Note I.p. 389.

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.)”

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.”

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.”

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 contractedtoo 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.

1. .sp 1“Laudator temporis acti,Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4.

1. .sp 1

“Laudator temporis acti,Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4.

“Laudator temporis acti,

Se puero, castigator censorque minorum.”

Horace de Arte Poet. l. 173–4.

2. It is mortifying and painful, that truth compels us to except any persons among us from this remark.

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,earliestasserter 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.”

4. “Cœlum non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.”Ep. lib. i. 11.

4. “Cœlum non animum mutant, qui trans mare currunt.”

Ep. lib. i. 11.

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.

6. Baylies’ History of Plymouth, vol. i. p. 284. See Appendix to this work, (A.)

7. George Fox digged out of his Burrowes, written in 1673.

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.

9. Benedict, vol. i. p. 473–4.

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 ofDefender 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.

11. Elizabeth often said, that she hated the Puritans more than she did the Papists. Neal, vol. i. p. 319.

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, writevolo; those that will not subscribe, writenolo. 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.

13. Neal, vol. i. preface.

14. Neal, vol. i. preface.

15. Neal, vol. ii. p. 28.

16. Prince, p. 107.

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.

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.

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.

20. Holmes’ Am. Annals, vol. i. p. 146.

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.

22. Winthrop’s Journal, vol. i. p. 5.

23. Everett’s Address, p. 27.

24. Hutchinson, vol i. p. 24.

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.

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.

27. President Quincy’s His. Dis. Sept. 17, 1830, p. 19.

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.”

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.”

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.G.

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.”

31. Quincy’s Hist. Dis. 1830, p. 20.

32. Hutchinson, vol. i. Appendix, No. 1.

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.

34. Snow’s History of Boston, p. 30.

35. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 32.

36. Ibid, vol. i. p. 87.

37. Snow’s Hist. of Boston, p. 42.

38. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 30, note.

39. Extract from a letter of Mr. Cotton. Hutchinson, Appendix iii.

40. See Dr. Wisner’s valuable Historical Discourses, May 9 and 16, 1830.

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.

42. Magnalia, b. v. ch. 17.

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.

44. Winthrop, vol. i. p. 91.

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.

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.”

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.”

47. 1 His. Col. vi. p. 246.

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.

49. 1 His. Col. vi. pp. 24, 56.

50. Ibid.

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.”

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.

53. Memorial, p. 151.

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 ofgood-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, thatnamesare sometimesthings, and was unwilling that the termgood manshould 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.

If the preceding statement is true, it may be charitably viewed as an indication of the scrupulous conscientiousness of Mr. Williams, who thought, perhaps, thatnamesare sometimesthings, and was unwilling that the termgood manshould 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.

55. Weymouth.

56. Backus, vol. i. p. 56. Some writers insinuate, that he went back without an invitation.

57. Memorial, p. 151.

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.

59. The Rev. John Foster, in his essay on the epithet Romantic.

60. See Appendix B. for some remarks on the Anabaptists.

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.

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 hadrecentlyremoved, and this agrees with the supposition that he returned to Salem in August.

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.

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 notappliedto the honor of the King; and I regret, therefore, that Winthrop did not preserve them.”

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.”

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.”

67. Reply to Cotton on the Bloody Tenet, pp. 276, 277.

68. Magnalia, book i. c. v. § 5.

69. Travels, vol. i. p. 167.

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.”

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.”

71. Hutchinson, vol. i. p. 142.

72. Neal’s Hist. Puritans, vol. i. p. 184.

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.

74. His. Col. vi. p. 246.

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.

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 aChristianmight 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 beforcedto 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 theformality(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.”

77. Tenet Washed, pp. 28, 29.

78. Backus, vol. i, p. 62.

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!

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!

Back to Index Next