to inflict such punishments
upon transgressors, and for execution thereof, so to place, and
displace officers of justice, as they, or the greatest part of them,
shall by free consent agree unto. _Provided_, _nevertheless_, that
the said laws, constitutions, and punishments, for the civil
government of the said plantations, be conformable to the laws of
England, so far as the nature and constitution of the place will
admit. And always reserving to the said Earl, and commissioners, and
their successors, power and authority for to dispose the general
government of that, as it stands in relation to the rest of the
plantations in America, as they shall conceive, from time to time,
most conducing to the general good of the said plantations, the
honor of his Majesty, and the service of the State. And the said
Earl and commissioners do further authorize, that the aforesaid
inhabitants, for the better transacting of their public affairs, to
make and use a public seal, as the known seal of the Providence
Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England. In testimony
whereof, the said Robert, Earl of Warwick, and commissioners, have
hereunto set their hands and seals, the fourteenth day of March, in
the nineteenth year of our sovereign lord King Charles, and in the
year of our Lord God, 1643.

ROBERT WARWICK,
PHILIP PEMBROKE,
SAY AND SEAL,
P. WHARTON,
ARTHUR HASLERIG,
COR. HOLLAND,
H. VANE,
SAM. VASSAL,
JOHN ROLLE,
MILES CORBET,
W. SPURSTOW.[394]”

NOTE F. page 226.

The following document, written, evidently, by Mr. Williams, is an
appropriate introduction to the charter of the town of Providence.

“To our loving and well-betrusted friends and neighbors, Gregory Dexter,
William Wickenden, Thomas Olney, Robert Williams, Richard Waterman,
Roger Williams, William Field, John Greene, John Smith, John Shippett.

“We, the greater part of the inhabitants of this plantation of
Providence, having orderly chosen you at our town meeting this 16th of
the 3d mo. 1647, to appear for us, at the General Court of this colony,
to be held at Portsmouth, on Rhode-Island, upon the 18th of this inst.
month, desiring the Lord’s providence for your safe arrival there, we
all voluntarily assenting, do hereby give you full power and authority
as followeth: First, to act and vote for us respectively or otherwise,
as if we ourselves were in person, for the settling of this General
Court for the present, and for the composing of it into any figure for
the future, as cause shall require. Secondly, to act and vote for us as
aforesaid in the choice of all general officers, as need shall require.
Thirdly, if the General Court shall consist of but ten men for each
town, then you are to act accordingly for this town; and if the General
Court shall be reduced into a fewer number, which, for divers
considerations, we conceive may be for the best, then we give you full
power to choose from among yourselves, such a number of our loving
neighbors as shall answer the same figure, unto whom, being orderly
chosen by you, we do give you power to transfer this our commission,
giving of them full power to act and vote for us, the inhabitants of
this plantation, in all general affairs, and for the settling of the
island in peace and union, and for all matters that shall concern this
particular town, desiring a careful respect unto these ensuing
instructions. But, if the Court shall consist of ten of each town, then
our desires are, that this our commission, with the ensuing
instructions, may remain entire in your hands.

“First. That we may have a true copy of our charter assigned unto us by
the General Court, for the proper use of our plantation.

“Secondly. We do voluntarily and are freely willing to receive and be
governed by the laws of England, together with the way of administration
of them, so far as the nature and constitution of this plantation will
admit, desiring, so far as possibly may be, to hold a correspondency
with the whole colony in that model that hath been lately shown unto us
by our worthy friends of the island, if the General Court shall complete
and confirm the same, or any other model as the General Court shall
agree upon according to our charter.

“Thirdly. We desire to have full power, and authority to transact all
our home affairs, to try all manner of causes or cases, and to execute
all manner of executions entirely within ourselves, excepting such cases
and executions as the colony shall be pleased to reserve to general
trials and executions.

“Fourthly. We desire to have full power and authority to choose, ordain,
authorize and confirm, all our particular town officers, and also that
the said officers shall be responsible unto our particular town, and
that there may be no intermixture of general and particular officers,
but that all may know their bounds and limits.

“Fifthly. We desire to have an exact and orderly way open for appeals
unto General Courts, that so, if any shall be justly grieved at any
sentence passed or otherwise, he or they may make their lawful charge
for relief there.

“Lastly. Whereas, it was hinted in that which our worthy friends
unto us, that each town should have a charter of civil
incorporation, apart, for the transacting of particular affairs, if the
Court shall proceed so far as to agitate and order the same, then we
give you full power, on our behalf, to move and procure any thing beside
these instructions, that in your wisdom you conceive may tend unto the
general peace or union of the colony and our own particular liberties
and privileges, provided you do all, _or the most of you, unanimously_
agree therein, and always reserving our equal votes and equal privileges
in the general.

“Thus betrusting you with the premises, we commit you unto the
protection and direction of the Almighty, wishing you a comfortable
voyage, a happy success, and a safe return unto us again.

“Your thankful friends and neighbors,
“ROGER WILLIAMS,
_Moderator_.”

_Charter of the Town of Providence._

“Whereas, by virtue of a free and absolute charter of civil
incorporation, granted to the free inhabitants of this colony of
Providence, by the Right Honorable Robert, Earl of Warwick, Governor in
Chief, with the rest of the honorable commoners, bearing date the 14th
day of March, anno. 1643, giving and granting full powers and authority
unto the said inhabitants to govern themselves and such others as shall
come among them, as also to make, constitute and ordain such laws,
orders and constitutions, and to inflict such punishments and penalties,
as is conformable to the laws of England, so near as the nature and
constitution of the place will admit, and which may best suit the estate
and condition thereof, and whereas the said towns of Providence,
Portsmouth, Newport and Warwick are far remote each from other, whereby
so often and free intercourse of help in deciding of difference and
trying of causes and the like cannot easily and at all times be had and
procured of that kind is requisite; therefore, upon the petition and
humble request of the freemen of the town of Providence, exhibited unto
this present session of General Assembly, wherein they desire freedom
and liberty to incorporate themselves into a body politic, and we, the
said Assembly, having duly weighed and seriously considered the
premises, and being willing and ready to provide for the ease and
liberty of the people, have thought fit, and by the authority aforesaid
and by these presents, do give, grant and confirm unto the free
inhabitants of the town of Providence, a free and absolute charter of
civil incorporation and government, to be known by the Incorporation of
Providence Plantation, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, together
with full power and authority to govern and rule themselves, and such
others, as shall hereafter inhabit within any part of the said
Plantation, by such a form of civil government, as by voluntary consent
of all, or the greater part of them, shall be found most suitable unto
their estate and condition, and to that end to make and ordain such
civil orders and constitutions, to inflict such punishments upon
transgressors, and for execution thereof, and of the common statute laws
of the colony, agreed unto, and the penalties, and so many of them as
are not annexed already unto the colony Court of Trials, so to place and
displace officers of justice, as they, or the greater part of them,
shall, by one consent, agree unto. Provided, nevertheless, that the said
laws, constitutions, and punishments, for the civil government of the
said Plantation, be conformable to the laws of England, so far as the
nature and constitution of the place will admit, yet always reserving to
the aforesaid General Assembly, power and authority so to dispose the
general government of that plantation, as it stands in reference to the
rest of the plantation, as they shall conceive, from time to time, most
conducing to the general good of the said plantation. And we, the said
Assembly, do further authorize the aforesaid inhabitants to elect and
engage such aforesaid officers upon the first second day of June
annually. And moreover, we authorize the said inhabitants, for the
better transacting of their public affairs, to make and use a public
seal, as the known seal of Providence Plantation, in the Narraganset
Bay, in New-England. In testimony whereof, we, the said General
Assembly, have hereunto set our hands and seal, the 14th of March, Anno
1648.

“JOHN WARNER,
“_Clerk of the Assembly_.

_Portsmouth_.”

“The foregoing is as correct a copy of the charter of the town of
Providence, as could be made from that on parchment in the Town Clerk’s
office, taken this day, by and with the assistance of a copy, in the
hand writing of Joseph Brown, son of Henry, and brother to Richard
Brown, who was proprietors’ clerk. The parchment original not now being
in all parts legible, the said copy I judge to be taken more than sixty
years ago, and was of great use in decyphering that in the office.

“MOSES BROWN.

_20th 12th mo. 1810._”

NOTE G. page 319.

_Charter of Rhode-Island. granted by King Charles II. on the 8th of
July, 1663._

“Quintadecima pars Patentium Anno Regni Regis Caroli Secundi
Quintodecimo.

“Charles the Second, by the grace of God, &c., to all to whom these
presents shall come, greeting: Whereas we have been informed, by the
petition of our trusty and well-beloved subjects, John Clarke, on the
behalf of Benedict Arnold, William Brenton, William Coddington, Nicholas
Easton, William Boulston, John Porter, John Smith, Samuel Gorton, John
Weekes, Roger Williams, Thomas Olney, Gregory Dexter, John Coggeshall,
Joseph Clarke, Randall Houlden, John Greene, John Roome, Samuel
Wildbore, William Field, James Barker, Richard Tew, Thomas Harris, and
William Dyre, and the rest of the purchasers and free inhabitants of our
island, called Rhode-Island, and the rest of the colony of Providence
Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, in America: That
they, pursuing with peace and loyal minds their sober, serious and
religious intentions, of godly edifying themselves and one another in
the holy Christian faith and worship, as they were persuaded, together
with the gaining over and conversion of the poor ignorant Indian
natives, in those parts of America, to the sincere profession and
obedience of the same faith and worship, did not only, by the consent
and good encouragement of our royal progenitors, transport themselves
out of this kingdom of England, into America; but also, since their
arrival there, after their first settlement amongst other of our
subjects in those parts, for the avoiding of discord, and these many
evils which were likely to ensue upon those, our subjects, not being
able to bear, in those remote parts, their different apprehensions in
religious concernments: and in pursuance of the aforesaid ends, did once
again leave their desirable stations and habitations, and, with
excessive labor and travail, hazard and charge, did transplant
themselves into the midst of the Indian natives, who, as we are
informed, are the most potent princes and people of all that country;
where, by the good providences of God (from whom the plantations have
taken their name) upon their labor and industry, they have not only been
preserved to admiration, but have increased and prospered, and are
seized and possessed, by purchase and consent of said natives, to their
full content, of such lands, islands, rivers, harbors, and roads, as are
very convenient, both for plantations and also for building of ships,
supplying of pipe-staves and other merchandise, which lie very
commodious, in many respects, for commerce, and to accommodate our
southern plantations, and may much advance the trade of this our realm,
and greatly enlarge the territories thereof; they having, by near
neighborhood to, and friendly society with, the great body of
Narraganset Indians, given them encouragement, of their own accord, to
subject themselves, their people and land unto us; whereby, as is hoped,
there may, in time, by the blessing of God upon their endeavors, be laid
a sure foundation of happiness to all America:

“And whereas, in their humble address, they have freely declared, that
it is much on their hearts (if they be permitted) to hold forth a lively
experiment, that a most flourishing civil state may stand, and best be
maintained, and that among our English subjects, with a full liberty in
religious concernments; and that true piety, rightly grounded upon
Gospel principles, will give the best and greatest security to
sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations
to true loyalty:

“Now know ye, that we, being willing to encourage the hopeful
undertaking of our said loyal and loving subjects, and to secure them in
the free exercise and enjoyment of all the civil and religious rights
appertaining to them, as our loving subjects, and to preserve unto them
that liberty in the true Christian faith and worship of God, which they
have sought, with so much travail, and with peaceable minds and loyal
subjection to our royal progenitors and ourselves, to enjoy; and because
some of the people and inhabitants of the same colony cannot, in their
private opinion, conform to the public exercise of religion, according
to the liturgy, form and ceremonies of the Church of England, to take or
subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf;
and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of those
places, will, as we hope, be no breach of the unity and uniformity
established in this nation, have therefore thought fit, and do hereby
publish, grant, ordain, and declare, that our royal will and pleasure
is:

“That no person, within the said colony, at any time hereafter, shall be
anywise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any
differences in opinion in matters of religion, who do not actually
disturb the civil peace of our said colony; but that all and every
person and persons may, from time to time, and at all times hereafter,
freely and fully have and enjoy his own and their judgments and
consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract
of land hereafter mentioned, they behaving themselves peaceably and
quietly, and not using this liberty to licentiousness and profaneness,
nor to the civil injury or outward disturbance of others; any law,
statute, or clause therein contained, or to be contained, usage, or
custom of this realm, to the contrary hereof, in anywise
notwithstanding.

“And that they may be in the better capacity to defend themselves, in
their just rights and liberties, against all the enemies of the
Christian faith, and others, in all respects, we have further thought
fit, and at the humble petition of the persons aforesaid, are graciously
pleased to declare,

“That they shall have and enjoy the benefit of our late act of indemnity
and free pardon, as the rest of our subjects in our other dominions and
territories have, and to create or make them a body politic or
corporate, with the powers and privileges hereinafter mentioned. And,
accordingly, our will and pleasure is, and of our especial grace,
certain knowledge, and mere motion, we have ordained, constituted, and
declared, and, by these presents, for us, our heirs, and successors, do
ordain, constitute, and declare, that they, the said William Brenton,
William Coddington, Nicholas Easton, Benedict Arnold, William Boulston,
John Porter, Samuel Gorton, John Smith, John Weekes, Roger Williams,
Thomas Olney, Gregory Dexter, John Coggeshall, Joseph Clarke, Randall
Houlden, John Greene, John Roome, William Dyre, Samuel Wildbore, Richard
Tew, William Field, Thomas Harris, James Barker, —— Rainsborrow, ——
Williams, and John Nickson, and all such others as are now, or hereafter
shall be, admitted free of the company and society of our colony of
Providence Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, shall
be, from time to time, and forever hereafter, a body corporate and
politic, in fact and name, by the name of _The Governor and Company of
the English Colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in
New-England, in America_; and that by the same name they and their
successors shall and may have perpetual succession, and shall and may be
persons able and capable in the law to sue and be sued, to plead and be
impleaded, to answer and to be answered unto, to defend and to be
defended, in all and singular suits, causes, quarrels, matters, actions,
and things, of what kind or nature soever; and also to have, take,
possess, acquire, and purchase lands, tenements, or hereditaments, or
any goods or chattels, and the same to lease, grant, demise, alien,
bargain, sell, and dispose of, at their own will and pleasure, as other
our liege people of this our realm of England, or any corporation or
body politic within the same, may lawfully do.

“And further, that they, the said Governor and company, and their
successors, shall and may, forever hereafter, have a common seal, to
serve and use for all matters, causes, things, and affairs whatsoever,
of them and their successors: and the same seal to alter, change, break,
and make new, from time to time, at their will and pleasure, as they
shall think fit.

“And further, we will and ordain, and, by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, declare and appoint, that, for the better ordering
and managing of the affairs and business of the said company and their
successors, there shall be one Governor, one Deputy Governor, and ten
Assistants, to be from time to time constituted, elected and chosen, out
of the freemen of the said company, for the time being, in such manner
and form as is hereafter in these presents expressed; which said
officers shall apply themselves to take care for the best disposing and
ordering of the general business and affairs of and concerning the lands
and hereditaments hereinafter mentioned to be granted, and the
plantation thereof, and the government of the people there.

“And, for the better execution of our royal pleasure herein, we do, for
us, our heirs and successors, assign, name, constitute, and appoint the
aforesaid Benedict Arnold to be the first and present Governor of the
said company, and the said William Brenton to be the Deputy Governor;
and the said William Boulston, John Porter, Roger Williams, Thomas
Olney, John Smith, John Greene, John Coggeshall, James Barker, William
Field, and Joseph Clarke, to be the ten present Assistants of the said
company, to continue in the said several offices respectively, until the
first Wednesday which shall be in the month of May now next coming.

“And further, we will, and, by these presents, for us, our heirs and
successors, do ordain and grant, that the Governor of the said company,
for the time being, or, in his absence, by occasion of sickness or
otherwise, by his leave or permission, the Deputy Governor, for the time
being, shall and may, from time to time, upon all occasions, give orders
for the assembling of the said company, and calling them together to
consult and advise of the business and affairs of the said company; and
that forever hereafter, twice in every year, that is to say, on every
first Wednesday in the month of May, and on every last Wednesday in
October, or oftener, in case it shall be requisite, the Assistants, and
such of the freemen of the said company, not exceeding six persons for
Newport, four persons for each of the respective towns of Providence,
Portsmouth, and Warwick, and two persons for each other place, town, or
city, who shall be, from time to time, thereunto elected or deputed, by
the major part of the freemen of the respective towns or places, for
which they shall be so elected or deputed, shall have a general meeting
or assembly, then and there to consult, advise, and determine, in and
about the affairs and business of the said company and plantations.

“And further, we do, of our especial grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, give and grant unto the said Governor and company of the English
colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in New-England, in
America, and their successors, that the Governor, or, in his absence, or
by his permission, the Deputy Governor of the said company, for the time
being, the Assistants and such of the freemen of the said company, as
shall be so aforesaid elected or deputed, or so many of them as shall be
present at such meeting or assembly, as aforesaid, shall be called the
General Assembly; and that they, or the greatest part of them then
present, (whereof the Governor, or Deputy Governor, and six of the
Assistants at least, to be seven,) shall have, and have hereby given and
granted unto them, full power and authority, from time to time, and at
all times hereafter, to appoint, alter, and change such days, times, and
places of meeting and general assembly, as they shall think fit; and to
choose, nominate, and appoint such and so many persons as they shall
think fit, and shall be willing to accept the same, to be free of the
said company and body politic, and them into the same to admit; and to
elect and constitute such offices and officers, and to grant such
needful commissions as they shall think fit and requisite, for ordering,
managing and despatching of the affairs of the said Governor and company
and their successors; and from time to time to make, ordain, constitute,
and repeal, such laws, statutes, orders and ordinances, forms and
ceremonies of government and magistracy, as to them shall seem meet, for
the good and welfare of the said company, and for the government and
ordering of the lands and hereditaments herein after mentioned to be
granted, and of the people that do, or at any time hereafter shall,
inhabit or be within the same; so as such laws, ordinances, and
constitutions, so made, be not contrary and repugnant unto, but (as near
as may be) agreeable to the laws of this our realm of England,
considering the nature and constitution of the place and people there;
and also to appoint, order, and direct, erect and settle such places and
courts of jurisdiction, for hearing and determining of all actions,
cases, matters, and things, happening within the said colony and
plantation, which shall be in dispute and depending there, as they shall
think fit; and also to distinguish and set forth the several names and
titles, duties, powers, and limits, of each court, office, and officer,
superior and inferior; and also to contrive and appoint such forms of
oaths and attestations, not repugnant, but (as near as may be)
agreeable, as aforesaid, to the laws and statutes of this our realm, as
are convenient and requisite, with respect to the due administration of
justice, and due execution and discharge of all offices and places of
trust, by the persons that shall be therein concerned; and also to
regulate and order the way and manner of all elections to offices and
places of trust, and to prescribe, limit, and distinguish the number and
bounds of all places, towns, and cities, within the limits and bounds
hereinafter mentioned, and not herein particularly named, that have or
shall have the power of electing and sending of freemen to the said
General Assembly; and also to order, direct, and authorize the imposing
of lawful and reasonable fines, mulcts, imprisonment, and executing
other punishments, pecuniary and corporal, upon offenders and
delinquents, according to the course of other corporations, within this
our kingdom of England; and again, to alter, revoke, annul, or pardon,
under their common seal, or otherwise, such fines, mulcts,
imprisonments, sentences, judgments, and condemnations, as shall be
thought fit; and to direct, rule, order, and dispose of all other
matters and things, and particularly that which relates to the making of
purchases of the native Indians, as to them shall seem meet; whereby our
said people and inhabitants in the said plantations may be so
religiously, peaceably, and civily governed, as that, by their good life
and orderly conversation, they may win and invite the native Indians of
the country to the knowledge and obedience of the only true God and
Saviour of mankind; willing, commanding, and by these presents, for us,
our heirs and successors, ordaining and appointing, that all such laws,
statutes, orders and ordinances, instructions, impositions, and
directions, as shall be so made by the Governor, Deputy, Assistants, and
freemen, or such number of them as aforesaid, and published in writing,
under their common seal, shall be carefully and duly observed, kept,
performed, and put in execution, according to the true intent and
meaning of the same. And these our letters patent, or the duplicate of
exemplification thereof, shall be, to all and every such officers,
superior or inferior, from time to time, for the putting of the same
orders, laws, statutes, ordinances, instructions, and directions, in due
execution, against us, our heirs and successors, a sufficient warrant
and discharge.

“And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby, for us, our
heirs and successors, establish and ordain, that, yearly, once in the
year, forever hereafter, namely, the aforesaid Wednesday in May, and at
the town of Newport, or elsewhere, if urgent occasion do require, the
Governor, Deputy Governor, and Assistants of the said company, and other
officers of the said company, or such of them as the General Assembly
shall think fit, shall be in the said General Court or Assembly, to be
held from that day or time, newly chosen for the year ensuing, by the
greater part of the said company for the time being, as shall be then
there present. And if it shall happen that the present Governor, Deputy
Governor, and Assistants, by these presents appointed, or any such as
shall hereafter be newly chosen into their respective rooms, or any of
them, or any other of the officers of the said company, shall die, or be
removed from his or their several offices or places, before the said
general day of election, (whom we do hereby declare, for a misdemeanor
or default, to be removable by the Governor, Assistants and company, or
such greater part of them, in any of the said public Courts to be
assembled as aforesaid,) that then, and in every such case, it shall and
may be lawful to and for the said Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistants,
and Company aforesaid, or such greater part of them, so to be assembled,
as is aforesaid, in any of their assemblies, to proceed to a new
election of one or more of their company, in the room or place, rooms or
places, of such officer or officers, so dying, or removed, according to
their directions. And immediately upon and after such election or
elections made of such Governor, Deputy Governor, Assistant, or
Assistants, or any other officer of the said company, in manner and form
aforesaid, the authority, office and power, before given to the former
Governor, Deputy Governor, and other officer or officers so removed, in
whose stead and place new shall be chosen, shall, as to him and them,
and every of them respectively, cease and determine: Provided, always,
and our will and pleasure is, that as well such as are by these presents
appointed to be the present Governor, Deputy Governor, and Assistants of
the said company, as those which shall succeed them, and all other
officers to be appointed and chosen as aforesaid, shall, before the
undertaking the execution of the said offices and places respectively,
give their solemn engagement, by oath or otherwise, for the due and
faithful performance of their duties, in their several offices and
places, before such person or persons as are by these presents hereafter
appointed to take and receive the same: that is to say, the said
Benedict Arnold, who is herein before nominated and appointed the
present Governor of the said Company, shall give the aforesaid
engagement before William Brenton, or any two of the said Assistants of
the said Company, unto whom we do, by these presents, give full power
and authority to require and receive the same: and the said William
Brenton, who is hereby before nominated and appointed the present Deputy
Governor of the said Company, shall give the aforesaid engagement before
the said Benedict Arnold, or any two of the Assistants of the said
Company, unto whom we do, by these presents, give full power and
authority to require and receive the same: and the said William
Boulston, John Porter, Roger Williams, Thomas Olney, John Smith, John
Greene, John Coggeshall, James Barker, William Field, and Joseph Clarke,
who are herein before nominated and appointed the present Assistants of
the Company, shall give the said engagement to their offices and places
respectively belonging, before the said Benedict Arnold and William
Brenton, or one of them, to whom respectively we do hereby give full
power and authority to require, administer, or receive the same: and
further, our will and pleasure is, that all and every other future
Governor, or Deputy Governor, to be elected and chosen by virtue of
these presents, shall give the said engagement before two or more of the
said Assistants of the said Company, for the time being, unto whom we
do, by these presents, give full power and authority to require,
administer, or receive the same: and the said Assistants, and every of
them, and all and every other officer or officers, to be hereafter
elected and chosen by virtue of these presents, from time to time, shall
give the like engagements to their offices and places respectively
belonging, before the Governor, or Deputy Governor, for the time being,
unto which said Governor, or Deputy Governor, we do, by these presents,
give full power and authority to require, administer, or receive the
same accordingly.

“And we do likewise, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that for the more peaceably and orderly government of the said
plantations, it shall and may be lawful for the Governor, Deputy
Governor, Assistants, and all other officers and ministers of the said
Company, in the administration of justice, and exercise of government,
and the said plantations, to use, exercise, and put in execution, such
methods, orders, rules, and directions, (not being contrary and
repugnant to the laws and statutes of this our realm,) as have been
heretofore given, used, and accustomed, in such cases respectively, to
be put in practice, until at the next, or some other General Assembly,
especial provision shall be made in the cases aforesaid.

“And we do further, for us, our heirs and successors, give and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that it shall and may be lawful to and for the said Governor,
or, in his absence, the Deputy Governor, and major part of the said
Assistants for the time being, at any time, when the said General
Assembly is not sitting, to nominate, appoint and constitute such and so
many commanders, governors, and military officers, as to them shall seem
requisite, for the leading, conducting, and training up the inhabitants
of the said plantations in martial affairs, and for the defence and
safeguard of the said plantations; that it shall and may be lawful to
and for all and every such commander, governor, and military officer,
that shall be so as aforesaid, or by the Governor, or, in his absence,
the Deputy Governor, and six of the Assistants, and major part of the
freemen of said Company, present at any general assemblies, nominated,
appointed, and constituted, according to the tenor of his and their
respective commissions and directions, to assemble, exercise in arms,
marshal, array, and put in warlike posture, the inhabitants of said
colony, for their especial defence and safety; and to lead and conduct
the said inhabitants, and to encounter, repulse, and resist, by force of
arms, as well by sea as by land, to kill, slay, and destroy, by all
fitting ways, enterprises, and means whatsoever, all and every such
person or persons as shall, at any time hereafter, attempt or enterprise
the destruction, invasion, detriment, or annoyance of the said
inhabitants or plantations; and to use and exercise the law martial, in
such cases only as occasion shall necessarily require; and to take and
surprise, by all ways and means whatsoever, all and every such person or
persons, with their ship, or ships, armor, ammunition, or other goods of
such persons, as shall, in hostile manner, invade, or attempt the
defeating of the said plantation, or the hurt of the said company and
inhabitants; and, upon just cause, to invade and destroy the native
Indians, or other enemies of the said colony.

“Nevertheless, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare to the
rest of our colonies in New-England, that it shall not be lawful for
this our said colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, in
America, in New-England, to invade the natives inhabiting within the
bounds and limits of the said colonies, without the knowledge and
consent of the said other colonies. And it is hereby declared, that it
shall not be lawful to or for the rest of the colonies to invade or
molest the native Indians, or any other inhabitants, inhabiting within
the bounds or limits hereafter mentioned, (they having subjected
themselves unto us, and being by us taken into our special protection,)
without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Company of our
colony of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations.

“Also, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby declare unto all
Christian kings, princes, and states, that, if any person, who shall
hereafter be of the said Company or Plantation, or any other, by
appointment of the said Governor and Company, for the time being, shall,
at any time or times hereafter, rob or spoil, by sea or land, or do any
hurt, or unlawful hostility, to any of the subjects of us, our heirs and
successors, or to any of the subjects of any prince or state, being then
in league with us, our heirs and successors, upon complaint of such
injury done to any such prince, or state, or their subjects, we, our
heirs and successors, will make open proclamation, within any part of
our realm of England, fit for that purpose, that the person or persons
committing any such robbery or spoil, shall, within the time limited by
such proclamation, make full restitution or satisfaction of all such
injuries done or committed, so as the said prince, or others, so
complaining, may be fully satisfied and contented; and if the said
person or persons, who shall commit any such robbery or spoil, shall not
make satisfaction accordingly, within such time so to be limited, that
then we, our heirs and successors, will put such person or persons out
of our allegiance and protection; and, that then it shall and may be
lawful and free for all princes or others to prosecute with hostility
such offenders, and every of them, their and every of their procurers,
aiders, abettors, and counsellors, in that behalf.

“Provided, also, and our express will and pleasure is, and we do, by
these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, ordain and appoint,
that these presents shall not in any manner hinder any of our loving
subjects whatsoever from using and exercising the trade of fishing upon
the coast of New-England, in America; but that they, and every or any of
them, shall have full and free power and liberty to continue and use the
trade of fishing upon the said coast; in any of the seas thereunto
adjoining, or any arms of the sea, or salt water rivers and creeks,
where they have been accustomed to fish; and to build and set upon the
waste land, belonging to the said colony and plantations, such wharves,
stages, and work-houses, as shall be necessary for the salting, drying,
and keeping of their fish, to be taken or gotten upon that coast.

“And further, for the encouragement of the inhabitants of our said
colony of Providence Plantations to set upon the business of taking
whales, it shall be lawful for them, or any of them, having struck a
whale, dubertus, or other great fish, it or them to pursue unto that
coast, or into any bay, river, cove, creek, or shore, belonging thereto,
and it or them upon the said coast, or in the said bay, river, cove,
creek, or shore, belonging thereto, to kill and order for the best
advantage, without molestation, they making no wilful waste or spoil;
any thing in these presents contained, or any other matter or thing, to
the contrary notwithstanding.

“And further, also, we are graciously pleased, and do hereby declare,
that if any of the inhabitants of our said colony do set upon the
planting of vineyards, (the soil and climate both seeming naturally to
concur to the production of vines,) or be industrious in the discovery
of fishing banks, in or about the said colony, we will, from time to
time, give and allow all due and fitting encouragement therein, as to
others in cases of a like nature.

“And further, of our more ample grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, we have given and granted, and by these presents, for us, our
heirs and successors, do give and grant unto the said Governor and
Company of the English colony of Rhode-Island and Providence
Plantations, in the Narraganset Bay, in New-England, in America, and to
every inhabitant there, and to every person and persons trading thither,
and to every such person or persons as are or shall be free of the said
colony, full power and authority, from time to time, and at all times
hereafter, to take, ship, transport, and carry away, out of any of our
realms and dominions, for and towards the plantation and defence of the
said colony, such and so many of our loving subjects and strangers, as
shall or will, willingly, accompany them in and to their said colony and
plantations, except such person or persons as are or shall be therein
restrained by us, our heirs and successors, or any law or statute of
this realm: and also to ship and transport all and all manner of goods,
chattels, merchandise, and other things whatsoever, that are or shall be
useful, or necessary for the said plantations, and defence thereof, and
usually transported, and not prohibited by any law or statute of this
our realm; yielding and paying unto us, our heirs and successors, such
duties, customs, and subsidies, as are or ought to be paid or payable
for the same.

“And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do, for us, our heirs and
successors, ordain, declare, and grant, unto the said Governor and
Company, and their successors, that all and every the subjects of us,
our heirs and successors, which are already planted and settled within
our said colony of Providence Plantations, or which shall hereafter go
to inhabit within the said colony, and all and every of their children
which have been born there, or which shall happen hereafter to be born
there, or on the sea, going thither, or returning from thence, shall
have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural
subjects, within any of the dominions of us, our heirs and successors,
to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if they and
every of them were born within the realm of England.

“And further, know ye, that we, of our more abundant grace, certain
knowledge, and mere motion, have given, granted, and confirmed, and, by
these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do give, grant, and
confirm unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, all
that part of our dominions, in New-England, in America, containing the
Nahantick and Nanhyganset alias Narraganset Bay, and countries and parts
adjacent, bounded on the west or westerly, to the middle or channel of a
river there, commonly called and known by the name of Pawcatuck alias
Pawcawtuck river; and so, along the said river, as the greater or middle
stream thereof stretches or lies up into the north country northward
unto the head thereof, and from thence, by a straight line drawn due
north, until it meet with the south line of the Massachusetts colony;
and on the north or northerly by the aforesaid south or southerly line
of the Massachusetts colony or plantation, and extending towards the
east or eastwardly three English miles, to the east and northeast of the
most eastern and northeastern parts of the aforesaid Narraganset Bay, as
the said Bay lieth or extendeth itself from the ocean, on the south or
southwardly, unto the mouth of the river which runneth towards the town
of Providence; and from thence, along the eastwardly side or bank of the
said river, (higher called by the name of Seacunck) up to the falls
called Patucket Falls, being the most westwardly line of Plymouth
colony; and so, from the said falls, in a straight line, due north,
until it meet with the aforesaid line of the Massachusetts colony, and
bounded on the south by the ocean, and in particular the lands belonging
to the town of Providence, Pawtuxet, Warwick, Misquammacock, alias
Pawcatuck, and the rest upon the main land, in the tract aforesaid,
together with Rhode-Island, Block-Island, and all the rest of the
islands and banks in Narraganset bay, and bordering upon the coast of
the tract aforesaid, (Fisher’s Island only excepted) together with all
firm lands, soils, grounds, havens, ports, rivers, waters, fishings,
mines royal, and all other mines, minerals, precious stones, quarries,
woods, wood-grounds, rocks, slates, and all and singular other
commodities, jurisdictions, royalties, privileges, franchises,
pre-eminences, and hereditaments whatsoever, within the said tract,
bounds, lands, and islands aforesaid, to them or any of them belonging,
or in any wise appertaining; to have and to hold the same, unto the said
Governor and company, and their successors forever, upon trust, for the
use and benefit of themselves and their associates, freemen of the said
colony, their heirs and assigns;—to be holden of us, our heirs and
successors, as of the manor of East Greenwich, in our county of Kent, in
free and common soccage, and not in capite, nor by knight’s service;
yielding and paying therefor, to us, our heirs and successors, only the
fifth part of all the ore of gold and silver which, from time to time,
and at all times hereafter, shall be there gotten, had, or obtained, in
lieu and satisfaction of all services, duties, fines, forfeitures, made
or to be made, claims, or demands whatsoever, to be to us, our heirs, or
successors, therefore or thereabout rendered, made, or paid; any grant
or clause in a late grant to the Governor and Company of Connecticut
colony, in America, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding;
the aforesaid Pawcatuck river having been yielded, after much debate,
for the fixed and certain bounds between these our said colonies, by the
agents thereof, who have also agreed, that the said Pawcatuck river
shall also be called alias Narogancett or Narraganset river, and to
prevent future disputes, that otherwise might arise thereby, forever
hereafter shall be construed, deemed, and taken to be the Narraganset
river, in our late grant to Connecticut colony, mentioned as the
easterly bounds of that colony.

“And further, our will and pleasure is, that, in all matters of public
controversies, which may fall out between our colony of Providence
Plantations, to make their appeal therein to us, our heirs and
successors, for redress in such cases, within this our realm of England;
and that it shall be lawful to and for the inhabitants of the said
colony of Providence Plantations, without let or molestation, to pass
and repass with freedom, into and through the rest of the English
colonies, upon their lawful and civil occasions, and to converse and
hold commerce and trade with such of the inhabitants of our other
English colonies, as shall be willing to admit them thereunto, they
behaving themselves peaceably among them, any act, clause, or sentence,
in any of the said colonies provided, or that shall be provided, to the
contrary in any wise notwithstanding.

“And lastly, we do, for us, our heirs and successors, ordain and grant
unto the said Governor and Company, and their successors, by these
presents, that these our letters patent shall be firm, good, effectual,
and available, in all things in the law, to all intents, constructions,
and purposes whatsoever, according to our true intent and meaning herein
before declared, and shall be construed, reputed, and adjudged, in all
cases most favorable on the behalf, and for the best benefit and behoof
of the said Governor and Company, and their successors, although express
mention, &c. In witness, &c.

“Witness, &c. _Per Ipsum Regem._”

NOTE H. page 355.

The following letter from that indefatigable antiquary, the late
Theodore Foster, Esq. contains some interesting information, concerning
the residence of Roger Williams, the time of his death, and the place
where he was buried. It is copied from the Rhode-Island American, of
July 16, 1819:

“To Mr. Williams Thayer, Jr.

“_Foster, R. I. May 21, 1819._

“Dear Sir,

“I have, this afternoon, had the pleasure of receiving your polite
letter of yesterday, requesting information relative to your worthy and
distinguished ancestor, Mr. Roger Williams, the Founder of our State,
and for some years its Chief Magistrate and patron. He was chosen
President, Sept. 13, 1654, after his return from his second successful
agency with the Long Parliament in England. In that office he was
continued, by repeated elections, until May 19, 1657, when he was
succeeded in it by Benedict Arnold.

“In answer to your queries, “At what time did Roger Williams depart this
life? Where did he dwell in Providence? and where was he buried?” I can
only say, that I never met with any record, printed or manuscript, which
I thought more correct, as to the time of his death, than the account
given by Mr. Backus, in his History of the Baptists, vol. i. p. 515.
Governor Hutchinson, in his History of Massachusetts, vol. i. p. 43,
says, that he died in the year 1682, forty-eight years after his
banishment. Now, adding forty-eight years to the year of his removal
from Salem to Providence, which, undoubtedly, was in 1636, it makes the
year 1684 as the year of his death, though Governor Hutchinson, by
mistake, says it was in 1682. From Mr. Williams’ writings, it appears
that he was born in 1599; and, as he died in the eighty-fourth year of
his age, it will make the year 1683, as stated by Mr. Backus, that in
which his death happened.

“It appears of record, that on the 16th day of January, 1683, Mr.
Williams, with others, signed a settlement of a controversy which had
long existed between some of the people of Providence and some of those
of Pawtuxet, relative to the Pawtuxet purchase; and that, on the 10th
day of May following, John Thornton, in a letter to Mr. Hubbard,
mentioned his death. So he must have died between January 16 and May 10,
1683.

“The freemen of Providence, in town meeting, July 15, 1771, appointed a
committee, viz. Stephen Hopkins, Amos Atwell, and Darius Sessions,
Esqrs. to draft an inscription for a monument, which it was then
intended to erect to his memory. In their vote on that occasion, Mr.
Williams was called “_the Founder of the Town and Colony_.” The
committee did nothing, and the business has slept from that time. In the
summer of that year, (forty-eight years ago) when much was said
respecting a monument for him, though nothing could be agreed on, his
grave was shown to me, near the east end of the house lot now owned by
Mr. Dorr. The foot grave-stone was then gone, and the top of the other
broken off, so that only the lower part appeared, without any
inscription. There were several other grave-stones near his, in memory
of some of the Ashton family, who were connected with Mr. Williams, on
which the inscriptions were entire. Thinking it a duty to preserve some
knowledge of the place, where was deposited the dust of the founder of
our State, I have repeatedly, of late years, sought for those monuments,
without being able to find any traces of them; though I think I can,
within a rod or two, show where they were placed, so that, on digging
the ground, the graves may, perhaps, be discovered.

“There is no doubt but that Mr. Williams lived, the latter part of his
life, upon the estate whereon he was buried, which was called the
Crawford estate, after the connection of the Crawford and Fenner
families, by the marriage of Gideon Crawford with Freelove Fenner,
daughter of Arthur Fenner, April 13, 1687; which Arthur Fenner, July 31,
1688, gave to his three daughters, Freelove, Bethiah and Phebe,
thirty-one acres of land, “in Providence Neck,” all which became the
property of Mr. Crawford, who married Freelove Fenner, and I believe was
exchanged or negotiated for Mr. Williams’ estate, near the spring.”[395]

As Mr. Williams’ grave and others before mentioned were on that estate,
I applied, on the 12th of May, 1813, to Mrs. Mary Tripe, a descendant of
the said Gideon Crawford, then in the seventy-second year of her age,
for information respecting them. She was a woman of intelligence, good
sense and information, and careful of what she said. She informed me
that your ancestor, Roger Williams, lived in a house which was on the
east side of the main street, a little south of the Episcopal church,
the foundation whereof then remained, which she showed me, within sight
of her house, and which I believe is also now removed, as I saw nothing
of it, on looking for it, the last time I was in Providence. So
transitory are all things pertaining to humanity! She told me there was
no doubt that Mr. Williams was buried at the place which I have
mentioned; that she had always been told so; and that she remembered
seeing fruit trees growing there, when she was a girl; that her father
once owned that and the estate where Moses Brown, Esq. now lives; and
that there was a gang-way, fourteen feet wide, south of Mrs. Tripe’s
house, given by Mr. Williams, to go to his spring, originally laid out
from river to river, near which gang-way his house stood.

“I have an original letter, in the hand writing of Mr. Williams, to the
freemen of the town of Providence, dated “11, 3, 60,” [May 11, 1660]
claiming personal estate of John Clowson, who had been murdered by
Waumaion, an Indian, on the 4th day of the preceding January, containing
additional proof that Mr. Williams then lived near the spring before
mentioned.

“I can give no satisfactory information relative to the other queries in
your letter, but what may be derived from the records of Providence; nor
have I any recollection of any circumstance which indicated that Mr.
Williams left a will.

“It gives me pleasure to be able to furnish useful information to any of
my friends, from documents in my possession. Though in haste, I have
written diffusely, in answer to your letter. So far as it goes, I
believe the information it contains is correct. That it may in some
degree, answer your expectations, and the purpose for which you wanted
it, is the wish of

“Yours, respectfully,
THEODORE FOSTER.”

The following extracts from a letter, inserted in the American, of July
20, 1819, deserve to be inserted, as illustrative of the subject before
us:

“_Providence, July 17, 1819._

“Messrs. Goddard & Knowles,

“Observing, in your paper of yesterday, a letter from the Hon. Theodore
Foster, respecting Roger Williams, the founder of this State, I am
induced to lay before the public the following facts, communicated to me
by the late Capt. Nathaniel Packard, of this town, about the year 1808.
About fifty years since, there was some stir about erecting a monument
to commemorate that distinguished divine, civilian and statesman, and
there was a difference of opinion as to the place of his burial. Capt.
Packard was then absent, but had he been present, he could have pointed
out the very spot where Roger Williams’ house stood, and where he was
buried. When he was about ten years old, one of the descendants of Roger
Williams was buried at the family burying-ground, on the lot right back
of the house of Sullivan Dorr, Esq. Those who dug the grave, dug
directly upon the foot of the coffin, which the people there present
told him was Roger Williams’. They let him down into the new grave, and
he saw the bones in the coffin, which was not wholly decayed, and the
bones had a long, mossy substance upon them. Roger Williams was born in
1599, and died in 1683. Captain Packard was son of Fearnot Packard, who
lived in a small house, standing a little south of the house of Philip
Allen, Esq. and about fifty feet south of the noted spring. In this
house Captain Packard was born, in 1730, and died in 1809, being
seventy-nine years old. He was born forty-seven years after Williams
died. So if he was ten years old when Williams’ descendant was buried,
it was fifty-seven years after Williams died.

“As the people at the funeral of Williams’ descendant told Captain
Packard that Williams was buried in the grave dug upon, there can be no
doubt that Roger Williams was buried in the lot back of Mr. Dorr’s
house, in his own family burying-ground, where I myself have seen stones
to a number of the graves, within twenty years, which have since been
removed. But, though the stones are not to be found, yet I cannot but
venerate the spot where, I have no doubt, the dust of one of the
greatest and best men that ever lived mingled with its mother earth.

“Mrs. Nabby Packard, widow of Captain Packard, who is eighty-five years
old, told me, this day, that her late husband had often mentioned the
above facts to her; and his daughter, Miss Mary Packard, states, that
her father often told her the same.

* * * * *

“As to where Roger Williams’ dwelling-house stood, Captain Nathaniel
Packard told me, that when he was a boy, he used to play in a cellar,
which had a large peach-tree in it, which cellar, he said, was situate
on a lot back of the house built by Thomas Owen, father of the late Hon.
Daniel Owen, afterwards owned by Levi Whipple, and now owned by the
heirs of the late Simeon H. Olney, directly north of the house owned by
Ezra Hubbard, and near where an outbuilding now stands. The people, at
that time, called it Roger Williams’ cellar. Mrs. Nabby Packard,
Nathaniel Packard’s widow, told me this day, that she came to live where
she now lives, when she was eighteen years old, which was sixty-seven
years ago, and that she well remembers the cellar, and that it was
called Roger Williams’ cellar. The site of the house was a little east
of Roger Williams’ spring, and situate directly on the road laid out
from said spring, to the upper ferry, (now Central Bridge.) The spring
is called Roger Williams’ spring, and he owned the land all around it,
being the very place where he sat upon the rock, and conversed with the
Indians. The above facts, derived from Captain N. Packard, his widow and
daughter, are indubitable evidences, that his house was where it is
above stated to have been, and that he was buried in the lot back of Mr.
Dorr’s house.”

It is hoped, that the prosperous city of Providence will not, much
longer, endure the reproach of permitting her founder’s grave to remain
without any memorial to indicate the spot. It is already too late,
perhaps, to ascertain the precise place where his ashes lie, but it may
be found, within a few feet. The ground around it ought to be obtained
by the city, a handsome monument erected, and the whole enclosed within
a permanent iron fence, and adorned with trees, shrubbery, &c. It would
thus form an interesting spot, which the citizen would visit with
interest, and which the stranger would seek as one of the principal
points of attraction. It has been proposed to erect a monument in some
other part of the city; but it would be absurd to place it any where
else than on the spot where his bones are interred. The spot itself is
interesting, because he owned it, and was buried there. It is surprising
that his children ever allowed it to be sold.

In regard to the family of Mr. Williams, little is now known. Even his
lineal descendants seem to have a very scanty knowledge of their
ancestor. A few facts have been collected, though I cannot vouch for
their accuracy.

His wife, it is supposed, survived him, but when and where she died, we
know not.

It is nearly certain, that he left no will. He probably had very little,
if any property, to bequeath.

He had six children:

1. Mary, born at Plymouth, the first week in August, 1633. Whether she
was married or not, is uncertain. In Mr. Williams’ book against George
Fox, he speaks of his daughter _Hart_, as residing in Newport. Mary may
have married a person of this name.

2. Freeborn, born at Salem, the end of October, 1635. Of her, nothing
further is known to me.

3. Providence, born at Providence, the end of September, 1638. He died
unmarried, in Newport [another account says, in Providence] March,
1685–6.

4. Marcy, born July 15, 1640. She was married to Resolved Waterman, of
Warwick, by whom she had four sons and one daughter. After his death,
she was married to Samuel Winsor, of Providence, by whom she had two
sons and one daughter. After his death, she was married to —— Rhodes, of
Pawtuxet, by whom she had several children.

5. Daniel, born February 15, 1641–2. He married Rebecca Power, widow of
Nicholas Power. He died May 14, 1712. He had five sons, Peleg, Roger,
Daniel, Joseph, Providence. Peleg had four sons, Peleg, Robert, Silas,
Timothy; and two daughters, who were married to Daniel Fisk and John
Fisk. Roger had two daughters, one of whom was married to Jonathan
Tourtellot, and the other to David Thayer. Daniel died unmarried. Joseph
had two sons, Benoni and Goliah. Providence had one daughter, Elizabeth.

6. Joseph, born the beginning of December, 1643. He married Lydia Olney,
December 17, 1669. He had three sons, Joseph, Thomas and James. Joseph
had one son, Jeremiah, and eight daughters, who were married to Francis
Atwood, William Randall, Joseph Randall, John Randall, William Dyer,
Benjamin Potter, Benjamin Congdon, John Dyer. Thomas had three sons,
Joseph, Thomas and John, and several daughters. James had four sons,
James, Nathaniel, Joseph and Nathan.

Joseph Williams lived, for several years, on a farm in Cranston, three
or four miles from Providence, where he died, August 17, 1724, in the
eighty-first year of his age, and was buried in the family burying
ground, on the farm, where his grave stone now stands, with this
inscription:

“Here lies the body of Joseph Williams, Esq. son of Roger Williams, Esq.
who was the first white man that came to Providence. He was born 1644.
He died August 17, 1724, in the eighty-first year of his age.

In King Philip’s war, he courageously went through,
And the native Indians he bravely did subdue,
And now he’s gone down to the grave, and he will be no more,
Until it please Almighty God his body to restore,
Into some proper shape, as he thinks fit to be,
Perhaps like a grain of wheat, as Paul sets forth, you see.
(_Corinthians, 1st book, 15th chapter, 37th verse._)”

His wife died a few days after him, and was buried by his side. Her
grave-stone bears this inscription:

“In memory of Lydia Williams, wife of Joseph Williams, Esq. who died
September 9, 1724, in the eightieth year of her age.”

In the same yard, is the grave of their youngest son. The stone has this
inscription:

“Here lies the body of James Williams, son of Joseph Williams and Lydia
his wife, who was born September 24, 1680, died June 25, 1757, in the
seventy-seventh year of his age.

He was of a moderate temper and easy mind,
He to peace was chiefly inclined;
In peace he did live, in peace he would be,
We hope it may last to eternity.”

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.

-----

Footnote 1:

“Laudator temporis acti,
Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”
_Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4._

Footnote 2:

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

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 4:

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

Ep. lib. i. 11.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 6:

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

Footnote 7:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 9:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 473–4.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 11:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 13:

Neal, vol. i. preface.

Footnote 14:

Neal, vol. i. preface.

Footnote 15:

Neal, vol. ii. p. 28.

Footnote 16:

Prince, p. 107.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 20:

Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 146.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 22:

Winthrop’s Journal, vol. i. p. 5.

Footnote 23:

Everett’s Address, p. 27.

Footnote 24:

Hutchinson, vol i. p. 24.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 27:

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

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 31:

Quincy’s Hist. Dis. 1830, p. 20.

Footnote 32:

Hutchinson, vol. i. Appendix, No. 1.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 34:

Snow’s History of Boston, p. 30.

Footnote 35:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 32.

Footnote 36:

Ibid, vol. i. p. 87.

Footnote 37:

Snow’s Hist. of Boston, p. 42.

Footnote 38:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 30, note.

Footnote 39:

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

Footnote 40:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 42:

Magnalia, b. v. ch. 17.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 44:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 91.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 47:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 246.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 49:

1 His. Col. vi. pp. 24, 56.

Footnote 50:

Ibid.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 53:

Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 55:

Weymouth.

Footnote 56:

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

Footnote 57:

Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 59:

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

Footnote 60:

See Appendix B. for some remarks on the Anabaptists.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 67:

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

Footnote 68:

Magnalia, book i. c. v. § 5.

Footnote 69:

Travels, vol. i. p. 167.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 71:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 142.

Footnote 72:

Neal’s Hist. Puritans, vol. i. p. 184.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 74:

His. Col. vi. p. 246.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 77:

Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.

Footnote 78:

Backus, vol. i, p. 62.

Footnote 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!

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 81:

Ecclesiastes, vii. 7.

Footnote 82:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 167, note.

Footnote 83:

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

Footnote 84:

See Appendix C.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 86:

MSS. Letter.

Footnote 87:

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

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 89:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 248.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 93:

Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. chap. 4.

Footnote 94:

2 His. Col. vol. ix. pp. 235, 236.

Footnote 95:

Key, Introduction.

Footnote 96:

Key, ch. 21.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 98:

Key, ch. 22.

Footnote 99:

Encyclopædia Americana, art. Indians.

Footnote 100:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 411.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 102:

Key, ch. 2.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 105:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 406.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 108:

Key, ch. 21.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 110:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 112:

2 His. Col. ix. 227.

Footnote 113:

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

Footnote 114:

2 His. Col. ix. 233, 234.

Footnote 115:

Heckewelder and Edwards assert this fact.

Footnote 116:

Key, introduction.

Footnote 117:

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

Footnote 118:

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

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 121:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 123:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 124:

Letter of Roger Williams.

Footnote 125:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 126:

Key, chap. ii.

Footnote 127:

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

Footnote 128:

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

Footnote 129:

Equivalent to the modern _How do you do?_

Footnote 130:

The lands adjacent to this spot were called _Whatcheer_, in memory of
the occurrence.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 133:

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

Footnote 134:

Mass. Rec. vol. i. p. 163.

Footnote 135:

Backus, vol. i. 74.

Footnote 136:

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

Footnote 137:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 190.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 139:

Backus, vol. i. p. 89.

Footnote 140:

Rhode-Island Register, 1828.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 145:

Backus, vol. i. p. 94.

Footnote 146:

Backus, vol. i. p. 290.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 150:

Backus, vol. i. p. 92.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 152:

An anchor, reclining.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 154:

Mr. Backus so understood it. Vol. i. p. 93.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 156:

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

Footnote 157:

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

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 160:

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

Footnote 161:

Vol. i. p. 293.

Footnote 162:

John Howland, Esq. in a letter to the author.

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 164:

Copied from 3 His. Col. i. 165.

Footnote 165:

Journal, vol. ii. p. 360.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 167:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 192.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 169:

3 His. Col. i. p. 159.

Footnote 170:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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._

Footnote 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.”

Footnote 174:

“Every man and woman, who had brains enough to form some imperfect
conception of them, inferred and maintained some other point, such as
these: a man is justified before he believes; faith is no cause of
justification; and if faith be before justification, it is only passive
faith, an empty vessel, &c. and assurance is by immediate revelation
only. The fear of God and love of our neighbor seemed to be laid by, and
out of the question.” Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 59.

Footnote 175:

One of these decisions of the synod will be approved by the good sense
of Christians in this age. “That though women might meet (some few
together) to pray and edify one another, yet such a set assembly, (as
was then in practice in Boston) where sixty or more did meet every week,
and one woman (in a prophetical way, by resolving questions of doctrine
and expounding Scripture) took upon her the whole exercise, was agreed
to be disorderly, and without rule.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 240.

Footnote 176:

Backus, vol. i. 86.

Footnote 177:

Vol. i. p. 247.

Footnote 178:

This word is spelled by different writers, in various ways. The island
was afterwards (in 1644, according to Callender,) called the Isle of
Rhodes, and by an easy declension, Rhode-Island. (Holmes, vol. i. p.
246.) In a letter of Roger Williams, already quoted, written before May,
1637, the name _Rode_-Island is applied to it. The reason does not
appear. A fancied resemblance to the Isle of Rhodes is supposed to have
been the origin.

Footnote 179:

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

“The 24th of the first month, called March, in the year (so commonly
called) 1637–8, Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two
chief sachems of the Narraganset, by virtue of our general command of
this bay, as also the particular subjecting of the dead sachems of
Aquetneck and Kitackamuckqut, themselves and lands unto us, have sold to
Mr. Coddington and his friends united unto him, the great island of
Aquetneck, lying hence eastward in this bay, as also the marsh or grass
upon Canonicut, and the rest of the islands in this bay (excepting
Chibachuwesa [Prudence] formerly sold to Mr. Winthrop, the now Governor
of the Massachusetts, and Mr. Williams, of Providence) also the grass
upon the rivers and bounds about Kitackamackqut, and from thence to
Paupusquatch, for the full payment of forty fathoms of white beads, to
be equally divided between us; in witness whereof, we have here
subscribed. Item, that by giving, by Miantinomo’s hands, ten coats and
twenty hoes to the present inhabitants, they shall remove themselves
from off the island before next winter.

“Witness our hands,
“The mark (†) of CANONICUS.
“The mark (‡) of MIANTINOMO.

“In presence of

“The mark (X) of YOTAASH,
“ROGER WILLIAMS,
“RANDALL HOLDEN,

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

“Memorandum, that Ousamequin freely consents, that Mr. William
Coddington and his friends united unto him, shall make use of any grass
or trees on the main land on Pawakasick side, and all my men, to the
said Mr. Coddington, and English, his friends united to him, having
received of Mr. Coddington five fathoms of wampum, as gratuity for
himself and the rest.

“The mark (X) of OUSAMEQUIN.

Witness, { ROGER WILLIAMS,
{ RANDALL HOLDEN.

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

Footnote 180:

Mr. Callender says, (His. Dis. p. 32,) “The English inhabited between
two powerful nations, the Wampancags to the north and east, who had
formerly possessed some part of their grants, before they had
surrendered it to the Narragansets, and though they freely owned the
submission, yet it was thought best by Mr. Williams to make them easy by
gratuities to the sachem, his counsellors and followers. On the other
side, the Narragansets were very numerous, and the natives inhabiting
any spot the English sat down upon, or improved, were all to be bought
off to their content, and oftentimes were to be paid over and over
again.”

Footnote 181:

Messrs. Nicholas Easton, John Coggeshall and William Brenton.

Footnote 182:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.

Footnote 183:

“While the General Court sat, there came a letter directed to the Court
from John Greene, of Providence, who, not long before, had been
imprisoned and fined for saying, that the magistrates had usurped upon
the power of Christ in his church, and had persecuted Mr. Williams and
another, whom they had banished for disturbing the peace, by divulging
their opinions against the authority of the magistrates, &c.; but upon
his submission, &c. his fine was remitted; and now, by his letter, he
retracted his former submission, and charged the Court as he had done
before. Now, because the Court knew, that divers others of Providence
were of the same ill-affection to the Court, and were, probably,
suspected to be confederate in the same letter, the Court ordered, that
if any of that plantation were found within our jurisdiction, he should
be brought before one of the magistrates, and if he would not disclaim
the charge in the said letter, he should be sent home, and charged to
come no more into this jurisdiction, upon pain of imprisonment and
further censure.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 256.

Footnote 184:

Letter to Major Mason.

Footnote 185:

3 His. Col. i. p. 166.

Footnote 186:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 267. In the Journal, there are repeated allusions
to information received from Mr. Williams, respecting the Indians, and
services rendered by him. See vol. i. pp. 225, 226. &c.

Footnote 187:

3 His. Col. i. p. 170–3.

Footnote 188:

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

Footnote 189:

righteousness?

Footnote 190:

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.
Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum
Intactum Pallanta.” _Æneis_, x. 501–4.

Footnote 191:

Vol. i. p. 283, already quoted.

Footnote 192:

Governor Hopkins thinks, that there was a church formed on
Congregational principles, before Mr. Williams’ baptism.—History of
Providence, in 2 Mass. His. Col. ix. p. 196. This is not probable, for
nothing is said by the writers in Massachusetts, of such a church, and
the members of the church in Salem, who removed to Providence, were not
excluded from that church, till after their baptism. Hutchinson, vol. i.
p. 371.

Footnote 193:

The first church in Boston, several of whose members were wealthy,
existed two years before they began to build a meeting-house. Winthrop,
vol. i. p. 87.

Footnote 194:

Morton’s Memorial, p. 151.

Footnote 195:

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

Footnote 196:

Dr. Woods, on Infant Baptism, Lecture I.—He adds, “the proof then, that
infant baptism is a divine institution, must be made out in another
way.”

Footnote 197:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 293. Under date of March, 1638–9, he says: “At
Providence, things grew still worse; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson,
the wife of one Scott, being infected with anabaptistry, and going last
year to live at Providence, Mr. Williams was taken (or rather
emboldened) by her to make open profession thereof, and accordingly was
re-baptized by one Holliman, a poor man, late of Salem. Then Mr.
Williams re-baptized him and some ten more. They also denied the
baptizing of infants, and would have no magistrates.”

Footnote 198:

Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 293) calls Mr. Holliman “a poor man,”
which Hubbard, (338) in copying, alters to a “mean fellow.” But Mr.
Benedict says, that he was a man of “gifts and piety,” and that he was
chosen an assistant to Mr. Williams. Backus says, “after the year 1650,
I find him more than once a Deputy from the town of Warwick in the
General Court.”—Vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 199:

The first twelve members are named by Benedict, (vol. i. p. 473.) Roger
Williams, Ezekiel Holliman, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely
Westcott, John Green, Richard Waterman, Thomas James, Robert Cole,
William Carpenter, Francis Weston, and Thomas Olney.

Footnote 200:

Backus, vol. i. 106, note. “There had been many of them [Baptists]
intermixed with other societies from their first coming out of Popery;
but their first distinct church in our nation was formed out of the
Independent Church in London, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor, from
1616 to 1624, when he went to Virginia, and Mr. John Lathrop was chosen
in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the society,
finding that the congregation kept not to their first principles of
separation, and being also convinced, that baptism was not to be
administered to infants, but such only as professed faith in Christ,
desired and obtained liberty, and formed themselves into a distinct
church, Sept. 12, 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their
minister.”—Crosby, vol. i. pp. 148, 149. In the year 1639, another
Baptist church was formed in London, but probably not so early as the
church at Providence.

Footnote 201:

Mosheim, b. 1, c. 1, p. 2, ch. 4, s. 8. See Campbell’s Lectures on
Ecclesiastical History, lecture iv. for proof, that laymen, in the early
times of the Christian era, often baptized. He quotes Hilary, who, in
his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4: 11, 12, says,
“Postquam omnibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata,
aliter composita res est, quam cœperat; primum enim omnes docebant, et
omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio.”
That is, when churches were every where constituted, and official duties
prescribed, things were otherwise regulated, than at first, when all
taught, and all baptized, whenever occasion required.

Footnote 202:

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

Footnote 203:

S. Ambrosius in Eph. iv.

Footnote 204:

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

Footnote 205:

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

Footnote 206:

Concil, Elib. Can. xxxviii.—Peregre navigantes, aut si Ecclesia in
proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nec
sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate, ita ut, si supervixerit, ad
Episcopum suum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici
possit.—Quoted by Potter, p. 232.

Footnote 207:

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

Footnote 208:

Neal, vol. iii. p. 233.

Footnote 209:

The excellent John Robinson, the father of the Plymouth colony, had a
controversy with the Rev. Mr. Bernard, an Episcopal minister. Mr.
Robinson wrote a book, entitled “A Justification of Separation from the
Church of England.”—In this book, he uses the same argument as that in
the text: “Zanchy, upon the fifth to the Ephesians, treating of baptism,
propounds a question of a Turk, coming to the knowledge of Christ and to
faith by reading the New Testament, and withal teaching his family and
converting it and others to Christ, and being in a country whence he
cannot easily come to Christian countries, whether he may baptize them,
whom he hath converted to Christ, he himself being unbaptized? He
answers, I doubt not of it, but that he may, and withal provide that he
himself be baptized of one of the three converted by him. The reason he
gives is, because he is a minister of the word, extraordinarily stirred
up by Christ; and so as such a minister may, with the consent of that
small church, appoint one of the communicants, and provide that he be
baptized by him.” Backus, vol. i. p. 106.

Footnote 210:

The question, which has been asked, with some emphasis, as if it vitally
affected the Baptist churches in this country: “_By whom was Roger
Williams baptized?_” has no practical importance. All whom he immersed
were, as Pedobaptists must admit, baptized. The great family of Baptists
in this country did not spring from the First Church in Providence. Many
Baptist ministers and members came, at an early period, from Europe, and
thus churches were formed in different parts of the country, which have
since multiplied over the land. The first Baptist church formed in the
present State of Massachusetts, is the church at Swansea. Its origin is
dated in 1663, when the Rev. John Miles came from Wales, with a number
of the members of a Baptist church, who brought with them its records.
It was, in fact, an emigration of a church. Of the 400,000 Baptist
communicants now in the United States, a small fraction only have had
any connection, either immediate or remote, with the venerable church at
Providence, though her members are numerous, and she has been honored as
the mother of many ministers. The question, discussed in the preceding
pages, disturbed, for a while, the first English Baptists. They had no
clerical administrator, who had himself, in their view, been baptized.
Some of them went to Holland, and were baptized by Baptist ministers
there. “But,” says Crosby, (vol. i. p. 103,) “the greatest number of the
English Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this as
needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish doctrine of
right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which
neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the
modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed,
therefore, and practised accordingly, that after a general corruption of
baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a
reformation.” These examples, however, cannot justify a departure from
the usual practice of our churches at the present day, when the ministry
is regularly established.

Footnote 211:

Vol. i. p. 450.

Footnote 212:

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

Footnote 213:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 477.

Footnote 214:

John Howland, Esq., in a letter to the author, says: “The college was
built in 1770. On the question among the founders of it, on what lot to
place the building, they decided on the present site of the old college,
because it was the home lot of Chad Brown, the first minister of the
Baptist church. Other land could have been obtained, but the reason
given prevailed in fixing the site. Had the impression been prevalent,
that Roger Williams was the first minister or principal founder of the
society, his home lot could have been purchased, which was a situation
fully as eligible for the purpose. If any doubts rested in the minds of
the gentlemen at that time, as to the validity of the claim of Chad
Brown to this preference, perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Williams’
deserting the order, and protesting against it, might have produced the
determination in favor of Brown.”

Footnote 215:

This house was built on the west side of North Main street, near its
junction with Smith street, and a short distance north of Roger
Williams’ spring. It was probably a small and rather rude building.
Tradition states, that it was “in the shape of a hay cap, with a
fireplace in the middle, the smoke escaping from a hole in the roof.” It
was taken down, and a larger building erected in 1718. In 1774–5, the
spacious and elegant house now occupied by the First Baptist Church, was
erected.

Footnote 216:

Magnalia, b. vii. sec. 7. Gov. Hopkins, (a member of the Society of
Friends) says, in his history of Providence, written in 1765, “This
church hath, _from its beginning_, kept itself in repute, and maintained
its discipline, so as to avoid scandal or schism, to this day. It hath
always been, and still is, a numerous congregation, and in which I have
with pleasure observed, very lately, sundry descendants from each of the
founders of the colony, except Holliman.” 2 His. Col. ix. 197.

Footnote 217:

The letter, announcing their exclusion, to the church at Dorchester, may
properly be quoted here, as an illustration of the customs of those
times:

“_Salem, 1st 5th mo. 39._

“Reverend and dearly beloved in the Lord,

“We thought it our bounden duty to acquaint you with the names of
such persons as have had the great censure passed upon them in this
our church, with the reasons thereof, beseeching you in the Lord,
not only to read their names in public to yours, but also to give us
the like notice of any dealt with in like manner by you, that so we
may walk towards them accordingly; for some of us, here, have had
communion ignorantly with some of other churches. 2 Thess. iii. 14.
We can do no less than have such noted as disobey the truth.

“ROGER WILLIAMS and his wife, JOHN THROGMORTON and his wife, THOMAS
OLNEY and his wife, STUKELY WESTCOTT and his wife, MARY HOLLIMAN,
Widow REEVES.

“These wholly refused to hear the church, denying it, and all the
churches in the Bay, to be true churches, and (except two) are all
re-baptized.

“JOHN ELFORD, for obstinacy, after divers sins he stood guilty of,
and proved by witness. WILLIAM JAMES, for pride, and divers other
evils, in which he remained obstinate. JOHN TABBY, for much pride,
and unnaturalness to his wife, who was lately executed for murdering
her child. WILLIAM WALCOT, for refusing to bring his children to the
ordinance, neglecting willingly family duties, &c.

“Thus, wishing the continued enjoyment of both the staves, beauty
and bands, and that your souls may flourish as watered gardens,
rest,

“Yours in the Lord Jesus,
“HUGH PETERS,
“By the Church’s order, and in their name.

“For the Church of Christ in Dorchester.”

Footnote 218:

Winthrop, vol. i. p. 297. Mr. Savage remarks, in a note: “Those members
of Boston church, who had been driven by intolerance to the new region,
if they gathered a church at all, must do it in a disordered way, for
they might well apprehend, that an application for dismission would be
rejected, and perhaps punished by excommunication.”

Footnote 219:

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

“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

Footnote 220:

John, i. 46.

Footnote 221:

Vol. ii. p. 8.

Footnote 222:

Williams’ Key, p. 22, Providence ed.

Footnote 223:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 224:

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

Footnote 225:

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

Footnote 226:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 59. Lechford, an
author quoted by Mr. Savage, in a note, says: “There (Newport) lately
they whipped Mr. Gorton, a grave man, for denying their power, and
abusing some of their magistrates with uncivil terms, the Governor,
Master Coddington, saying in Court, You that are for the King, lay hold
on Gorton, and he, again, on the other side, called forth, All you that
are for the King, lay hold on Coddington; whereupon Gorton was banished
the island; so, with his wife, he went to Providence. They began about a
small trespass of swine, but it is thought some other matter was
ingredient.” Lechford’s tract, called Plain Dealing, or News from
New-England, is published in the Mass. His. Col. 3d series, 3d vol.
Lechford’s preface is dated January 17, 1641, after his return from
America. He says that there were two hundred families on Rhode-Island.
This must be a mistake.

Footnote 227:

Reply to Mr. Cotton, p. 113.

Footnote 228:

In 3 Mass. His. Col. vol. i. p. 2. is their letter, signed by William
Field, William Harris, William Carpenter, William Wickenden, William
Reinolds, Thomas Harris, Thomas Hopkins, Hugh Bewitt, Joshua Winsor,
Benedict Arnold, William Man, William W. Hunkinges, and Robert R. West.
The letter was written by Benedict Arnold. Roger Williams, also, wrote a
letter to the government of Massachusetts, in which he said, “Mr.
Gorton, having foully abused high and low, at Aquetneck, is now
bewitching and bemadding poor Providence.” General Court’s Vindication,
May 30, 1665. It has been said, that Mr. Williams requested the
government of Massachusetts to interfere; but we have seen no evidence
of this, and it is in itself highly improbable. The utmost which we can
suppose him to ask, in such a case, would be temporary aid in
suppressing a tumult. We may be sure that he would oppose the usurpation
of jurisdiction by Massachusetts. His letters show that he disapproved
it.

Footnote 229:

Vol. ii. p. 59.

Footnote 230:

Winthrop introduces this account, by the remark, that “those of
Providence, being all anabaptists, were divided in judgment; some were
only against baptizing of infants, others denied all magistracy and
churches, &c. of which Gorton, who had lately been whipped at Aquetneck,
[Newport] was their instructer and captain.” This observation is worthy
of notice, as it shows how loosely this fearful word anabaptist was
applied, and as it discriminates between those who merely rejected the
baptism of infants, and those who denied all magistracy and churches. It
is certain, that all the inhabitants were not Baptists; and it is
doubtful whether the allegation against Mr. Gorton, that he was opposed
either to churches or magistracy, could be sustained. A letter from the
Hon. Samuel Eddy, inserted in a note to Winthrop’s Journal, vol. ii. p.
58, after mentioning that Gorton was in office almost constantly, after
the establishment of a government, says: “It would be a remarkable fact,
that a man should be an enemy to magistracy, to religion, in short, a
bad man, and yet constantly enjoy the confidence of his fellow townsmen,
and receive from them the highest honors in their gift.”

Footnote 231:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113.

Footnote 232:

Backus, vol. i. p. 120. These persons were Samuel Gorton, Randal Holden,
Robert Potter, John Wickes, John Warner, Richard Waterman, William
Woodale, John Greene, Francis Weston, Richard Carder, Nicholas Power,
and Sampson Shatton.

Footnote 233:

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

Footnote 234:

Miantinomo was summoned to Boston, where he asserted his claim, but his
arguments were not satisfactory to the Court. It was not convenient to
admit his pretensions; and the Court were, we may suppose, scrupulous in
examining his proofs.

Footnote 235:

“Gorton,” says Hutchinson, (vol. i. p. 117) “published an account of his
sufferings. Mr. Winslow, the agent for Massachusetts, answered him. In
1665, he preferred his petition to the commissioners sent over by King
Charles the Second, for recompense for the wrongs done him by
Massachusetts, alleging, that besides his other sufferings, he and his
friends had eighty head of cattle taken and sold. Massachusetts, in
their answer, charge him with heretical tenets, both in religion and
civil government, and with an unjust possession of the Indian lands in
the vicinity of the colonies, for the sake of disturbing their peace;
and add, that the goods which they seized did not amount to the charge
of their prosecution; but they do not sufficiently vindicate their
seizing their persons or goods, without the limits of their
jurisdiction, and conclude with hoping that his Majesty will excuse any
circumstantial error in their proceedings.” In the appendix of
Hutchinson’s first volume, is a Defence by Gorton, dated Warwick, June
30, 1669, and addressed to Nathaniel Morton, in which the charges in the
Memorial are discussed with an ability, which shows that Gorton could
write, when he chose, clearly and forcibly.

Footnote 236:

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

Footnote 237:

A gentleman of Providence, William R. Staples, Esq. has been engaged,
for some time, in preparing a revised edition of Gorton’s work, entitled
“Simplicity’s Defence against Seven Headed Policy,” with extensive notes
and appendices. This book, it is hoped, will soon be published, and will
furnish the means of forming a correct opinion concerning Gorton, and
the transactions in which he was a party and a sufferer.

Footnote 238:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 101.

Footnote 239:

Mr. Williams was absent, having sailed for England in June or July
preceding. Had he been in the country, he would certainly have used his
influence in favor of Miantinomo.

Footnote 240:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 131.

Footnote 241:

Gov. Hopkins’ History of Providence, 2 His. Col. ix. 202. See note to
Winthrop, vol. ii. 133, where Mr. Savage says: “With profound regret, I
am compelled to express a suspicion, that means of sufficient influence
would easily have been found for the security of themselves, the
pacifying of Uncas, and the preservation of Miantinomo, had he not
encouraged the sale of Shawomet and Pawtuxet to Gorton and his heterodox
associates.”

Footnote 242:

In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says: “Upon frequent
exceptions against Providence men, that we had no authority for civil
government, I went purposely to England, and, upon my report and
petition, the Parliament granted us a charter of government for these
parts, so judged vacant on all hands. And upon this, the country about
was more friendly, and wrote to us, and treated us as an authorized
colony, only the differences of our consciences much obstructed.”

Footnote 243:

Backus, vol. i. p. 148. Winthrop places Lady Moody’s removal from Salem
after Mr. Williams’ mediation with the Long-Island Indians. He speaks
respectfully of her character _before_ her lapse into the heresy of
denying infant baptism: “The Lady Moody, a wise and _anciently
religious_ woman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to
infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and
admonished by the church of Salem, (whereof she was a member) but
persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, she removed to the
Dutch, against the advice of all her friends. Many others, infected with
anabaptism, removed thither also. She was after excommunicated.”
Winthrop, vol. ii. pp. 123–4.

Footnote 244:

Key, p. 17.

Footnote 245:

Byron’s Giaour.

Footnote 246:

Holmes’ Annals, vol, i. p. 273.

Footnote 247:

For a copy of the charter, see Appendix E.

Footnote 248:

The Westminster Assembly of Divines, who were then in session, might
have learned from this book, if they had read it, lessons which they
greatly needed.

Footnote 249:

Bloody Tenet, p. 64.

Footnote 250:

Massachusetts was the more disinclined to show favor to Mr. Williams and
his colony, because the Baptists began to multiply. A Baptist church was
formed about this time, in Newport, by Dr. John Clarke and a few others,
and in Massachusetts itself the new doctrine spread. The General Court
was aroused, therefore, to an effort to crush the growing sect; and no
method seemed to promise more success, than to wield against it a
legislative denunciation, edged by an appeal to the popular dread of
anabaptism:

“Immortale odium, et nunquam sanabile vulnus.”

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

“Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since
the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they
have been the incendiaries of the commonwealth, and the infectors of
persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in
all places where they have been, and that they who have held the
baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or
heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do)
concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity
to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this
kind have, since our coming into New-England, appeared amongst
ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of
magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness
of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table;
which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be
increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us,
infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole
commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that, if any person or persons,
within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the
baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the
approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation
at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of
magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to
punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the
Court wilfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and
means of conviction, every such person or persons shall be _sentenced to
banishment_.” Backus, vol. i. p. 150.

Footnote 251:

This incident is related by Richard Scott, in his letter, inserted at
the close of the “New-England Firebrand Quenched.” Mr. Scott disliked
Mr. Williams, and his comment on the transaction referred to is an
instance of the effect of a man’s feelings on his judgment respecting
the conduct of others. “The man,” he says, “being hemmed in, in the
middle of the canoes, was so elevated and transported out of himself,
that I was condemned in myself, that amongst the rest, I had been an
instrument to set him up in his pride and folly.”

Footnote 252:

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

Footnote 253:

He was a brother of Miantinomo, and succeeded him.

Footnote 254:

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

“Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegans, was hated and envied by the
Narragansets, for his attachment to the English, and the distinguishing
favors shown him in return. In 1638, having entertained some of the
Pequods, after the war with them, and fearing he had given offence, he
came to the Governor at Boston, and brought a present, which was at
first refused, but afterwards, the Governor being satisfied that he had
no designs against the English, it was accepted, and he promised to
submit to such orders as he should receive from the English, concerning
the Pequods, and also concerning the Narragansets, and his behavior
towards them, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘This heart
(laying his hand upon his breast) is not mine, but yours. Command me any
difficult service, and I will do it; I have no men, but they are all
yours. I will never believe any Indian against the English any more.’ He
was dismissed, with a present, went home joyful, carrying a letter of
protection for himself and men through the English plantations, and
never was engaged in hostilities against any of the colonies, although
he survived Philip’s war, and died a very old man, after the year 1680.

“The Narragansets failed in the payment of the wampum, and in 1646,
messengers were sent to them from the commissioners, but Passacus, their
chief sachem, not attending, in 1647 the message was repeated, and he
then pretended sickness, and sent Ninigret, a sachem of the Nianticks,
to act in his behalf, and told the messenger, that it was true he had
not kept his covenant, but added, that he entered into it for fear of
the army which he saw, and that he was told, that if he did not set his
hand to such and such things, the army should go against the
Narragansets. When Ninigret appeared, he asked how the Narragansets
became indebted to the English in so large a sum, and being told that it
was for the expense the Narragansets had put them to by their breach of
covenant, he then pleaded poverty, but the commissioners insisting on
the demand, he sent some of his people back to procure what he could,
but brought two hundred fathoms only. They gave him leave to go home,
and allowed him further time. The whole was not paid until 1650, when
Capt. Atherton, with twenty men, was sent to demand the arrears, which
was then about three hundred fathoms. Passacus put him off some time
with dilatory answers, not suffering him to come into his presence. In
the mean while his people were gathering together, but the Captain,
carrying his twenty soldiers to the door of the wigwam, entered himself,
with his pistol in his hand, leaving his men without, and seizing
Passacus by the hair of his head, drew him from the midst of a great
number of his attendants, threatening that if one of them offered to
stir, he would despatch him. Passacus presently paid down what was
demanded, and the English returned in safety. Ninigret, after this,
began to stir up new troubles from the Nianticks, but upon sending Capt.
Davis, with a troop of horse, into the Indian country, he was struck
with a panic, and would not be seen by the English until he had
assurance of his life, and then he readily complied with their demands,
and they and the other Indians continued quiet many years, until by
familiar intercourse, and the use of fire-arms, they became more
emboldened, and engaged in the war in 1675, which issued in their total
destruction. _Records of United Colonies._”

Footnote 255:

Allen says of him, in his Dictionary, “His fine genius was improved by a
liberal education in the Universities of Cambridge and of Dublin, and by
travel upon the continent. He arrived at Boston, in October, 1635, with
authority to make a settlement in Connecticut, and the next month
despatched a number of persons to build a fort at Saybrook. He was
chosen Governor in 1657, and again in 1659, and from that period he was
annually re-elected till his death. In 1661, he went to England, and
procured a charter, incorporating Connecticut and New-Haven into one
colony. He died at Boston, April 5, 1676, in the 71st year of his age.
He possessed a rich variety of knowledge, and was particularly skilled
in chemistry and physic. His valuable qualities as a gentleman, a
christian, a philosopher, and a magistrate, secured to him universal
respect.”

Footnote 256:

Mr. Williams commonly employed the numerical mode of referring to the
month and day of the week. He usually added to the date the words (so
called) or (ut vulgo), intimating some dissent from the common
computation of time; but what his own views were does not appear. The
pertinacity with which he adhered to this practice is characteristic of
his punctilious regard to trifles, when he thought truth was concerned.

Footnote 257:

Holmes, vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 258:

A vote passed, granting Mr. Williams “leave to suffer a native to kill
fowl at Narraganset, and to sell a little wine or strong waters to some
natives in sickness.”

Footnote 259:

In some considerations respecting rates, written in 1681, Mr. Williams
says: “No charters are obtained without great suit, favor, or charges.
Our first cost one hundred pounds, (though I never received it all,) our
second about a thousand, Connecticut about six thousand.” Mr. Williams
was afterwards accused by Mr. Coddington, as a hireling, who, for the
sake of money, went to England for the charter! See Coddington’s letter,
at the end of New-England Firebrand Quenched.

Footnote 260:

A sachem of the Nianticks, a branch of the Narraganset tribe. Ninigret’s
principal residence, and the centre of his dominions, was at Wekapaug,
now Westerly, Rhode-Island. It was formerly a part of Stonington,
Connecticut. Thatcher’s Indian Biography, vol. i. p. 212.

Footnote 261:

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

Footnote 262:

Journal, vol. ii. 220. Mr. Savage says, in a note, “I rejoice in the
defeat of this futile claim by Plymouth, and equally rejoice in the ill
success of the attempt by our own people.”

We may appropriately introduce here a remarkable document, found in the
Massachusetts Records, vol. 3, p. 47:

“Sir, we received lately out of England a charter from the authority of
the High Court of Parliament, bearing date 10 December, 1643, whereby
the Narraganset Bay, and a certain tract of land wherein Providence and
the Island of Aquetneck are included, which we thought fit to give you
and other of our countrymen in those parts notice of, that you may
forbear to exercise any jurisdiction therein, otherwise to appear at our
next General Court, to be holden the first fourth day of the eighth
month, to show by what right you claim any such jurisdiction, for which
purpose yourself and others, your neighbors, shall have free liberty to
come, stay and sojourn, as the occasion of the said business may
require.

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

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

INCREASE NOWELL, Secretary.”

No notice of this charter has been found in Winthrop, Hutchinson, or
Holmes’ Annals. Mr. Williams, in his letter to Major Mason, says:

“Some time after the Pequod war, and our charter from the Parliament,
the government of Massachusetts wrote to myself (then chief officer in
this colony) of their receiving of a patent from the Parliament for
these vacant lands, as an addition to the Massachusetts, &c. and
thereupon requiring me to exercise no more authority, &c. for they
wrote, their charter was granted some weeks before ours. I returned what
I believed righteous and weighty to the hands of my true friend, Mr.
Winthrop, the first mover of my coming into these parts, and to that
answer of mine I never received the least reply; only it is certain,
that at Mr. Gorton’s complaint against the Massachusetts, the Lord High
Admiral, President, said openly, in a full meeting of the Commissioners,
that he knew no other charter for these parts than what Mr. Williams had
obtained, and he was sure that charter, which the Massachusetts
Englishmen pretended, had never passed the table.”

This whole transaction is somewhat mysterious. The rulers in
Massachusetts were too upright to assert the existence of such a
document, if they had it not in their possession. They were too honest
and too politic to forge one, the spuriousness of which could easily be
detected. There was, undoubtedly, some mistake, and the silence of the
historians corroborates the representation given above by Mr. Williams.

Footnote 263:

Backus, vol. i. p. 194–5.

Footnote 264:

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

Footnote 265:

This letter has no date. It was probably written near the first of
December, 1648. It is endorsed, by Mr. Winthrop, “rec’d. Dec’r.”

Footnote 266:

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

Footnote 267:

“Concerning.” Though the original of this letter is much torn, the blank
following the above word is the only one which I was not able
satisfactorily to make out or supply. The fragments of a few letters
look more like parts of the word “Nenekunat” (Ninigret) than any other.
Between that sachem and Wequashcook, as appears from another letter of
Roger Williams, there was a misunderstanding.

Footnote 268:

Vol. i. p. 207.

Footnote 269:

Providence Records.

Footnote 270:

Rev. Mr. Clarke was the founder and pastor of the first Baptist church
in Newport. Mr. Holmes was, a short time before these transactions,
presented by a grand jury to the General Court at Plymouth, because he
and a few others had set up a Baptist meeting in Seekonk. He removed to
Newport, and after Dr. Clarke’s death, was his successor, as Pastor. He
had, at the time he was imprisoned and whipped, a wife and eight
children.

Footnote 271:

Backus, vol. i. p. 215.

Footnote 272:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 367.

Footnote 273:

Mr. Winthrop had considerable skill in medicine. The benevolent zeal of
Mr. Williams for the welfare of the Indians, shows itself on all
occasions.

Footnote 274:

Mr. Hazel was an old man of threescore years. He was one of Mr. Holmes’
brethren, from Seekonk, and had travelled fifty miles to visit him in
prison. The old man died before he reached home.

Footnote 275:

Benedict, vol. i. p. 377.

Footnote 276:

Mr. Neal (vol. iv. ch. 1) says, that after the death of Charles I. the
House of Commons assumed the government, “the House of Lords was voted
useless, and the office of a king unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous.
The form of government for the future was declared to be a free
commonwealth, the executive power lodged in the hands of a Council of
State of forty persons, with full power to take care of the whole
administration for one year. New keepers of the great seal were
appointed, from whom the judges received their commissions. The oaths of
allegiance and supremacy were abolished, and a new one appointed, called
the _engagement_, which was, to be true and faithful to the government
established, without King or House of Peers.”

As great a change took place in ecclesiastical affairs. Episcopacy was
abolished, by law, in 1646; a Directory was substituted for the Liturgy,
a large part of the livings were distributed among the Presbyterian
clergy, and finally, in 1649, Presbyterianism was declared, by act of
Parliament, to be the established religion. The Presbyterians were fully
as tenacious of the _divine right_ of their polity as the Episcopalians
were of theirs; and Dissenters were treated with nearly as much rigor
under the Presbyterian rule, as they were by the Prelates. The
Presbyterians refused to grant toleration to the Independents, and
insisted on their submission. A number of the Presbyterian ministers and
elders in London published a piece, in 1649, “in which they represent
the doctrine of universal toleration as contrary to godliness, opening a
door to libertinism and profaneness, and a tenet to be rejected as a
soul poison.” The ministers of Lancashire published a paper, in 1648, in
which they remonstrated against toleration, “as putting a cup of poison
into the hands of a child, and a sword into that of a madman; as letting
loose madmen, with firebrands in their hands, and appointing a city of
refuge in men’s consciences for the devil to fly to; and instead of
providing for tender consciences, taking away all conscience.” Neal,
vol. iii. p. 313. The Presbyterians might well dislike Cromwell, who
curbed their intolerant spirit. They had time for reflection, when, at
the restoration, the Episcopal clergy expelled thousands of them from
their livings, and treated them as they had treated their Independent
brethren.

Footnote 277:

The application was signed by sixty-five inhabitants of Newport, who are
said to have been, at that time, almost all the free male inhabitants.
Forty-one of the inhabitants of Portsmouth signed a like request.
Backus, vol. i. p. 274. These facts imply, that Mr. Coddington’s party
was not very large, and that his conduct was unjustifiable.

Footnote 278:

In a letter, written in 1677, he says, that “he gave up his trading
house at Narraganset, when he last went to England, with one hundred
pounds profit per annum.”

Footnote 279:

This reason was, his banishment from Massachusetts. There was much
delicacy in thus slightly referring to a measure, in which Mr.
Winthrop’s father was, from his official relations, concerned.

Footnote 280:

Backus, vol. i. p. 272.

Footnote 281:

Providence Records. This letter was written, apparently, in accordance
with the following act, passed on the 3d of June preceding: “Whereas we
have received divers loving letters from our agent, Mr. Roger Williams,
in England, wherein the careful proceedings are manifested unto us
concerning our public affairs, and yet no answering letters of
encouragement have been sent unto him from this colony; therefore the
town doth take it into consideration, and orders to make arrangements
for a committee of the two towns of Warwick and Providence to write to
him.”

Footnote 282:

Vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 283:

Sir Henry Vane was born in England. He was a non-conformist, and he came
to New-England in 1635. The next year he was elected Governor of
Massachusetts, though he was only twenty-four years of age. He became a
follower of Mrs. Hutchinson, and was soon superseded by Governor
Winthrop. He returned to England, where he took a decided part against
the King, and opposed Cromwell. After the restoration, he was executed
for high treason, June 14, 1662, aged fifty years. He died with great
firmness and dignity. He appears to have been an able man, sincerely
pious, and a true friend of liberty.

Footnote 284:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 285–8.

Footnote 285:

Backus, vol. i. p. 288.

Footnote 286:

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

Footnote 287:

It appears, that while Mr. Williams was in England, he was obliged to
provide for his own support, while his large family, we may presume,
were injured by his absence. The General Assembly of the towns of
Providence and Warwick, expressed in a letter, their regret, that they
could not send him money, in consequence of their domestic trials, but
informed him that they meant to aid his family. In his “Bloody Tenet
made more Bloody,” he mentions his exertions to supply the poor in
London with fuel, during the civil wars; to which service he was led,
probably, by his benevolent and active temper, as well as by the desire
to obtain a subsistence. He says: “I can tell, that when these
discussions were prepared for the public in London, his time was eaten
up in attendance upon the service of the Parliament and city, for the
supply of the poor of the city with wood, during the stop of the coal
from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for firing [for which
service, he adds in a note, through the hurry of the times and the
necessity of his departure, he lost his recompense to this day.] It is
true, he might have run the road of preferment, as well in Old as in
New-England, and have had the leisure and time of such who eat and drink
with the drunken, and smite with the fist of wickedness their
fellow-servants.” (p. 38.) In his letter to the town of Providence, in
1654, he says, “I was unfortunately fetched and drawn from my
employment, and sent to so vast distance from my family to do your work
of a high and costly nature, for so many days, and weeks, and months
together, and there left to starve, or steal, or beg, or borrow. But
blessed be God, who gave me favor to borrow one while, and to work
another, and thereby to pay your debts there, and to come over with your
credit and honor, as an agent from you, who had in your name grappled
with the agents and friends of all your enemies round about you.” Few
stronger examples of disinterested patriotism could be found in any age
or country.

Footnote 288:

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

Footnote 289:

There is a slight anachronism here. It was in May, 1664, that the
General Assembly “ordered, that the seal with the motto _Rhode Island
and Providence Plantations_, with the word _Hope_ over the anchor, be
the present seal of the colony.” The seal adopted in 1647, when the
government was organized under the first charter, bore simply an anchor.

Footnote 290:

Ninigret returned a haughty answer to a message from the commissioners.
He said, that he attacked the Long-Island Indians, because they had
killed a sachem’s son, and sixty of his men, and he would not make peace
with them. He asked of the commissioners, in a tone, which showed that
he considered the Narragansets as a perfectly independent nation: “If
your Governor’s son was slain, and several other men, would you ask
counsel of _another nation_ when and how to right yourselves?”

Footnote 291:

Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 172.

Footnote 292:

Governor Winthrop died, at Boston, on the 26th of March, 1649, in the
62d year of his age. He was born in Groton, Suffolk, (Eng.) January 12,
1588. He was a justice of peace at the age of eighteen. He had an estate
of six or seven hundred pounds a year, which he turned into money, and
embarked his all to promote the settlement of New-England. He was eleven
times chosen Governor of Massachusetts, and spent his whole estate in
the public service. His son and grandson were successively Governors of
Connecticut. He was a great and good man. His Journal is a monument to
his memory—“ære perennius.” He was a sincere friend of Roger Williams,
though he disapproved his principles, and Mr. Williams always spoke of
him with strong affection.

Footnote 293:

Cromwell.

Footnote 294:

This name is spelled in several different ways.

Footnote 295:

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

Footnote 296:

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

Footnote 297:

Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 172, after stating, that an application from
Newport, for powder and other ammunition was rejected, says, “it was an
error, (in state policy at last) not to support them, for though they
were desperately erroneous, and in such distractions among themselves as
portended their ruin, yet, if the Indians should prevail against them,
it would be a great advantage to the Indians and danger to the whole
country.” About the year 1655, Mr. Clarke sent over from England four
barrels of powder, and eight of shot and bullets, which were consigned
to Mr. Williams, and left, by order of the General Assembly, in his
possession. While provision was thus made for defence against the
Indians, measures were adopted to prevent hostilities. At a town meeting
in Providence, June 24, 1655, at which Mr. Williams was moderator, it
was voted, that if any person should sell a gallon of wine or spirits to
an Indian, either directly or indirectly, he should forfeit six pounds,
one half to the informer, and the other half to the town. Among the
measures adopted for defence, was the following order, passed in town
meeting, March 6, 1655–6: “Ordered, that liberty is given to as many as
please to erect a fortification upon the Stamper’s Hill, or about their
own houses.”

Footnote 298:

This religious society, says Hannah Adams, “began to be distinguished
about the middle of the seventeenth century. Their doctrines were first
promulgated in England, by George Fox, about the year 1647, for which he
was imprisoned at Nottingham, in the year 1649, and the year following
at Derby. The appellation of _Quakers_, was given them by way of
contempt; some say, on account of their _tremblings_ under the
impression of divine things; but _they_ say it was first given them by
one of the magistrates, who committed George Fox to prison, on account
of his bidding him and those about him to _tremble_ at the word of the
Lord.” They have since called themselves Friends. The wild fanaticism of
some of the early adherents of the sect, no more resembles the quiet
demeanor of the pious Friends of the present day, than the policy of
Massachusetts in 1656, was like the spirit of our own times.

Footnote 299:

“At Boston, one George Wilson, and at Cambridge, Elizabeth Horton, went
crying through the streets, that the Lord was coming with fire and sword
to plead with them. Thomas Newhouse went into the meeting-house at
Boston with a couple of glass bottles, and broke them before the
congregation, and threatened, ‘Thus will the Lord break you in pieces.’
Another time, M. Brewster came in with her face besmeared, and as black
as a coal. Deborah Wilson went through the streets of Salem, naked as
she came into the world, for which she was well whipped.”—Hutchinson,
vol. i. p. 187.

Footnote 300:

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

Footnote 301:

Backus, vol. i. pp. 313–316.

Footnote 302:

In his “George Fox digged out of his Burrowes,” (p. 20,) Mr. Williams
says of Mr. Harris, his “facts and courses others (of no small authority
and prudence among us, with whom I advised) saw to be desperate high
treason against the laws of our mother England, and of the colony also.”
He then inquires, “was it my fury (as you call it) or was it not honesty
and duty to God and the colony, and the higher powers then in England,
to act faithfully and impartially in the place wherein I then stood
sentinel?”

Footnote 303:

The origin of this unhappy quarrel is unknown. There were, probably,
faults on both sides. They both used very angry and unjustifiable
language towards each other. It appears that Mr. Williams so disliked
Mr. Harris, that he would not write his name at length, but abbreviated
it thus, “W. Har:” This mode of writing is seen in the fac simile
prefixed to this volume. It seems evident, that Mr. Harris had, for some
cause, a remarkable aptitude to get into difficulties. A letter of the
town of Providence, to the “Honored Governor and Council at Newport on
Rhode-Island,” dated August 31, 1668, and signed “Shadrach Manton, town
clerk,” accuses him of turbulent conduct. In 1667, there was a great
disturbance at Providence, excited, as it appears, by him. Two town
meetings were held, and two sets of deputies chosen to the General
Assembly, among whom was Mr. Harris. He was, however, expelled from the
General Assembly, and fined fifty pounds, which fine was remitted the
next year.—Backus, vol. i. p. 457. We may hope, that Mr. Harris, though
he doubtless had faults, was less culpable, than his contemporaries
thought him. It was an unquiet time, and few public men escaped censure.

Footnote 304:

In the records of the town of Providence, is the following act: “June 2,
1657. Ordered, that Mr. Roger Williams be accommodated with two acres
and a half of land amongst the rest of the neighbors, at the further
Bailey’s Cove, he laying down land equivalent to it, in the judgment of
the town deputies.”

Footnote 305:

Pope (Essay on Man, Ep. iv. l. 284,) has aided in confirming the
prejudice against Cromwell, by his famous line:

“See Cromwell damned to everlasting fame.”

Pope sometimes sacrificed truth to a brilliant couplet. The two lines
which immediately precede the one just quoted are a specimen:

“If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shined,
The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.”

Public opinion now does not sustain the poet, in stigmatizing the great
Bacon as the “meanest of mankind,” but views him as more sinned against
than sinning. We may learn from these examples, how great is the
responsibleness of popular authors. By a single line they may perpetuate
calumny. They may poison the wells of knowledge.

Footnote 306:

Examples might be cited, of language like this, in American authors.
They show the effect of a discreditable deference to foreign writers.
But all American authors are not disposed to echo the infidel and tory
opinions of England. Dr. Stiles, in his History of the Judges, defended
Cromwell; and a writer in the Christian Spectator, for September, 1829,
has vindicated the character of the Protector, with ability and
eloquence.

Footnote 307:

History of England, chapter lxi.

Footnote 308:

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

Footnote 309:

Works, vol. i. p. 149.

Footnote 310:

Neal, vol. iv. p. 101.

Footnote 311:

The Protector’s exertions to relieve and protect the unhappy Waldenses,
who were at that time suffering a merciless persecution, claim for him
the gratitude of every friend of religion and liberty. He appointed a
day of national humiliation and prayer throughout all England and Wales,
and ordered that a collection should be made in all the houses of
worship, for the relief of the sufferers. He himself headed a
subscription, with the liberal donation of two thousand pounds, and in a
short time the large sum of nearly forty thousand pounds was raised and
transmitted. Not contented with this measure, he sent letters to the
Duke of Savoy, the inhuman persecutor, and to several of the princes of
Europe, for the purpose of procuring deliverance for the miserable
remnants of the Waldenses. The potent voice of the formidable Protector,
which none of the monarchs of that day ventured to despise, uttered, as
it was, by the powerful pen of Milton, the Latin Secretary, had some
effect, though less than he hoped, to soften the rage of bigotry and
persecution. The following sonnet was written by Milton on this
occasion:

“_On the late Massacre in Piedmont._

Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones
Lie scatter’d on the Alpine mountains, cold;
E’en them, who kept thy truth so pure of old,
When all our fathers worship’d stocks and stones,
Forget not; in thy book record their groans,
Who were thy sheep, and in their ancient fold
Slain by the bloody Piedmontese, that roll’d
Mother and infant down the rocks. Their moans
The vales redoubled to the hills, and they
To Heaven. Their martyr’d blood and ashes sow
O’er all th’ Italian fields, where still doth sway
The triple tyrant; that from these may grow
A hundred fold, who, having learned thy way,
Early may fly the Babylonian woe.”

Footnote 312:

Judging from the rapid progress of free principles in England, it would
not be surprising if Cromwell should, ere long, be recognised as one of
the great leaders in the struggle for freedom. Mr. Ivirney, in his life
of Milton, (p. 131,) says of Cromwell, “for whose statue I venture to
bespeak a niche among the illustrious dead in Westminster Abbey; not
doubting, from recent events, but the time will come, when the governors
of the nation will be so sensible of the obligations of Britain to that
illustrious ruler and his noble compatriots, as maugre the mean power of
ignorance and prejudice, will decree him a monumental inscription in the
sepulchres of our kings.”

Footnote 313:

The colony of Rhode-Island adopted an address to Richard Cromwell, of
which the following is an extract. The address was never presented:

“May it please your Highness to know, that this poor colony of
Providence Plantations, mostly consists of a birth and breeding of the
Providence of the Most High, we being an outcast people, formerly from
our mother nation, in the bishops’ days, and since from the New-English
over-zealous colonies; our whole frame being like unto the present frame
and constitution of our dearest mother England; bearing with the several
judgments and consciences each of other in all the towns of our colony,
which our neighbor colonies do not, which is the only cause of their
great offence against us. Sir, we dare not interrupt your high affairs
with the particulars of our wilderness condition, only beg your eye of
favor to be cast upon our faithful Agent, Mr. John Clarke, and unto what
humble addresses he shall at any time present your Highness with in our
behalf.”—Backus, vol. i. pp. 316–17.

Footnote 314:

An interesting account of the fruitless endeavors of the Presbyterians
to effect this object, is given in Orme’s Life of Baxter, chapter vii.

Footnote 315:

August 23, 1659, a rate of fifty pounds was voted for his use, of which
Newport was to pay twenty, Providence eleven, Portsmouth ten, and
Warwick nine. May 21, 1661, two hundred pounds sterling were voted, of
which Newport was to pay eighty-five, Providence forty, Portsmouth
forty, and Warwick thirty-five. Subsequent appropriations, to the amount
of three hundred and six pounds, are found on the records. The relative
size of the towns may be inferred from the above apportionment. Newport
was more than twice as large as Providence. A record of the names of the
freemen in the several towns, in 1655, states the numbers thus: Newport,
eighty-three; Portsmouth, fifty-two; Providence, forty-two; Warwick,
thirty-eight—total, two hundred and fifteen.

Footnote 316:

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

Footnote 317:

A document exists, purporting to be an act of the town, with a preface,
signed by Gregory Dexter, and entitled “An instrument, or sovereign
plaster, to heal the manifold sores in this town or plantation of
Providence, which do arise about lands.” This document says: “1st. That
act, to divide to the men of Pawtuxet twenty miles, is hereby declared
against as unjust and unreasonable, not being healthful, but hurtful. 2.
Whereas great and manifold troubles have befallen both ourselves and the
whole colony, by reason of that phrase, “up streams without limits, we
might have for the use of our cattle,” for preventing future contention,
we declare that our bounds are limited in our town evidences, and by us
stated, about twenty years since, and known to be the river and fields
of Pawtucket, Sugar Loaf Hill, Bewett’s Brow, Observation Rock, Absolute
Swamp, Oxford and Hipe’s Rock. **** No other privilege, by virtue of the
said phrase, to be challenged by this town, viz. that if the cattle went
beyond the bounds prefixed in the said deed granted to him, [Mr.
Williams] then the owners of the cattle should be no trespassers, the
cattle going so far in one day to feed as they might come home at night.
3. And whereas some of us have desired of the colony leave to purchase
for this town some enlargement, which was granted, and by the great
diligence of our said neighbor, Williams, with the natives, more land is
bought, adjoining your said bounds,” &c.

Footnote 318:

In 1659, Mr. John Winthrop, Major Humphrey Atherton, and associates,
purchased of the Narraganset sachems two tracts of land, joining to the
Bay, one lying to the southward of Mr. Smith’s trading-house, and the
other to the northward of it, and settled it with inhabitants. 1 His.
Col. v. p. 217.

In 1657, Mr. William Coddington and Mr. Benedict Arnold purchased, of
the same sachems, the island Canonicut, which, in 1678, was incorporated
as a township, by the name of Jamestown. Ibid.

In the same year, Mr. John Hull, Mr. John Porter, and three persons
more, purchased a large tract of land, in the southern parts of the
Narraganset country, and called Petaquamscut Purchase. Ibid.

Footnote 319:

Hubbard, chap. lxiv.

Footnote 320:

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

Footnote 321:

Dr. Wisner’s Historical Discourses, p. 10.

Footnote 322:

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

Footnote 323:

A resolution to alter the third article of the Constitution of
Massachusetts, as a preparatory step towards the repeal of the laws for
the support of religion by taxation, has been adopted by the people,
since the text was written. It will, undoubtedly, be followed by a
repeal of the laws.

Footnote 324:

It is an honorable proof of steadiness of character in the people of
Rhode-Island, that they have continued to prosper under this charter for
one hundred and seventy years. No interruption of the government has
occurred during this long period, and no attempt has been made to resist
it. No community ever enjoyed more perfect freedom, and yet none was
ever more quiet and obedient to the laws. It is a gratifying evidence,
that a truly free government is more stable than any other. The growth
of the State has made some provisions of the charter operate unjustly.
Providence, for example, with sixteen thousand inhabitants, sends only
four representatives to the General Assembly, while Portsmouth, with
seventeen hundred inhabitants, sends four, and Newport, with eight
thousand, sends six. An attempt was made, a few years since, to obtain a
new Constitution, but it did not succeed.

Footnote 325:

See the charter, Appendix, G.

Footnote 326:

It is worthy of notice, that on May 9, 1663, the town of Providence
voted, that “one hundred acres of upland and six acres of meadow shall
be reserved for the maintenance of a school in this town.”

Footnote 327:

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

Footnote 328:

Mr. Williams felt a great esteem for Mr. Clarke. In the library of Brown
University, is a copy of “The Bloody Tenet yet more Bloody,” bequeathed
to the library by the Rev. Isaac Backus. On a blank leaf are these
words, in Mr. Williams’ hand writing: “For his honored and beloved Mr.
John Clarke, an eminent witness of Christ Jesus, against the Bloody
Doctrine of Persecution, &c.”

Footnote 329:

For documents on the subject of boundaries, see 1 His. Col. v. pp.
216–252. See also, 2 His. Col. vii. pp. 75–113, Rhode-Island State
Papers, furnished by the Hon. Samuel Eddy.

Footnote 330:

Political Annals, b. i. c. xi. pp. 276, 279.

Footnote 331:

Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 336.

Footnote 332:

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

Footnote 333:

This was the Rhode-Island doctrine and practice from the beginning. It
was deeply rooted in all hearts. Among the deputies to the General
Assembly, in 1675, the name, “_Toleration_ Harris,” occurs.

Footnote 334:

He says, in this year, that Rhode-Island colony “has been a colluvies of
Antinomians, Familists, Anabaptists, Antisabbatarians, Arminians,
Socinians, Quakers, Ranters, every thing in the world but _Roman
Catholics_ and true Christians—though of the latter, I hope, there have
been more than of the former among them.”—Magnalia, b. vii. c. iii. s.
12.

Footnote 335:

Magnalia, b. vii. c. ii. §8.

Footnote 336:

In thus living disconnected with any church, he followed the example of
Milton and Cromwell. Of Milton, Toland says: “In his early days, he was
a favorer of those Protestants, then opprobriously called by the name of
Puritans. In his middle years, he was best pleased with the Independents
and Anabaptists, as allowing of more liberty than others, and coming
nearest, in his opinion, to the primitive practice; but in the latter
part of his life, he was not a professed member of any particular sect
among Christians; he frequented none of their assemblies, nor made use
of their peculiar rites in his family.” Ivirney’s Life of Milton, p.
251.

Footnote 337:

In a letter, dated May 8, 1682, he requests Governor Bradstreet, of
Boston, to assist him in printing some “discourses, which (by many
tedious journies) I have had with the _scattered English_ at
Narraganset, before the war, [Philip’s war, of 1675–6] and since.” 2
His. Col. viii. p. 197.

Footnote 338:

Mr. Williams says, that Mr. Eliot promised a suit of clothes to an old
Indian, who, not understanding him, asked another Indian, what Mr. Eliot
said. This reminds us of the well known anecdote respecting his
translation of the Bible:—While Eliot was engaged in translating the
Bible into the Indian language, he came to the following passage in
Judges, 5:28: “The mother of Sisera looked out at the window, and cried
through the _lattice_,” &c. Not knowing an Indian word to signify
lattice, he applied to several of the natives, and endeavored to
describe to them what a lattice resembled. He described it as frame
work, netting, wicker, or whatever occurred to him as illustrative, when
they gave him a long, barbarous and unpronouncable word, as are most of
the words in their language. Some years after, when he had learned their
dialect more correctly, he is said to have laughed outright, upon
finding that the Indians had given him the true term for _eel-pot_. “The
mother of Sisera looked out at the window, and cried through the
_eel-pot_.” Bigelow’s History of Natick, p. 84. This anecdote
illustrates the difficulties of translating, and may suggest a useful
caution to translators.

Footnote 339:

“February 19, 1665. Ordered, That Roger Williams shall have his first
choice, after William Hawkins and John Steere, of the fifty acres of
land on the east side of the north line, which beginneth seven miles
from Fox’s Hill, west.”

“June 4, 1666. It is granted unto Roger Williams, that he may change
three acres of land lying in the neck, and take it up somewhere about
the third lake, if it may, with conveniency, without damage to the
highways, or other men’s lands, which are already laid out.”

September 30, 1667, he was allowed to change three acres of land, which
was laid out to him, in addition to his house lot, and take it up in any
part of the common which is not prohibited.

May 2, 1667, there were laid out to him “fifty acres between the seven
mile and the four line.” This four mile line seems to have been the
original line, about four miles west from Fox’s Hill. Additional land
being purchased of the Indians, the seven mile line was established,
June 4, 1660, beginning seven miles west of Fox’s Hill, and running
north to Pawtucket river, and south to Pawtuxet river.

Footnote 340:

John Howland, Esq. says: “I think there must have been a bridge at
Weybosset before 1712.” Perhaps the bridge ordered to be built over
Moshassuck river, in 1662, and to which Mr. Williams’ letter may refer,
was intended to be somewhere between the present Great Bridge and
Smith’s Bridge, for the purpose of getting access to the natural meadows
at the head of the cove. The mention of “hay time,” and the references
of Mr. Williams to the “hopes of meadow,” may strengthen this
supposition. Mr. Howland says, “I have frequently been told by Nathan
Waterman, that teams and men on horseback used to cross the river
(before his day) across the clam bed, opposite Angell’s land (at low
tide) and land somewhere on the western shore. The Thomas Olney lot was
where the Knight Dexter tavern now is, and Angell’s was the next south,
including part of the Baptist meeting-house lot, and Steeple street. In
front of this, lay the shoal place, called the clam-bed.” May 14, 1660,
in a petition of the town to the General Assembly, against an assessment
on the town of thirty pounds, to build a prison at Newport, the town
said, that they had just spent one hundred and sixty pounds in building
a bridge. April 27, 1663, George Sheppard gave all his lands west of
seven mile line to the town, for “maintaining a bridge at Weybosset.”

Footnote 341:

R. I. Lit. Rep. vol. i. pp. 638–640.

Footnote 342:

“I had in mine eye the vindicating of this colony for receiving of such
persons whom others would not. We suffer for their sakes, and are
accounted their abettors. That, therefore, together with the improvement
of our liberties, which the God of heaven and our King’s Majesty have
graciously given, I might give a public testimony against their
opinions, in such a way and exercise, I judged it incumbent upon my
spirit and conscience to do it (in some regards) more than most in the
colony.” p. 26.

Footnote 343:

This remarkable man was born at Drayton, in Leicestershire, in 1624. He
was placed as an apprentice to a grazier, but, at the age of nineteen,
he thought himself called to forsake every thing else, and devote
himself to religion. In 1648, he began to preach, and adopted the
peculiar language and manners which have distinguished his followers. He
incurred persecution, was often imprisoned, and treated with great
severity. In 1669, he married, and soon after visited America, where he
remained two years, and made many proselytes. He returned to England,
and after many sufferings, he died in 1690, in the sixty-seventh year of
his age. His works form three folio volumes. “He was undoubtedly a man
of strong natural parts, and William Penn speaks in high terms of his
meekness, humility and temperance.”—Ency. Amer. art. George Fox.

Footnote 344:

The letters were sent, through some friends of Mr. Fox, to the Deputy
Governor Cranston. They were dated July 13, but Mr. Cranston did not
receive them till the 26th, which, as he said, excited his surprise.
There was some room for suspicion, that the letters were purposely
concealed till Mr. Fox had gone.

Footnote 345:

“God graciously assisted me in rowing all day, with my old bones, so
that I got to Newport toward the midnight before the morning appointed.”
p. 24.

Footnote 346:

In the General Assembly, in 1672, it was voted, that the deputies should
receive two shillings per day. A law was passed, exempting from military
duty persons who had conscientious scruples. On September 2, 1673, it
was enacted, that every person who sold liquor, so that any one became
drunk, or who kept a gaming house, should be fined six shillings.
Constables were appointed to watch on the “first day of the week”
against all “deboystness.” There was, about this time, a trial of an
Indian, by a jury, half of whom were Indians. In 1679, a fine of five
shillings was imposed for employing an Indian or other servant on the
first day; and the same fine, or sitting in the stocks three hours, for
gaming, playing, shooting, or sitting drinking in an alehouse “more than
necessity requireth,” on the first day. It does not appear, that there
was any rule, by which to judge of the “necessity.” The doctrine of
total abstinence was then unknown.

On the 11th of March, 1674–5, Mr. Williams acknowledged the receipt from
Benjamin Hernden of six shillings, ninepence, making up eleven pounds,
“for the house and land sold to him, which was John Clawson’s.”

Footnote 347:

Backus, vol. i. p. 510.

Footnote 348:

Callender, p. 73.

Footnote 349:

Backus, vol. i. p. 418.

Footnote 350:

Hubbard’s Narrative, p. 55, edition of 1775. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 406,
says, that the Narragansets, in 1675, were supposed to have 2000
warriors. Mr. Callender, p. 75, thinks that Hubbard’s and Hutchinson’s
accounts may be reconciled, by supposing that the four thousand warriors
to be raised by the Narragansets included other Indians within their
influence.

Footnote 351:

Callender, p. 75.

Footnote 352:

The following memorandum appears on the records of Providence, about
August 30, 1676, after the death of Philip:

“By God’s providence, it seasonably came to pass, that Providence
Williams brought up his mother from Newport in his sloop, and cleared
the town by his vessel of all the Indians, to the great peace and
content of all the inhabitants.” The Indians, here mentioned, were
probably prisoners.

Footnote 353:

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

Footnote 354:

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

Footnote 355:

Backus, vol. i. p. 466.

Footnote 356:

Mr. Harris soon after went to England, on this business, but the vessel
was captured by an Algerine or Tunisian corsair, and he was sold for a
slave. His family, in Rhode-Island, redeemed him; by the sale of a part
of his property. He arrived in England, but died there. He was an able
man, and we may hope, a good man, notwithstanding some infirmities. His
quarrels with Roger Williams were very discreditable to them both. On
which side the most blame lay, we cannot now decide.

Footnote 357:

Backus, vol. i. p. 421.

Footnote 358:

In 1679, a fine of five shillings was enacted for “riding gallop in
Providence street.” This implies, that the town was becoming populous
again, after the Indian war, during which it suffered much. Previously
to the war it contained about 500 inhabitants, but many of them removed
to Newport. A rate of sixty pounds, ordered in 1679, was apportioned
thus: Newport, eighteen; Portsmouth, eleven; Providence, four; Warwick,
four; Westerly, four; New-Shoreham, four; Kingstown, six;
East-Greenwich, three; Jamestown, six.

Footnote 359:

Referring to the great comet of 1680. which was supposed to have
approached so near to the sun, as to be heated two thousand times hotter
than red hot iron.

Footnote 360:

2 His. Col. viii. p. 196.

Footnote 361:

Page 110.

Footnote 362:

Backus, vol. i. p. 515.

Footnote 363:

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

Footnote 364:

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

Footnote 365:

Bloody Tenet, p. 18.

Footnote 366:

The copy now before me belongs to the library of Harvard College, having
been borrowed in accordance with the very liberal regulations of that
noble collection of books. This copy was presented by the second Thomas
Hollis, and it contains, on the title page, in his hand writing, I
presume, the words, “_A curious tract._” It is pleasant to connect the
names of Williams and Hollis.

Footnote 367:

It was prepared under great disadvantages. He says: “When these
discussions were prepared for the public, in London, his time was eaten
up in attendance upon the service of the Parliament and city, for the
supply of the poor of the city with wood, (during the stop of the coal
from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for firing.) These
meditations were fitted for public view in change of rooms and corners,
yea, sometimes (upon occasions of travel in the country, concerning that
business of fuel,) in variety of strange houses, sometimes in the
fields, in the midst of travel, where he hath been forced to gather and
scatter his loose thoughts and papers.” Bloody Tenet made More Bloody,
p. 38.

Footnote 368:

2 Cor. 5: 11, 20.

Footnote 369:

Mark, 16: 16.

Footnote 370:

Bishop Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying, sec. 14.

Footnote 371:

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

Footnote 372:

Bloody Tenet, p. 185.

Footnote 373:

Bloody Tenet, p. 214.

Footnote 374:

The laws, in some of our States, which make clergymen ineligible to
certain civil offices, are unjust, and inconsistent with our republican
institutions. Every man has equal civil rights, and the exclusion of any
class of men from the enjoyment of any of those rights, is an odious
proscription. It is, indeed, desirable, that no clergyman should accept
a civil office, because his duties as a minister of the Gospel ought to
be sufficient to occupy his mind. But he has a right, as a citizen, to
be elected to any office; and to exclude him is an assumption of the
power to establish a national religion, for if a man may be excluded
from office, because he is a minister, he may, by the same authority, be
invested with office, because he is a minister. It is remarkable, that
those who clamor so loudly against church and state, do not see any
inconsistency in the exclusion of clergymen, as such, from office.

Footnote 375:

Life of Jeremy Taylor, Am. ed. p. 37.

Footnote 376:

Mr. Williams speaks of this work, in his rejoinder to Mr. Cotton’s
reply: “Dr. J. Taylor, what an everlasting monumental testimony did he
publish to this truth, in that his excellent discourse of the Liberty of
Prophesying.” pp. 316–17.

Footnote 377:

Works, vol. x. pp. 45–7.

Footnote 378:

In 1649, the Assembly of Maryland enacted, “that no persons _professing
to believe in Jesus Christ_, shall be molested, in respect of their
religion, or in the free exercise thereof, or be compelled to the belief
or practice of any other religion, against their consent, so that they
be not unfaithful to the proprietary, or conspire against the civil
government. That persons molesting any other in respect of his religious
tenets shall pay treble damages to the party aggrieved, and twenty
shillings to the proprietary. That the reproaching any with opprobrious
epithets of religious distinctions, shall forfeit ten shillings to the
persons aggrieved. That any one _speaking reproachfully against the
Blessed Virgin_, or the Apostles, shall forfeit five pounds, but
blasphemy against God shall be punished with death.” Chalmers’ Pol. Ann.
vol. i. p. 218. These latter provisions might easily be made terrible
engines of persecution, in the hands of ill-disposed magistrates.

Footnote 379:

2 Mass. His. Col. viii. p. 79.

Footnote 380:

There is a thin book, in the Library of Harvard College, which purports
to be a copy of this work, but it contains only the Preface and
Dedicatory Epistles.

Footnote 381:

Alluding to the “Eikon Basilike,” a book, which purported to have been
written by Charles I. and which, it is thought, contributed to the
restoration of his son. It was, however, an imposition, Dr. Gauden being
the real author. Mr. Williams, it seems had sagacity enough to doubt its
authenticity. Milton assailed it with his “Eiconoclastes.”

Footnote 382:

N. E. Firebrand Quenched, p. 9.

Footnote 383:

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

Footnote 384:

Works, vol. i. p. 689.

Footnote 385:

Iliad, A. 1. 210, 211.

Footnote 386:

See pages 57 and 58 of this volume.

Footnote 387:

Century Discourse, p. 17.

Footnote 388:

1 His. Col. vi. p. 249.

Footnote 389:

Bloody Tenet, pp. 116, 243.

Footnote 390:

See Appendix I.

Footnote 391:

“Major Mason—famous for his services, while captain, in the Pequod war.
He was a soldier in the Low Countries, under Sir Thomas Fairfax, one of
the first settlers of Dorchester, Mass, in 1630. He afterwards removed
to Windsor, Conn. He put an end to the Pequod war, in 1638; was
appointed, soon after, Major General of the Connecticut forces, and in
May, 1660, was elected Deputy Governor of that colony. He died at
Norwich, in the seventy-third year of his age, in 1672 or 1673. An
account of the Pequod war was published by him, republished in Hubbard’s
Narrative, and by Rev. T. Prince. In the fourth volume of the
Massachusetts Historical Collections, a curious poem is published, of
Governor Wolcott’s, giving an account of his predecessor Winthrop’s
embassy to the Court of Charles II., to obtain a charter, in which Mason
is mentioned with the highest eulogies. Winthrop is made to give the
King a relation, among other things, of the Pequod war, and says:

‘The army now drawn up: to be their head
Our valiant Mason was commissioned;
(Whose name is never mentioned by me,
Without a special note of dignity.’)

“In granting the charter, Charles speaks thus:

‘Chief in the patent, Winthrop, thou shalt stand,
And valiant Mason place at thy next hand.’”

Footnote 392:

Commonly called Massassoit.

Footnote 393:

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

Footnote 394:

It has been alleged, with a view to lessen Mr. Williams’ claim to the
honor of being the chief agent in establishing liberty of conscience in
Rhode-Island, that the preceding charter contains no provision for the
protection of religious liberty. But it may be replied, that the
instrument conveyed full power to establish any form of government, and
enact any laws, which the inhabitants might deem proper, provided that
they were not repugnant to the laws of England. The charter is in very
general terms. It prescribes no mode of civil government, and omits, of
course, any reference to religious affairs. The principles of Mr.
Williams and his friends were well known to the gentlemen who signed the
charter. Mr. Williams could desire nothing more than entire liberty to
the inhabitants to regulate the civil and ecclesiastical concerns of the
colony according to their own pleasure.

Footnote 395:

“Mr. Williams sold from his estate a lot, forty-eight feet wide on the
street, to Mr. Gabriel Bernon, a very respectable French gentleman, of
great property, and sincere religion, who came from Rochelle, France,
where he had suffered much, and had been imprisoned two years, on
account of his religion, which led Mr. Williams greatly to esteem and
respect him. He was born at Rochelle, April 6, 1644; lived ten years at
Newport and Narraganset, and died in Providence, February 1, 1736, in
the ninety-second year of his age. He had ten children by his first
wife, eight of whom, with herself, came with him to this State. He had
four children by his second wife, Mary Harris. He was buried under the
old Episcopal church, and was the ancestor of many respectable families,
in various parts of the State, in which are great numbers of his
posterity, connected with the names of Coddington, Helme, Whipple,
Crawford, Jenckes, Allen, Tourtellot, &c.

“The lot thus sold to Mr. Bernon contained the famous spring where Mr.
Williams landed, when he came to Providence in a canoe, with Thomas
Angell, in 1636. Governor Hutchinson says: “The inhabitants have a
veneration for a spring, which runs from the hill into the river, above
the great bridge. The sight of this spring caused him to stop his canoe,
and land there.” Mass. His. vol. ii, p. 41.

“This is the same lot where Mr. Nehemiah Dodge is now building a large
brick house, near the stone Episcopal church, a few feet eastward of the
spring, of which there is now no appearance, otherwise than at the
bottom of his well, of a considerable depth, from which it finds a
covered outlet to the river; an instance, among a thousand others, of
the great alteration in the town, since its first settlement.”

Footnote 396:

These towns were, in the order of their settlement or incorporation:
Providence, 1636; Portsmouth, 1637–8; Newport, 1638–9; Warwick, 1642–3;
Westerly, 1665; New Shoreham, 1672; East-Greenwich, 1677; Jamestown,
1678; North-Kingstown, and South-Kingstown, 1722; Smithfield, Glocester,
and Scituate, 1730; Charlestown, 1738. In 1730, the whole number of
inhabitants in the colony, was 17,935. The towns of Burrillville,
Cranston, Cumberland, Foster, Johnston, North-Providence,
Little-Compton, Middletown, Tiverton, Coventry, West-Greenwich, Exeter,
Hopkinton, Richmond, Barrington, Bristol, and Warren, have been since
added, making the total number of towns thirty-one. Population, in 1830,
97,212.

Footnote 397:

This list shows how unjustly some persons, who have chosen to vilify
Rhode-Island, have made the Baptists responsible for every thing which
was done, or neglected. The Baptists have always, perhaps, been more
numerous than any other denomination, but they have been a minority of
the whole community. In 1738, it seems, they had but nine, out of thirty
religious societies or churches.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULLER’S WORKS, COMPLETE.

LINCOLN, EDMANDS & CO. have recently published this valuable work, in two
large octavo volumes, on a fair burgeois type and fine paper, at the very
reasonable price of 6 dollars. The cost of the former edition (14 dollars)
precluded many students from replenishing their libraries; and they are
now gratified in being able to possess a work so replete with _doctrinal_
arguments and _practical_ religion. No Christian can read Fuller without
having his impulses to action quickened—and every student ought to _study_
him, if he wishes to arm himself against the attempts of every enemy.

Since this edition has been issued, several periodicals have noticed it
with full commendation. We have recently given extracts from notices in
the Boston Recorder, Christian Watchman, &c.—and we now make a few
extracts from an able review of the work, which appeared in the October
number of the American Baptist Magazine. It was written by the President
of a College, at the South, and is admired for its elegant and just view
of the sentiments of this great author.

He says:—“This work, in the material and style of execution, is highly
creditable to the American press. The publishers, in issuing this work,
have conferred an obligation upon community, and will, doubtless, be
rewarded in a liberal return of their investment. Mr. Fuller was among the
few extraordinary men who have ever appeared in this world. He possessed
great vigor of intellect, an uncommon share of good sense, inflexible
integrity, and the most ardent love for truth. All his powers, therefore,
were early consecrated to the service of the church. His mind was turned,
even before he entered the ministry, to the study of those great truths,
which involve the highest honor of God, and the dearest interests of man.
These truths he embraced with all the affections of his heart, and
maintained with wonderful acuteness, and by invincible arguments; for they
were indeed the sheet-anchor of his soul. He possessed very clear and
consistent views of human depravity, and of the grounds of moral
obligation. To gain them, however, he had to endure heavy trials and
severe studies.

“The grand design of Mr. Fuller, as a writer, was to produce moral action.
He believed in the divine purpose, that the rest of heaven shall be gained
through constant vigilance and labor. In this way the Christian character
is to be formed, and the soul fitted for future blessedness. But
notwithstanding the necessity of this painful care and effort, man is much
inclined to be heedless and slothful; and this proneness has been
strengthened by ingenious and plausible theories in religion. Of this
truth Mr. Fuller had abundant evidence. In his life and travels, he
witnessed the hyper-calvinistic, or antinomian spirit, sweeping over the
churches, withering up, like the Sirocco’s blast, their vital principle,
and converting them into barren wastes. Nor was the influence of this
spirit confined to professors. Its legitimate tendency is, to keep both
saints and sinners in a state of inaction. For it exalts the former above
obligation, and sinks the latter below it. This spirit he knew had its
origin in the false notion, that human apostacy releases sinners from the
duties of piety, and that the gospel dispensation is designed to render
the law useless, and to excuse the people of God from complying with its
requirements. Over these things Mr. Fuller prayed and wept. And when he
took up his pen, it was his chief purpose to correct these errors, and
thus to rouse the church from their paralyzing influence. In accomplishing
his object, he resorted to no unwarranted expedients. He believed that God
had provided adequate agents to sway the soul, and that these are
principally three: truth, motive, and the influences of the Divine Spirit.
Truth convinces the understanding, motive affects the heart, and the
Spirit overcomes the will. The great cause, he believed, why the means of
salvation have produced so little effect, is—that their power has been
greatly weakened by human devices. Truth has been eclipsed, conscience
stupified, and the heart allured by unscriptural motives. The constant
aim, therefore, of this eminent man, was to disperse the darkness, in
which truth was involved, that it might shine forth in all its heavenly
lustre. He labored to remove from the divine law the deadening swathe with
which it had been bound, by those who feared its edge, that it might act
with unobstructed force. It has been said of the immortal Butler, that he
has done more than any other man to restore to conscience her sovereign
sway in the human soul. So we may say, that Fuller has, probably, done
more than any other divine, to restore to the law of God, or to gospel
truth, its sacred dominion in the economy of grace. Truth and the voice of
conscience are the two great ruling powers in the moral world. Hence the
well-being of society requires, that they should be constantly kept in the
clearest light. And that man, who is the instrument, in giving these chief
elements of power the freest action upon the human mind, renders the most
important service to his fellow-men.

“There is another light in which we are anxious the publications of Mr.
Fuller should be viewed—in their adaptedness to prevent two evils, to
which the Christian world at the present day are peculiarly exposed. These
are, first, losing sight of that mysterious and divine agency, on which
the success of all their efforts must depend. And, second, failing to keep
in full view those cardinal truths of the gospel, by which they must gain
and support all their victories in the empire of darkness. In every period
the church has been inclined to forget her dependence on divine
influences; but, perhaps, never so much so, as in the present.

“Though for thirty years we have been conversant with the writings of Mr.
Fuller, yet we must say, that this revision of them has greatly heightened
them in our estimation. And viewing them in the light we do, we cannot but
indulge the belief, that they will, for ages yet to come, continue to
enlighten and bless the church of Christ.”

This edition was printed from a London edition, just revised, by Mr.
A. G. Fuller, who says, in his preface, “In presenting to the public
what has long been called for, viz. a complete edition of the works
of my revered father, it is unnecessary to offer any remarks on the
character of the writings, most of which have for many years been
before the public, and must now be supposed to stand on their own
merits. It may, however, be proper to state, that the present
edition not only contains a great number of valuable pieces which
had been before unavoidably omitted, but also a portion of original
manuscript, part of which is woven into the memoir, and part
inserted in the last volume.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.
3. Footnotes were re-indexed using numbers and collected together at
the end of the last chapter.
4. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.
5. Enclosed black-face font in =equals=.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Memoir of Roger Williams - The Founder of the State of Rhode-Island" ***

Home