Chapter 39

175. One of these decisions of the synod will be approved by the good sense of Christians in this age. “That though women might meet (some few together) to pray and edify one another, yet such a set assembly, (as was then in practice in Boston) where sixty or more did meet every week, and one woman (in a prophetical way, by resolving questions of doctrine and expounding Scripture) took upon her the whole exercise, was agreed to be disorderly, and without rule.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 240.

176. Backus, vol. i. 86.

177. Vol. i. p. 247.

178. This word is spelled by different writers, in various ways. The island was afterwards (in 1644, according to Callender,) called the Isle of Rhodes, and by an easy declension, Rhode-Island. (Holmes, vol. i. p. 246.) In a letter of Roger Williams, already quoted, written before May, 1637, the nameRode-Island is applied to it. The reason does not appear. A fancied resemblance to the Isle of Rhodes is supposed to have been the origin.

179. This deed is as follows: (Backus, vol. i. pp. 180–1.)“The 24th of the first month, called March, in the year (so commonly called) 1637–8, Memorandum, that we, Canonicus and Miantinomo, the two chief sachems of the Narraganset, by virtue of our general command of this bay, as also the particular subjecting of the dead sachems of Aquetneck and Kitackamuckqut, themselves and lands unto us, have sold to Mr. Coddington and his friends united unto him, the great island of Aquetneck, lying hence eastward in this bay, as also the marsh or grass upon Canonicut, and the rest of the islands in this bay (excepting Chibachuwesa [Prudence] formerly sold to Mr. Winthrop, the now Governor of the Massachusetts, and Mr. Williams, of Providence) also the grass upon the rivers and bounds about Kitackamackqut, and from thence to Paupusquatch, for the full payment of forty fathoms of white beads, to be equally divided between us; in witness whereof, we have here subscribed. Item, that by giving, by Miantinomo’s hands, ten coats and twenty hoes to the present inhabitants, they shall remove themselves from off the island before next winter.“Witness our hands,“The mark (†) of CANONICUS.“The mark (‡) of MIANTINOMO.“In presence of“The mark (X) ofYotaash,“Roger Williams,“Randall Holden,“The mark (‡) ofAssotemuit,“The mark (∥) ofMihammoh, 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.”

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.

“Witness our hands,

“The mark (†) of CANONICUS.

“The mark (‡) of MIANTINOMO.

“In presence of“The mark (X) ofYotaash,“Roger Williams,“Randall Holden,“The mark (‡) ofAssotemuit,“The mark (∥) ofMihammoh, Canonicus his son.

“In presence of

“The mark (X) ofYotaash,“Roger Williams,“Randall Holden,

“The mark (X) ofYotaash,

“Roger Williams,

“Randall Holden,

“The mark (‡) ofAssotemuit,“The mark (∥) ofMihammoh, Canonicus his son.

“The mark (‡) ofAssotemuit,

“The mark (∥) ofMihammoh, 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.”

Witness, {Roger Williams,{Randall Holden.

Witness, {Roger Williams,

{Randall Holden.

“Dated the 6th of the fifth month, 1638.”

180. Mr. Callender says, (His. Dis. p. 32,) “The English inhabited between two powerful nations, the Wampancags to the north and east, who had formerly possessed some part of their grants, before they had surrendered it to the Narragansets, and though they freely owned the submission, yet it was thought best by Mr. Williams to make them easy by gratuities to the sachem, his counsellors and followers. On the other side, the Narragansets were very numerous, and the natives inhabiting any spot the English sat down upon, or improved, were all to be bought off to their content, and oftentimes were to be paid over and over again.”

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

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

183. “While the General Court sat, there came a letter directed to the Court from John Greene, of Providence, who, not long before, had been imprisoned and fined for saying, that the magistrates had usurped upon the power of Christ in his church, and had persecuted Mr. Williams and another, whom they had banished for disturbing the peace, by divulging their opinions against the authority of the magistrates, &c.; but upon his submission, &c. his fine was remitted; and now, by his letter, he retracted his former submission, and charged the Court as he had done before. Now, because the Court knew, that divers others of Providence were of the same ill-affection to the Court, and were, probably, suspected to be confederate in the same letter, the Court ordered, that if any of that plantation were found within our jurisdiction, he should be brought before one of the magistrates, and if he would not disclaim the charge in the said letter, he should be sent home, and charged to come no more into this jurisdiction, upon pain of imprisonment and further censure.” Winthrop, vol. i. p. 256.

184. Letter to Major Mason.

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

186. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 267. In the Journal, there are repeated allusions to information received from Mr. Williams, respecting the Indians, and services rendered by him. See vol. i. pp. 225, 226. &c.

187. 3 His. Col. i. p. 170–3.

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

189. righteousness?

190. .sp 1“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptumIntactum Pallanta.”Æneis, x. 501–4.

190. .sp 1

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptumIntactum Pallanta.”Æneis, x. 501–4.

“Nescia mens hominum fati sortisque futuræ.

Turno tempus erit, magno cum optaverit emptum

Intactum Pallanta.”Æneis, x. 501–4.

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

192. Governor Hopkins thinks, that there was a church formed on Congregational principles, before Mr. Williams’ baptism.—History of Providence, in 2 Mass. His. Col. ix. p. 196. This is not probable, for nothing is said by the writers in Massachusetts, of such a church, and the members of the church in Salem, who removed to Providence, were not excluded from that church, till after their baptism. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 371.

193. The first church in Boston, several of whose members were wealthy, existed two years before they began to build a meeting-house. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 87.

194. Morton’s Memorial, p. 151.

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

196. Dr. Woods, on Infant Baptism, Lecture I.—He adds, “the proof then, that infant baptism is a divine institution, must be made out in another way.”

197. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 293. Under date of March, 1638–9, he says: “At Providence, things grew still worse; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson, the wife of one Scott, being infected with anabaptistry, and going last year to live at Providence, Mr. Williams was taken (or rather emboldened) by her to make open profession thereof, and accordingly was re-baptized by one Holliman, a poor man, late of Salem. Then Mr. Williams re-baptized him and some ten more. They also denied the baptizing of infants, and would have no magistrates.”

198. Governor Winthrop (vol. i. p. 293) calls Mr. Holliman “a poor man,” which Hubbard, (338) in copying, alters to a “mean fellow.” But Mr. Benedict says, that he was a man of “gifts and piety,” and that he was chosen an assistant to Mr. Williams. Backus says, “after the year 1650, I find him more than once a Deputy from the town of Warwick in the General Court.”—Vol. i. p. 106.

199. The first twelve members are named by Benedict, (vol. i. p. 473.) Roger Williams, Ezekiel Holliman, William Arnold, William Harris, Stukely Westcott, John Green, Richard Waterman, Thomas James, Robert Cole, William Carpenter, Francis Weston, and Thomas Olney.

200. Backus, vol. i. 106, note. “There had been many of them [Baptists] intermixed with other societies from their first coming out of Popery; but their first distinct church in our nation was formed out of the Independent Church in London, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was pastor, from 1616 to 1624, when he went to Virginia, and Mr. John Lathrop was chosen in his room. But nine years after, several persons in the society, finding that the congregation kept not to their first principles of separation, and being also convinced, that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but such only as professed faith in Christ, desired and obtained liberty, and formed themselves into a distinct church, Sept. 12, 1633, having Mr. John Spisbury for their minister.”—Crosby, vol. i. pp. 148, 149. In the year 1639, another Baptist church was formed in London, but probably not so early as the church at Providence.

201. Mosheim, b. 1, c. 1, p. 2, ch. 4, s. 8. See Campbell’s Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, lecture iv. for proof, that laymen, in the early times of the Christian era, often baptized. He quotes Hilary, who, in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Ephesians, 4: 11, 12, says, “Postquam omnibus locis ecclesiæ sunt constitutæ, et officia ordinata, aliter composita res est, quam cœperat; primum enim omnes docebant, et omnes baptizabant, quibuscunque diebus vel temporibus fuisset occasio.” That is, when churches were every where constituted, and official duties prescribed, things were otherwise regulated, than at first, when all taught, and all baptized, whenever occasion required.

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

203. S. Ambrosius in Eph. iv.

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

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

206. Concil, Elib. Can. xxxviii.—Peregre navigantes, aut si Ecclesia in proximo non fuerit, posse fidelem, qui lavacrum suum integrum habet, nec sit bigamus, baptizare in necessitate, ita ut, si supervixerit, ad Episcopum suum perducat, ut per manus impositionem perfici possit.—Quoted by Potter, p. 232.

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

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

209. The excellent John Robinson, the father of the Plymouth colony, had a controversy with the Rev. Mr. Bernard, an Episcopal minister. Mr. Robinson wrote a book, entitled “A Justification of Separation from the Church of England.”—In this book, he uses the same argument as that in the text: “Zanchy, upon the fifth to the Ephesians, treating of baptism, propounds a question of a Turk, coming to the knowledge of Christ and to faith by reading the New Testament, and withal teaching his family and converting it and others to Christ, and being in a country whence he cannot easily come to Christian countries, whether he may baptize them, whom he hath converted to Christ, he himself being unbaptized? He answers, I doubt not of it, but that he may, and withal provide that he himself be baptized of one of the three converted by him. The reason he gives is, because he is a minister of the word, extraordinarily stirred up by Christ; and so as such a minister may, with the consent of that small church, appoint one of the communicants, and provide that he be baptized by him.” Backus, vol. i. p. 106.

210. The question, which has been asked, with some emphasis, as if it vitally affected the Baptist churches in this country: “By whom was Roger Williams baptized?” has no practical importance. All whom he immersed were, as Pedobaptists must admit, baptized. The great family of Baptists in this country did not spring from the First Church in Providence. Many Baptist ministers and members came, at an early period, from Europe, and thus churches were formed in different parts of the country, which have since multiplied over the land. The first Baptist church formed in the present State of Massachusetts, is the church at Swansea. Its origin is dated in 1663, when the Rev. John Miles came from Wales, with a number of the members of a Baptist church, who brought with them its records. It was, in fact, an emigration of a church. Of the 400,000 Baptist communicants now in the United States, a small fraction only have had any connection, either immediate or remote, with the venerable church at Providence, though her members are numerous, and she has been honored as the mother of many ministers. The question, discussed in the preceding pages, disturbed, for a while, the first English Baptists. They had no clerical administrator, who had himself, in their view, been baptized. Some of them went to Holland, and were baptized by Baptist ministers there. “But,” says Crosby, (vol. i. p. 103,) “the greatest number of the English Baptists, and the more judicious, looked upon all this as needless trouble, and what proceeded from the old Popish doctrine of right to administer sacraments by an uninterrupted succession, which neither the Church of Rome, nor the Church of England, much less the modern dissenters, could prove to be with them. They affirmed, therefore, and practised accordingly, that after a general corruption of baptism, an unbaptized person might warrantably baptize, and so begin a reformation.” These examples, however, cannot justify a departure from the usual practice of our churches at the present day, when the ministry is regularly established.

211. Vol. i. p. 450.

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

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

214. John Howland, Esq., in a letter to the author, says: “The college was built in 1770. On the question among the founders of it, on what lot to place the building, they decided on the present site of the old college, because it was the home lot of Chad Brown, the first minister of the Baptist church. Other land could have been obtained, but the reason given prevailed in fixing the site. Had the impression been prevalent, that Roger Williams was the first minister or principal founder of the society, his home lot could have been purchased, which was a situation fully as eligible for the purpose. If any doubts rested in the minds of the gentlemen at that time, as to the validity of the claim of Chad Brown to this preference, perhaps the circumstance of Mr. Williams’ deserting the order, and protesting against it, might have produced the determination in favor of Brown.”

215. This house was built on the west side of North Main street, near its junction with Smith street, and a short distance north of Roger Williams’ spring. It was probably a small and rather rude building. Tradition states, that it was “in the shape of a hay cap, with a fireplace in the middle, the smoke escaping from a hole in the roof.” It was taken down, and a larger building erected in 1718. In 1774–5, the spacious and elegant house now occupied by the First Baptist Church, was erected.

216. Magnalia, b. vii. sec. 7. Gov. Hopkins, (a member of the Society of Friends) says, in his history of Providence, written in 1765, “This church hath,from its beginning, kept itself in repute, and maintained its discipline, so as to avoid scandal or schism, to this day. It hath always been, and still is, a numerous congregation, and in which I have with pleasure observed, very lately, sundry descendants from each of the founders of the colony, except Holliman.” 2 His. Col. ix. 197.

217. The letter, announcing their exclusion, to the church at Dorchester, may properly be quoted here, as an illustration of the customs of those times:“Salem, 1st 5th mo. 39.“Reverend and dearly beloved in the Lord,“We thought it our bounden duty to acquaint you with the names of such persons as have had the great censure passed upon them in this our church, with the reasons thereof, beseeching you in the Lord, not only to read their names in public to yours, but also to give us the like notice of any dealt with in like manner by you, that so we may walk towards them accordingly; for some of us, here, have had communion ignorantly with some of other churches. 2 Thess. iii. 14. We can do no less than have such noted as disobey the truth.“Roger Williamsand his wife,John Throgmortonand his wife,Thomas Olneyand his wife,Stukely Westcottand his wife,Mary Holliman, WidowReeves.“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.”

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 Williamsand his wife,John Throgmortonand his wife,Thomas Olneyand his wife,Stukely Westcottand his wife,Mary Holliman, WidowReeves.

“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.

“Yours in the Lord Jesus,

“HUGH PETERS,

“By the Church’s order, and in their name.

“For the Church of Christ in Dorchester.”

218. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 297. Mr. Savage remarks, in a note: “Those members of Boston church, who had been driven by intolerance to the new region, if they gathered a church at all, must do it in a disordered way, for they might well apprehend, that an application for dismission would be rejected, and perhaps punished by excommunication.”

219. Horace (Ep. lib. ii. Ep. i. 244) has a pungent sarcasm, ending thus:“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

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

“Bœotum in crasso jurares aera natum.”

220. John, i. 46.

221. Vol. ii. p. 8.

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

223. See Appendix D.

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

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

226. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 113. Winthrop, vol. ii. p. 59. Lechford, an author quoted by Mr. Savage, in a note, says: “There (Newport) lately they whipped Mr. Gorton, a grave man, for denying their power, and abusing some of their magistrates with uncivil terms, the Governor, Master Coddington, saying in Court, You that are for the King, lay hold on Gorton, and he, again, on the other side, called forth, All you that are for the King, lay hold on Coddington; whereupon Gorton was banished the island; so, with his wife, he went to Providence. They began about a small trespass of swine, but it is thought some other matter was ingredient.” Lechford’s tract, called Plain Dealing, or News from New-England, is published in the Mass. His. Col. 3d series, 3d vol. Lechford’s preface is dated January 17, 1641, after his return from America. He says that there were two hundred families on Rhode-Island. This must be a mistake.

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

228. In 3 Mass. His. Col. vol. i. p. 2. is their letter, signed by William Field, William Harris, William Carpenter, William Wickenden, William Reinolds, Thomas Harris, Thomas Hopkins, Hugh Bewitt, Joshua Winsor, Benedict Arnold, William Man, William W. Hunkinges, and Robert R. West. The letter was written by Benedict Arnold. Roger Williams, also, wrote a letter to the government of Massachusetts, in which he said, “Mr. Gorton, having foully abused high and low, at Aquetneck, is now bewitching and bemadding poor Providence.” General Court’s Vindication, May 30, 1665. It has been said, that Mr. Williams requested the government of Massachusetts to interfere; but we have seen no evidence of this, and it is in itself highly improbable. The utmost which we can suppose him to ask, in such a case, would be temporary aid in suppressing a tumult. We may be sure that he would oppose the usurpation of jurisdiction by Massachusetts. His letters show that he disapproved it.

229. Vol. ii. p. 59.

230. Winthrop introduces this account, by the remark, that “those of Providence, being all anabaptists, were divided in judgment; some were only against baptizing of infants, others denied all magistracy and churches, &c. of which Gorton, who had lately been whipped at Aquetneck, [Newport] was their instructer and captain.” This observation is worthy of notice, as it shows how loosely this fearful word anabaptist was applied, and as it discriminates between those who merely rejected the baptism of infants, and those who denied all magistracy and churches. It is certain, that all the inhabitants were not Baptists; and it is doubtful whether the allegation against Mr. Gorton, that he was opposed either to churches or magistracy, could be sustained. A letter from the Hon. Samuel Eddy, inserted in a note to Winthrop’s Journal, vol. ii. p. 58, after mentioning that Gorton was in office almost constantly, after the establishment of a government, says: “It would be a remarkable fact, that a man should be an enemy to magistracy, to religion, in short, a bad man, and yet constantly enjoy the confidence of his fellow townsmen, and receive from them the highest honors in their gift.”

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

232. Backus, vol. i. p. 120. These persons were Samuel Gorton, Randal Holden, Robert Potter, John Wickes, John Warner, Richard Waterman, William Woodale, John Greene, Francis Weston, Richard Carder, Nicholas Power, and Sampson Shatton.

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

234. Miantinomo was summoned to Boston, where he asserted his claim, but his arguments were not satisfactory to the Court. It was not convenient to admit his pretensions; and the Court were, we may suppose, scrupulous in examining his proofs.

235. “Gorton,” says Hutchinson, (vol. i. p. 117) “published an account of his sufferings. Mr. Winslow, the agent for Massachusetts, answered him. In 1665, he preferred his petition to the commissioners sent over by King Charles the Second, for recompense for the wrongs done him by Massachusetts, alleging, that besides his other sufferings, he and his friends had eighty head of cattle taken and sold. Massachusetts, in their answer, charge him with heretical tenets, both in religion and civil government, and with an unjust possession of the Indian lands in the vicinity of the colonies, for the sake of disturbing their peace; and add, that the goods which they seized did not amount to the charge of their prosecution; but they do not sufficiently vindicate their seizing their persons or goods, without the limits of their jurisdiction, and conclude with hoping that his Majesty will excuse any circumstantial error in their proceedings.” In the appendix of Hutchinson’s first volume, is a Defence by Gorton, dated Warwick, June 30, 1669, and addressed to Nathaniel Morton, in which the charges in the Memorial are discussed with an ability, which shows that Gorton could write, when he chose, clearly and forcibly.

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

237. A gentleman of Providence, William R. Staples, Esq. has been engaged, for some time, in preparing a revised edition of Gorton’s work, entitled “Simplicity’s Defence against Seven Headed Policy,” with extensive notes and appendices. This book, it is hoped, will soon be published, and will furnish the means of forming a correct opinion concerning Gorton, and the transactions in which he was a party and a sufferer.

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

239. Mr. Williams was absent, having sailed for England in June or July preceding. Had he been in the country, he would certainly have used his influence in favor of Miantinomo.

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

241. Gov. Hopkins’ History of Providence, 2 His. Col. ix. 202. See note to Winthrop, vol. ii. 133, where Mr. Savage says: “With profound regret, I am compelled to express a suspicion, that means of sufficient influence would easily have been found for the security of themselves, the pacifying of Uncas, and the preservation of Miantinomo, had he not encouraged the sale of Shawomet and Pawtuxet to Gorton and his heterodox associates.”

242. In his letter to Major Mason, Mr. Williams says: “Upon frequent exceptions against Providence men, that we had no authority for civil government, I went purposely to England, and, upon my report and petition, the Parliament granted us a charter of government for these parts, so judged vacant on all hands. And upon this, the country about was more friendly, and wrote to us, and treated us as an authorized colony, only the differences of our consciences much obstructed.”

243. Backus, vol. i. p. 148. Winthrop places Lady Moody’s removal from Salem after Mr. Williams’ mediation with the Long-Island Indians. He speaks respectfully of her characterbeforeher lapse into the heresy of denying infant baptism: “The Lady Moody, a wise andanciently religiouswoman, being taken with the error of denying baptism to infants, was dealt withal by many of the elders and others, and admonished by the church of Salem, (whereof she was a member) but persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, she removed to the Dutch, against the advice of all her friends. Many others, infected with anabaptism, removed thither also. She was after excommunicated.” Winthrop, vol. ii. pp. 123–4.

244. Key, p. 17.

245. Byron’s Giaour.

246. Holmes’ Annals, vol, i. p. 273.

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

248. The Westminster Assembly of Divines, who were then in session, might have learned from this book, if they had read it, lessons which they greatly needed.

249. Bloody Tenet, p. 64.

250. Massachusetts was the more disinclined to show favor to Mr. Williams and his colony, because the Baptists began to multiply. A Baptist church was formed about this time, in Newport, by Dr. John Clarke and a few others, and in Massachusetts itself the new doctrine spread. The General Court was aroused, therefore, to an effort to crush the growing sect; and no method seemed to promise more success, than to wield against it a legislative denunciation, edged by an appeal to the popular dread of anabaptism:“Immortale odium, et nunquam sanabile vulnus.”They accordingly passed the following act, in November, 1644:“Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about one hundred years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealth, and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been, and that they who have held the baptizing of infants unlawful, have usually held other errors or heresies therewith, though they have (as other heretics use to do) concealed the same till they spied out a fit advantage and opportunity to vent them, by way of question or scruple; and whereas divers of this kind have, since our coming into New-England, appeared amongst ourselves, some whereof (as others before them) denied the ordinance of magistracy, and the lawfulness of making war, and others the lawfulness of magistrates, and their inspection into any breach of the first table; which opinions, if they should be connived at by us, are like to be increased amongst us, and so must necessarily bring guilt upon us, infection and trouble to the churches, and hazard to the whole commonwealth; it is ordered and agreed, that, if any person or persons, within this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing of infants, or go about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof, or shall purposely depart the congregation at the ministration of the ordinance, or shall deny the ordinance of magistracy, or their lawful right and authority to make war, or to punish the outward breaches of the first table, and shall appear to the Court wilfully and obstinately to continue therein, after due time and means of conviction, every such person or persons shall besentenced to banishment.” Backus, vol. i. p. 150.

“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 besentenced to banishment.” Backus, vol. i. p. 150.

251. This incident is related by Richard Scott, in his letter, inserted at the close of the “New-England Firebrand Quenched.” Mr. Scott disliked Mr. Williams, and his comment on the transaction referred to is an instance of the effect of a man’s feelings on his judgment respecting the conduct of others. “The man,” he says, “being hemmed in, in the middle of the canoes, was so elevated and transported out of himself, that I was condemned in myself, that amongst the rest, I had been an instrument to set him up in his pride and folly.”

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

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

254. The following note, in Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 134, may be properly quoted here:“Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegans, was hated and envied by the Narragansets, for his attachment to the English, and the distinguishing favors shown him in return. In 1638, having entertained some of the Pequods, after the war with them, and fearing he had given offence, he came to the Governor at Boston, and brought a present, which was at first refused, but afterwards, the Governor being satisfied that he had no designs against the English, it was accepted, and he promised to submit to such orders as he should receive from the English, concerning the Pequods, and also concerning the Narragansets, and his behavior towards them, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘This heart (laying his hand upon his breast) is not mine, but yours. Command me any difficult service, and I will do it; I have no men, but they are all yours. I will never believe any Indian against the English any more.’ He was dismissed, with a present, went home joyful, carrying a letter of protection for himself and men through the English plantations, and never was engaged in hostilities against any of the colonies, although he survived Philip’s war, and died a very old man, after the year 1680.“The Narragansets failed in the payment of the wampum, and in 1646, messengers were sent to them from the commissioners, but Passacus, their chief sachem, not attending, in 1647 the message was repeated, and he then pretended sickness, and sent Ninigret, a sachem of the Nianticks, to act in his behalf, and told the messenger, that it was true he had not kept his covenant, but added, that he entered into it for fear of the army which he saw, and that he was told, that if he did not set his hand to such and such things, the army should go against the Narragansets. When Ninigret appeared, he asked how the Narragansets became indebted to the English in so large a sum, and being told that it was for the expense the Narragansets had put them to by their breach of covenant, he then pleaded poverty, but the commissioners insisting on the demand, he sent some of his people back to procure what he could, but brought two hundred fathoms only. They gave him leave to go home, and allowed him further time. The whole was not paid until 1650, when Capt. Atherton, with twenty men, was sent to demand the arrears, which was then about three hundred fathoms. Passacus put him off some time with dilatory answers, not suffering him to come into his presence. In the mean while his people were gathering together, but the Captain, carrying his twenty soldiers to the door of the wigwam, entered himself, with his pistol in his hand, leaving his men without, and seizing Passacus by the hair of his head, drew him from the midst of a great number of his attendants, threatening that if one of them offered to stir, he would despatch him. Passacus presently paid down what was demanded, and the English returned in safety. Ninigret, after this, began to stir up new troubles from the Nianticks, but upon sending Capt. Davis, with a troop of horse, into the Indian country, he was struck with a panic, and would not be seen by the English until he had assurance of his life, and then he readily complied with their demands, and they and the other Indians continued quiet many years, until by familiar intercourse, and the use of fire-arms, they became more emboldened, and engaged in the war in 1675, which issued in their total destruction.Records of United Colonies.”

254. The following note, in Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 134, may be properly quoted here:

“Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegans, was hated and envied by the Narragansets, for his attachment to the English, and the distinguishing favors shown him in return. In 1638, having entertained some of the Pequods, after the war with them, and fearing he had given offence, he came to the Governor at Boston, and brought a present, which was at first refused, but afterwards, the Governor being satisfied that he had no designs against the English, it was accepted, and he promised to submit to such orders as he should receive from the English, concerning the Pequods, and also concerning the Narragansets, and his behavior towards them, and concluded his speech with these words: ‘This heart (laying his hand upon his breast) is not mine, but yours. Command me any difficult service, and I will do it; I have no men, but they are all yours. I will never believe any Indian against the English any more.’ He was dismissed, with a present, went home joyful, carrying a letter of protection for himself and men through the English plantations, and never was engaged in hostilities against any of the colonies, although he survived Philip’s war, and died a very old man, after the year 1680.

“The Narragansets failed in the payment of the wampum, and in 1646, messengers were sent to them from the commissioners, but Passacus, their chief sachem, not attending, in 1647 the message was repeated, and he then pretended sickness, and sent Ninigret, a sachem of the Nianticks, to act in his behalf, and told the messenger, that it was true he had not kept his covenant, but added, that he entered into it for fear of the army which he saw, and that he was told, that if he did not set his hand to such and such things, the army should go against the Narragansets. When Ninigret appeared, he asked how the Narragansets became indebted to the English in so large a sum, and being told that it was for the expense the Narragansets had put them to by their breach of covenant, he then pleaded poverty, but the commissioners insisting on the demand, he sent some of his people back to procure what he could, but brought two hundred fathoms only. They gave him leave to go home, and allowed him further time. The whole was not paid until 1650, when Capt. Atherton, with twenty men, was sent to demand the arrears, which was then about three hundred fathoms. Passacus put him off some time with dilatory answers, not suffering him to come into his presence. In the mean while his people were gathering together, but the Captain, carrying his twenty soldiers to the door of the wigwam, entered himself, with his pistol in his hand, leaving his men without, and seizing Passacus by the hair of his head, drew him from the midst of a great number of his attendants, threatening that if one of them offered to stir, he would despatch him. Passacus presently paid down what was demanded, and the English returned in safety. Ninigret, after this, began to stir up new troubles from the Nianticks, but upon sending Capt. Davis, with a troop of horse, into the Indian country, he was struck with a panic, and would not be seen by the English until he had assurance of his life, and then he readily complied with their demands, and they and the other Indians continued quiet many years, until by familiar intercourse, and the use of fire-arms, they became more emboldened, and engaged in the war in 1675, which issued in their total destruction.Records of United Colonies.”

255. Allen says of him, in his Dictionary, “His fine genius was improved by a liberal education in the Universities of Cambridge and of Dublin, and by travel upon the continent. He arrived at Boston, in October, 1635, with authority to make a settlement in Connecticut, and the next month despatched a number of persons to build a fort at Saybrook. He was chosen Governor in 1657, and again in 1659, and from that period he was annually re-elected till his death. In 1661, he went to England, and procured a charter, incorporating Connecticut and New-Haven into one colony. He died at Boston, April 5, 1676, in the 71st year of his age. He possessed a rich variety of knowledge, and was particularly skilled in chemistry and physic. His valuable qualities as a gentleman, a christian, a philosopher, and a magistrate, secured to him universal respect.”

Back to Index Next