CHAP.I. The Sentiments and Character of the first Planters of this Country, with their Proceedings down to the Year 1634.

TO obtain clear and just ideas of the affairs of the Baptists in New-England, it seems necessary for us to look back to its first settlement, and carefully to examine what were the sentiments and character of the origi­nal planters. Those that began the first colony were called Separatists, because of their withdraw from the national church of England; and differ­ent parties have accused them with rigidness there­in; but ingenuous minds will not choose to be turned off with hard names, without knowing what is meant by them, therefore let us hear those fathers tell their [Page 2]own story. They separated from the national church near the beginning of th last century, and formed societies for worship by themselves; till, after suffering much from the ruling party in their native country, they left it, and sojourned about twelve years in Holland, and then removed to this land.

ABOUT the time of their steeing into Holland, Mr. Richard Bernard, an Episcopal minister in Notting­hamshire, out of which many of those fathers re­moved, published a book against them, which he called The Separatist's Schism. unto which Mr. John Robinson, the pastor of the church which afterward began the settlement of New-England, published an answer in 1610, intituled, A Justification of Se­paration from the Church of England. As I am fa­voured with this performance, containing 476 pages in quarto, I shall from thence give the reader his own words upon the most material points of their controversy, and the rather, because the writings of that eminent father of our country are very little known at this day among us.

MR. Bernard began his book with some things which he called Christian Counsels of Peace, to which Mr. Robinson answers, that, "As God is the God of peace, so are not they God's children which desire it not; yea, even in the midst of their contentions. But as all vices use to cloath them­selves with the habits of virtues, that under their li­veries they may get countenance, and find the more free passage in the world, so especially in the church all tyranny and confusion do present themselves un­der this colour, taking up the politic pretence of peace, as a weapon of mere advantage, wherewith the stronger and greater party useth to beat the weaker. The Papists press the Protestants with the [Page 3]peace fo the church, and for the rent they have made in it, condemn them beyond the heathenish soldiers, which forbore to divide Christ's garments; as deeply do the bishops charge the ministers refus­ing conformity and subscription ^*, and both of them us. But the godly wise must not be affrighted either from seeking or embracing the truth with such bugs as these are, but seeing the wisdom which is fom above, is first pure, then peaceable, he must make it a great part of his Christain wisdom to discern be­twixt godly and gracious peace, and that which is either pretended for advantage, or mistaken by er­ror, and so labour to hold peace in purity. Let it then be manifested unto us, that the communion which the church of England hath with all the wick­ed in the land, without separation, is a pure com­munion; that their service book, devised and pre­scribed in so many words and letters, to be read over and over with all the appurtenances, is a pure worship; that their government by national provin­cial and diocesan bishops, according to their canons, is a pure government, and then let us be blamed if we hold not peace with them in word and deed; otherwise, though they speak unto us never so oft, both by messengers and mouth of peace, and again of peace, as Jehoram did to Jehu, yet must we answer them in effect as Jehu did Jehoram, what peace, whilst the whoredoms of the mother of fornications, the Jezebel of Rome, do remain in so great number amongst them? And I doubt not but Mr. Bernard, and a thousand more ministers in the land (were they secure of the ma­gistrate's sword, and might they go on with good [Page 4]licence) would wholly shake off their canonical obe­dience to their ordinaries, and neglect their cita­tions and censures, and refuse to sue in their counts, for all the peace of the church which they com­mend to us for so sacred a thing. Could they but obtain licence from the magistrate to use the liber­ties which they are persuaded Christ hath given them, they would soon shake off the prelates yoke, and draw no longer under the same in spiritual communion with all the prophane in the land, but would break those bonds of iniquity, as easily as Sampson did the cords wherewith Dalilah tyed him, and give good reasons also from the word of God for their so doing." p. 13, 14.

WHOEVER reads and well observes the history of the Massachusetts colony, I believe, will find that those remarks were neither [...]thusiastical nor cen­sorious, but that they discover great knowledge, and a good judgment both in human and divine con­cernments. Mr. Robinson proceeds and says, "These things I thought good to commend to the reader, that he may be the more cautious of this and the like colourable pretences, wishing him also well to remember, that peace in disobedience is that old theme of the false prophets, whereby they flattered the mighty, and deceived the simple, Jer. vi. 14, and viii. 11.—In the church of England we do ac­knowledge many excellent truths of doctrine, which we also teach without commixture of error, many christian ordinances which we also practise being purged from the pollution of antichrist, and for the godly persons in it (could we possibly separate them with both arms; but being taught by the apostle, speaking but of one wicked person, and of one Jewish ordinance, that a little leaven leaveneth the [Page 5]whole lump, 1 Cor. v. 6, Gal. v. 2—9, we cannot be ignorant how sour the English assemblies must needs be: Neither may we justly be blamed though we dare not dip in their meal, lest we be soured by their leaven." p. 15, 16. And to Mr. B. who counsels that we should bear with lighter faults for a time, till fit occasion be offered to have them amended, he replies, "1. No sin is light in itself, but being continued in and countenanced, destroyeth the sin­ner, Matt. v. 19. 2. It is the property of a pro­phane and hardened heart evermore to extenuate and lessen sins. 3. Though the bearing and forbearing, not only of small but even of great sins also, must be for a time, yet it must be but for a time, and that is whilst reformation be orderly sought and procured, Lev. xix. 17. But what time hath wrought in the church of England, all men see growing daily, by the just judgment of God, from evil to worse, and being never aforetime so impatient either of reformation or other good as at this day. 4. A man must so bear evil, as he be no way accessory unto it, by forbearing any means appointed by Christ for the amending it." p. 16.

"I SEE not upon what occasion the author should shuffle into this controversy, which is merely eccle­siastical, such considerations as he doth concerning the frame and alteration of civil states, except he would either insinuate against us, that we went about to alter the civil state of the kingdom; or, at least, that the alteration of the state ecclesiastical, must needs draw with it the alteration of the civil state; with which note the prelates have a long time bleared the eyes of the magistrates, but how deceitfully, hath been sufficiently manifested, and offer made further to manifest the same by solemn disputation. And the truth is, that all states and [Page 6]policies which are of God, whether monarchical, aristocratical or democratical, or how mixed soever, are capable of Christ's government. Neither doth the nature of the state, but the corruption of the persons, hinder the same in one or other.—And where Mr. Bernard further adviseth, rather to offend many private persons than one lawful magistrate, I doubt not he gives no worse counsel than he himself follows, who (except I be much deceived in him) had rather offend half the private persons in the dio­cese, than one archbishop, though he be an unlaw­ful magistrate. But let us remember our care be not to offend the Lord, and if with the offence of a private person, though never so base, be joined the offence of the Lord, better offend all, both lawful and unlawful magistrates, in the world, than such a little one, Matt. xviii. 6." p. 17, 18.

ANOTHER piece of counsel given by Mr. B. is, Use the present good which thou mayest enjoy to the ut­most; and an experienced good, before thou dost trouble thyself to seek for a supposed better good, untried, which thou enjoyest not. To this Mr. R. says, "We may not stint or circumscribe either our knowledge, faith, or obedience, within straiter bounds than the whole revealed will of God, in the knowledge and obedience whereof we must daily increase and edify ourselves; much less must we suffer ourselves to be stripped of any liberty which Christ our lord hath purchased for us, and given us to use for our good, Gal. v. 1. And here, as I take it, comes in the case of many hundreds in the church of England, who what good they may enjoy (that is safely enjoy, or without any great bodily danger) that they use very fully. Where the ways of Christ lie open for them, by the authority of men, and where they may walk safely with good leave, there they walk [Page 7]very uprightly, and that a round pace; but when the commandments of Christ are as it were hedged up with thorns, by mens prohibitions, there they foully step aside, and pitch their tents by the flocks of his fellows, Cant. i. 6." p. 23. Again Mr. B. says, Never presume to reform others, before thou hast well ordered thyself. To which Mr. Robin­son answers, "True zeal it is certain ever begins at home, and gives more liberty unto other men than it dares assume unto itself; and there is nothing more true, and necessary to be considered, than that every man ought to order himself in his own steps first. That is good and the best, but not all; for if by God's commandment we ought to bring back our enemy's ox or ass that strayeth, how much more to bring into order our brother's soul and body, wan­dering in by-paths?" p. 24.

MR. Bernard went on to lay down a number of things, which he supposed would render it very unlikely that a separation from them could be right, before he came to the merits of the cause; as 1. The novelty thereof differing from all the best reformed churches in Christendom. To which Mr. Robinson replies, "It is no novelty to hear men plead custom, when they want truth. So the heathen philosopher reproached Paul as a bringer of new doctrine, Act. xvii. 19. So do the Papists discountenance the doc­trine and profession of the church of England; yea even at this day, very many of the people in the land call Popery the old law, and the profession there made the new law. But for our parts, as we believe, by the word of God, that the things we teach are not new, but old truths renewed; so are we no less persuaded, that the church constitution, in which we are set, is cast in the apostolical and primitive mould, and not one day nor hour younger, [Page 8]in the nature and form of it, than the first church of the new testament." p. 40. 2. For that it agree­eth so much with the ancient Schismatics, condemned in former ages by holy and learned men. Answer, "Can our way both be a novelty, and yet agree so well with ancient Schismatics? Contraries cannot be both true, but may both be false, as these are." p. 42. Mr. Robinson tells us, that another article which Mr. B. alledged against them is, That we have not the approbation of any of the reformed churches for our course. Answer, "This is the same in substance with the first, and that which followeth in the next place the same with them both; and Mr. B. by so ordinarily pressing us with human testimonies, shews himself to be very barren of divine authority. Nature teacheth every creature, in all danger, to fly first and oftenest to the chief instruments either of offence or defence, wherein it trusteth, as the bull to his horn, the boar to his tusk, and the bird unto her wing; right so this man shews wherein his strength lies, and wherein he trusts most, by so fre­quent and usual shaking the horn, and whetting the tusk, of mortal man's authority against us. But for the reformed churches the truth is, they neither do imagine, nor will easily be brought to believe, that the frame of the church of England stands as it doth. The approbation which they give, is in re­spect of such general truths of doctrine, as wherein we also, for the most part, acknowledge you; which notwithstanding you deny in a great measure in the particulars and practice. But touching the ga­thering and governing of the church, which are the main heads controverted betwixt you and us; they give you not so much as the left hand of fellowship, but do, on the contrary, turn [Page 9]their backs upon you." p. 46, 47 ^*. Thus much of the learned abroad; in the next place Mr. Ber­nard draws us to the learned at home, from whose dislike of us he takes his fifth likelihood, which he thus frameth: The condemnation of this way by our divines, both living and dead, against whom, either for godliness of life or truth of doctrine, otherwise than for being their opposites, they can take no exception." To which Mr. Robinson answers, "No marvel: We may not admit of parties for judges: How is it possible we should be approved of them in the things wherein we witness against them? And if this argument be good and likely, then is it likely that neither the Reformists have the truth in the church of England, nor the prelates; for there are many of those both godly and learned, which in [Page 10]their differences do oppose, and that very vehe­mently, the one the other. Now, as for my own part, I do willingly acknowledge the learning and godliness of most of the persons named by Mr. B. and honor the memory of some of them; so neither do I think them so learned, but they might err, nor so godly, but in their error they might re­proach the truth they saw not. I do confess to the glory of God, and mine own shame, that a long time before I entered this way, I took some taste of the truth in it by some treatises published in justification of it, which were sweet as honey unto my mouth; and the principal thing which for the time quenched all further appetite in me, was the over-valuation which I made of the learning and holiness of these and the like persons, blushing in myself to have a thought of pressing one hair­breadth before them in this thing, behind whom I knew myself to come so many miles in all other things; yea and even of late times, when I had entered into a more serious consideration of these things, and, according to the measure of grace re­ceived, searched the scriptures, whether they were so or no, and by searching found much light and truth, yet was the same so dimmed and overcloud­ed with the contradictions of these men, and others of the like note, that had not the truth been in my heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, Jer. xx. 9, I had never broken those bonds of flesh and blood, but had suffered the light of God to have been put out in my unthankful heart, by other mens darkness.

"EVERY man stands bound to give this re­verence to the graces of God in other men, that in his differences with them he be not suddenly nor easily persuaded, but that being jealous of his own [Page 11]heart, he undertake the examination of things, and so proceed with fear and trembling, and having tried all things, keep that which is good, 1 Thes. v. 21; so shall he neither wrong the graces of God in himself, nor in others. But on the other side, for a man so far to suffer his thoughts to be con­jured into the circle of any man or mens judgment, as either to fear to try what is offered to the contra­ry, in the balance of the sanctuary, or finding it to bear weight, to fear to give sentence on the Lord's side, yea though it be against the mighty, this is to honor men above God, and to advance a throne above the throne of Christ, who is Lord and King for ever. And to speak that in this case, which by doleful experience I myself have found, many of the most forward professors in the kingdom are well nigh as superstitiously addicted to the deter­minations of their guides and teachers, as the ig­norant Papists unto theirs; accounting it not only needless curiosity, but even intolerable arrogancy, to call in question the things received from them by tradition. But how much better were it for all men to lay aside these and the like prejudices, that so they might understand the things which concern their peace, and seeing with their own eyes, might live by their own faith?

"AND for these famous men named by Mr. B. (with whose oppositions, as with Zedekiah's horns of iron, he would push us here and every where) as we bear their reproofs with patience, and acknow­ledge their worth without envy or detraction, so do we know they were but men, and through hu­man frailty might be abused as well, or rather as ill, to support antichrist in a measure, as others before them have been, though godly and learned as they. It will not be denied but the fathers, as they are [Page 12]called, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Jerom, Austin, and the rest, were both godly and learned, yet no man, if he have but even saluted them, can be ignorant what way, though unwittingly, they made for the advancement of an­tichrist which followed after them, and if they, not­withstanding their learning and godliness, thus ushered him into the world, why might not others, and that more likely, though learned and godly as the former, help to bear up his train? Especially considering that as his rising was not, so neither could his fall be perfected at once. And for us, what do we more or otherwise, for the most part, than walk in those ways into which divers of the persons by Mr. B. named have directed us by the word of God, in manifesting unto us by the light thereof what the ministry, government, wor­ship, and fellowship of the gospel ought to be ^*? We then being taught, and believing that the word [Page 13]of God is a light and lanthorn, not only to our eyes, but to our feet and paths, as the Psalmist speaketh, Psal. cxix. 105, cannot possibly con­ceive how we should justly be blamed by these men for observing the ordinances which themselves not only acknowledged, but contended for, as appoint­ed by Christ to be kept inviolable till his appear­ing, as some of them have expresly testified.

"To conclude, let not the christian reader cast our persons, and the persons of our opposites, whe­ther these or others, in the balance together; but rather our cause and reasons, with their oppositions and the grounds of them, and so with steady hand, and impartial eye, poize cause with cause, that so the truth of God may not be prejudiced by mens persons, nor held in respect of them." p. 48—58.

BY these free and plain declarations the reader may be able to judge, whether the reproach of rigidness properly belongs to Mr. Robinson, or to his accusers and persecutors; yet because he would not stay in the church of England, when he was convinced of its being wrong so to do, Mr. Bernard accuses him and his brethren of either denying their conversion there, or else of accounting it a false one. To which Mr. R. answers, "For our personal con­version in the church of England, we deny it not, but do, and always have done, judge and profess it true there; and so was Luther's conversion true in the church of Rome, else could not his separation [Page 14]from Rome have been of faith, or accepted of God." p. 69.

AND now for particular sentiments about church affairs; Mr. Robinson's opponent had said, The word is the constitution of the church. To which he replies, "His meaning is or should be, that the word is the ordinary means for collecting and con­stituting the church of God. I grant it: But how considered? Not the word in mens bibles alone, for then all the heretics in the world were true churches; nor yet the word preached simply, for Paul preached the word to the scoffing Athenians, and to the blasphemous Jews, yet I think he will not say that either the one or the other were churches truly constituted. How then? The word published, understood, believed and obeyed, out­wardly at the least, as the spiritual sword or axe, hewing the stones in the rock, and the trees in the forest, and preparing them to be Lord's spiritual house. And thus much the very places produced by Mr. B. do evidently declare.

"MATT. xxviii. 19, which is the first place, shews, that such as by preaching of the word were made disciples, for so much the word importeth, were to be gathered into the church and baptized. Mark xvi. 15, shews the same, especially if you add verse 16, infering that men by preaching must believe, and so believe, as they have the promise of salvation. 2 Cor. v. 19, and xi. 2, prove that the word of reconciliation and ministry of the gospel, believed and obeyed to the forgiveness of sins, and to the preparation and sanctification of the church of Christ, is the means of gathering and building up the same. Acts ii. 14, 37, 38, 41, and xvi. 32—34, are of the same nature, and do prove that sundry of the Jews at Jerusalem, by Peter's preaching, and that the [Page 15]gaoler's houshold at Philippi, by Paul's preaching, were brought to repentance, and faith in Christ, and so added to the church; but what will be the conclusion of all these premises? the proposition is this: " The true apostolic churches having a true constitution, were gathered and constituted of such men and women as by the preaching of the gospel were made disciples, had faith and repentance wrought in them, to the obtaining of the forgiveness of sins, and promise of life eternal, and to sanctifica­tion and obedience." p. 89, 90.

OF baptism Mr. Robinson says, "The proper ends and uses of baptism are to initiate the parties baptized into the church of Christ, and to conse­crate them to his service, and so to serve for badges of christianity, by which it is distinguished from all other professions, Matt. xxviii. 19, 1 Cor. xii. 13." p. 26. "The sacrament of baptism is to be ad­ministered by Christ's appointment, and the apostles example, only to such as are, externally, and so far as men can judge, taught and made disciples; do receive the word gladly, Acts ii. 41; believe and so profess, Acts viii. have received the holy ghost, Acts x. 47, and to their seed, Acts ii. 39, 1 Cor. vii. 14." p. 92. "Baptism administered to any others is so far from investing them with any saintship in that estate, that it makes guilty both the giver and receiver of sacrilege, and is the taking of God's name in vain." p. 110.

OF the Lord's supper he says, "The apostle teach­eth, 1 Cor. x. 16, that the bread and wine in the supper are the communion of the body and blood of Christ, that is, effectual pledges of our conjunction and incorporation with Christ, and one with ano­ther: And in ver. 17, that all which eat of one bread or one loaf, are one mystical body. This place [Page 16]alone, if Mr. B. and his fellow ministers would seriously consider, and set themselves faithfully to observe, they would rather offer their own bodies to be torn in pieces by wild beasts, than the holy mysteries of Christ's body to be prophaned as they are." p. 92.

OF the keys, Matt. xvi. 18, 19, he says, "It is granted by all sides that Christ gave unto Peter the keys of the kingdom, that is, the power to remit and retain sins declaratively, as they speak, as also that in what respect this power was given to Peter, in the same respect it was, and is, given to such as succeed Peter; but the question is, in what respect or consideration this power spoken of was delegated to him? The Papist affirms it was given to Peter as the prince of the apostles, and so to the Bishops of Rome, as Peter's successors, and thus they stablish the Pope's primacy. The prelates say nay, but unto Peter an apostle, that is, a chief officer of the church, and so to us, as chief officers succeeding him. Others affirm it to belong to Peter here as a minister of the word and sacraments, and the like, and so consequently to all other ministers of the gospel equally, which succeed Peter in those and the like administrations. But we, for our parts, do believe and profess that this promise is not made to Peter in any of these respects, nor to any office, order, estate, dignity or degree in the church or world, but to the confession of faith, which Peter made by way of answer to Christ's question; Thou art Christ, the son of the living God. To this Christ replies, Blessed art thou; thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; I will give unto thee the keys, &c. So that the building of the church is upon the rock of Peter's confession, that is, Christ whom he confessed. This faith is the foundation [Page 17]of the church; against this faith the gates of hell shall not prevail; this faith hath the keys of the kingdom of heaven; what this [...]aith shall loose or bind on earth, is bound and loosed in heaven. Thus the Protestant divines, when they deal against the Pope's supremacy, do generally expound this scrip­ture. Now it followeth, that whatsoever person hath received the same precious faith with Peter, as all the faithful have, 2 Pet. i. 1, that person hath a part in this gift of Christ. Whosoever doth confess, publish, manifest or make known Jesus to be the Christ, the son of the living God, and Saviour of the world, that person opens heaven's gates, looseth sin, and partakes with Peter in the use of the keys; and hereupon it followeth necessarily, that one faith­ful man, yea, or woman either, may as truly and effectually loose and bind, both in heaven and earth, as all the ministers in the world." p. 149, 150.

"BUT here I know the lordly clergy, like the bulls of Bashan, will roar loud upon me, as speaking things intolerably derogatory to the dignity of priest­hood; and it may be some others also, either through ignorance or superstition, will take offence at this speech, as confounding all things; but there is no such cause of exception. For howsoever the keys be one and the same in nature and efficacy, in what faithful man or mens hands soever, as not depending either upon the number or excellency of any persons, but up­on Christ alone; yet is it ever to be remembered, that the order and manner of using them is very different.

"THE keys in do [...] [...]e may be turned as well upon them which are without the church, as upon them which are within, and their sins either loosed or bound, Matt. xxviii. 19; but in discipline not so, but only upon them which are within, 1 Cor. v. 12, 13. Again, the apostles by their office had [Page 18]these keys to use in all churches, yea, in all nations upon earth: Ordinary elders for their particular flocks, Act. xiv. 23, and xx. 28. Lastly, there is an use of the keys publicly to be had, and an use pri­vately; an use of them by one person severally, and an use of them by the whole church jointly, and together; an use of them ministerially, or in office, and an use of them out of office: But the power of the gospel, which is the keys, is still one and the same, notwithstanding the diverse manner of using it." p. 151.

"IF the keys of the kingdom of heaven be ap­propriated unto the officers, then can there be no for­giveness of sins, nor salvation, without officers; for there is no entrance into heaven but by the door. Without the key the door cannot be opened: So then belike, if either there be no officers in the church (as it may easily come to pass in some extreme plague or persecution) and must needs be in the churches of Christ in our days, either in their first planting, or first calling out of Babylon; for Antichrist's mass-priesthood is not essentially Christ's true ministry, or if the officers take away the key of knowledge, as the Scribes and Pharisees did, and will neither enter themselves nor suffer them that would; then must the miserable multitude be content to be shut out and perish eternally, for ought is known to the contrary. To admonish the officers of their sin, were against common sense, that the father should be subject to his children, the work domineer over the workman, the seedsman be ordered by the corn, and to excommunicate and call new, were intolerable usurpation of the keys; this power is given to the chief officers only, p. 94, 95, and to separate from them is as intole­rable, p. 88 ^*. Miserable were the Lord's people, [Page 19]if these things were so; but the truth is, they are miserable guides that so teach.

"THEY which may forgive sins and sinners, save souls, gain and turn men unto the Lord, to them are the keys of the kingdom given, by which they open the door unto such as they thus forgive, gain and save: But all these things, such as are not ministers may do, as these scriptures, which I intreat the godly reader to consider, do most clearly ma­nifest, Matt. xviii. 15.2 Cor. v. 7—10. Act. viii. 1, 4. with xi. 19—21. Jam. v. 19, 20.1 Pet. iii. 1. Jude xxii. 23. Erroneous, therefore, and derogatory is it to the nature of the gospel, and free donation of Christ, thus to impropriate and engross the keys, which lie common to all christians in their place and order." p. 152, 153.

CONCERNING ordination Mr. Robinson observes, "That the officers of the church are the servants of the church; and their office a serice of the Lord, and of his church, Matt. x 25, 26, 27.2 Cor. iv. 5. Rom. xv. 31. Whereupon it followeth necessarily, that what power the officers have, the body of the church hath first." p. 411. "To these things I add, that what power any of the Pope's clergy re­ceive from him, the same he takes from them, and deprives them of, where they withdraw their obe­dience, or separate from that church. For our better proceeding, I will first consider what ordina­tion is; and secondly how far the brethren may go by the scriptures, and the necessary consequences drawn from them, in this and the like cases, in the first planting of churches, or in reducing of them into order, in or after some general confusion. The prelates, and those which level by their line, highly advance ordination far above the administration of the word, sacrament and prayer; making it, and [Page 20]the power of excommunication, the two incommu­nicable prerogatives of a Bishop above an ordinary minister. But surely herein these chief ministers do not succeed the chief ministers, the apostles, except as darkness succeeds light, and Antichrist's confusion Christ's order. Where the apostles were sent out by Christ, there was no mention of ordina­tion; their charge was, go teach all nations, and bap­tize them; and that the apostles accounted preach­ing their principal work, and after it baptism and prayer, the scriptures manifest, Act. vi. 4, 1 Cor. 1.17." p. 412.

"ORDINATION doth depend upon the people's lawful election, as an effect upon the cause, by virtue of which it is justly administred, and may be thus described, or considered of us; as the admission of or putting into possession a person lawfully elected into a true office of ministry.—The right unto their office they have by election, the possession by ordi­nation, with the ceremony of imposition of hands, The apostle Peter, advertising the disciples or bre­thren that one (fitted as there noted) was in the room of Judas to be made a witness, with the eleven apostles, of the resurrection of Christ, when two were by them presented, did with the rest present them two and none other to the Lord, that he, by the immediate direction of the lot, might shew whether of them two he had chosen, Act. i.—In like man­ner the twelve being to institute the office of dea­conry in the church at Jerusalem, called the multi­tude of the disciples together, and informed them what manner of persons they were to choose; which choice being made by the brethren accordingly, and they so chosen presented to the apostles, they forth­with ordained them, by virtue of the election made by the brethren. To these add, that the apostles, [Page 21]Paul and Barnabas (being thereunto called by the holy ghost) did pass from church to church, and from place to place, and in every church where they came did ordain them elders by the people's election, signified by their lifting up of hands, as the word is, and as the use was in popular elections, throughout those countries, Act. xiii. 2, and xiv. 23.—The judgment and plea (when they deal with us) of the most forward men in the land, in this case, I may not omit; which is, that they renounce and disclaim their ordination by the prelates, and hold their ministry by the people's acceptation. Now if the acceptation of a mixt company, under the prelates government (as is the best parish assem­bly in the kingdom) whereof the greatest part have by the revealed will of God no right to the cove­nant, ministry, or other holy things, be sufficient to make a minister, then much more the acceptation of the people with us, being all of them jointly, and every one of them severally, by the mercy of God, capable of the Lord's ordinances ^*. I acknow­ledge [Page 22]that where there are already lawful officers in a church, by and to which others are called, there the former, upon that election, are to ordain and appoint the latter. The officers, being the mi­nisters of the church, are to execute the determina­tions of the church under the Lord—Ordination is properly the execution of election." p. 413—15.

"THE apostle Paul writes to the churches of Galatia to reject, as accursed, such ministers whomso­ever as should preach otherwise than they had al­ready received: And the same apostle writes to the church of Colosse, to admonish Archippus to take heed to his ministry. So John also, to the church of Ephesus, commendeth it for examining, and so con­sequently for silencing, such as pretended themselves apostles, and were not: As also to the church of Thi­atyra, reproving for suffering unsilenced the false prophetess Jezebel. Now as these things did first and principally concern the officers, who were in these and all other things of the same nature to go before and govern the people; so are the people al­so in their places interested in the same business and charge: Neither could the officers sin (if they should have been corrupt or negligent) discharge the [Page 23]people of their duty in the things which concerned them; but they were bound notwithstanding to see the commandments of the apostles, and of the Lord Jesus by them, executed accordingly. And if the people be in cases, and when their officers fail, thus solemnly to examine, admonish, silence, and suppress their teachers, being faulty and un­sound; then are they also by proportion, where officers fail, to elect, appoint, set up and over them­selves such fit persons as the Lord affordeth them, for their furtherance of faith and salvation." p. 417, 418.

AGAINST this doctrine many objections have been raised; the chief of which are about the peo­ple's instability, and its tendency to confusion. In answer to which, Mr. Robinson reminds his oppo­nant, that though his ignorant people had readily changed their religion with their Prince, even back to Popery in Mary's days; yet, "The prelates and priests were as unstable as the rest, yea their ringleaders. But, says he, for experience in this our popularity, as you term it, I tell you, that if ever I saw the beauty of Sion, and the glory of the Lord filling his tabernacle, it hath been in the ma­nifestation of the divers graces of God in the church, in that heavenly harmony, and comely order, where­in by the grace of God we are set and walk; where­in, if your eyes had but seen the brethren's sober and modest carriage one towards another, their humble and willing submission unto their guides in the Lord, their tender compassion towards the weak, their fervent zeal against scandalous offenders, and their long-suffering towards all, you would, I am persuaded, change your mind, and be compelled to take up your parable, and bless where you pur­posed to curse." p. 212. "For mine own part, knowing mine own infirmities, and that I am subject [Page 24]to sin, yea and to frowardness in sin, as much as the brethren are; if by mine office I should be deprived of the remedy which they enjoy, that blessed ordi­nance of the churches censures, I should think mine office accursed, and myself by it, as frustrating and disappointing me of that main end for which the servants of Christ ought to join themselves unto the church of Christ, furnished with his power for their reformation. As, on the contrary, God is my record, how, in the very writing of these things, my soul is filled with spiritual joy, that I am under this easy yoke of Christ, the censures of the church, and how much I am comforted in this consideration, against my vile and corrupt nature, which, notwithstanding, I am persuaded the Lord will never so far suffer to rebel, as that it shall not be tamed and subdued by this strong hand of God, without which it might every day and hour so hazard my salvation. That doctrine which advanceth an inferior and meaner state in the church, above that which is superior and the chief, that is unsound, and indeed serving in a degree for the exaltation of that man of sin above all that is called God. But the doctrine of setting the elders without and above the judgments and censures of the church, doth advance an inferior above a superior. The point I thus manifest:

"THE order of kings is the highest order or estate in the church. But the order of saints is the order of kings, and we are kings as we are saints, not as we are officers. As the Lord Jesus did prove against the Scribes and Pharisees, that the temple was greater than the gold, because it sanctified the gold, and that the altar was greater than the offer­ing, because it sanctified the offering, so by propor­tion the condition of a saint, which sanctifieth the condition of an officer, is more excellent than it is, [Page 25]To our saintship, and as we have faith, is promised the forgiveness of sins, the favour of God, and life eternal, but not to our office, or in respect of it. The estate of a saint is most happy and blessed, though the person never so much as come near an office; but on the contrary, an officer, if he be not also and FIRST a saint, is a most wretched and ac­cursed creature." p. 216, 217.

THE reader will not wonder that those who were for national churches; and unconverted ministers, discovered a strong prejudice against such writings as these; but how well do they agree with the apostles doctrine? 1 Cor. xii. 31, and xiii. 1—3, Gal. i.

OF REFORMATION, Mr. Robinson says to his op­ponent, "You speak much of the reformation of your church after Popery. There was indeed a great reformation of things in your church; but very little o [...] the church, to speak truly and properly. The people are the church; and to make a reform­ed church, there must be first a reformed people; and so they should have been with you, by the preach­ing of repentance from dead works, and faith in Christ; that the people, as the Lord should have vouchsafed grace, being first fitted for, and made capable of, the sacraments, and other ordinances, might after­wards have communicated in the pure use of them; for want of which, instead of a pure use, there hath been, and is at this day, a most prophane abuse of them, to the great dishonor of Christ and his gospel, and to the hardening of thousands in their impeni­tency. Others also endeavouring yet a further re­formation, have sued and do sue to Kings, and Queens, and Parliaments, for the rooting out of the prelacy, and with it, of such other evil fruits as grow from that bitter root; and on the contrary, to [Page 26]have the ministry, government and discipline of Christ set over the parishes as they stand; the first fruit of which reformation, if it were obtained, would be the prophanation of the more of God's ordinances upon such, as to whom they appertained not; and so the further provocation of his Majesty unto anger against all such as so practised, or con­sented thereunto. Is it not strange that men, in the reforming of a church, should almost, or altogether, forget the church, which is the people, or that they should labour to crown Christ a King over a peo­ple, whose prophet he hath not first been? Or to set him to rule by his laws and officers, over the professed subjects of Antichrist and the devil! Is it possible that ever they should submit to the disci­pline of Christ, which have not first been prepared, in some measure, by his holy doctrine, and taught with meekness to stoop unto his yoke?" p. 300, 301.

A MAIN plea for such confusion, both then and now, was and is drawn from the parable of the tares: But, says Mr. Robinson, "Since the Lord Jesus, who best knew his own meaning, calls the field the world, and makes the harvest, which is the end of the field, the end of the world, and not of the church, why should we admit of any other interpre­tation? Neither is it like that Christ would in the expounding of one parable speak another, as he should have done, if, in calling the field the world, he had meant the church. As God then in the beginning made man good, and placed him in the field of the world, there to grow, where by the envy of the serpent he was soon corrupted, so ever since hath the seed of the serpent, stirred up by their father the devil, snarled at the heal of the woman's seed, and like noisome tares vexed and pestered [Page 27]the good and holy seed; which though the children of God both see and feel to their pain, yet must they not therefore, forgetting what spirit they are of, presently call for fire from heaven, nor prevent the Lord's hand, but wait his leisure, either for the converting of these tares into wheat, which in many is daily seen, and then how great pity had it been they should so untimely have been plucked up? Or for their final perdition in the day of the Lord, when the church shall be no more offended by them. And that the Lord Jesus no way speaks of the toleration of prophane persons in the church, doth appear by these reasons:

• 1. BECAUSE he doth not contradict himself, by forbidding the use of the keys in one place, which in another he hath turned upon impenitent offenders, Matt. xviii.
• 2. In the excommunication of sinners apparently obstinate, with due circumspection, and in the spirit of wisdom, meekness, and long-suffer­ing, with such other general christian virtues, as with which all our special sacrifices ought to be sea­soned, what danger can there be of any such disor­der, as the plucking up of the wheat with the tares, which the husbandman feareth?
• 3. The Lord Jesus speaks of the utter ruinating and destruction of the tares— the plucking them up by the roots:—But ex­communication rightly administred is not for the ruin and destruction of any, but for the salvation of the party thereby humbled, 1 Cor. v. 5.—The Lord's field is sown only with good seed—his church saints beloved of God, all and every one of them, though by the malice of Satan, and negligence of such as should keep this field, vineyard and house of God, adulterated seed, and abominable persons, may be foisted in, yea and suffered also." p. 119, 120. "I deny not but, as it hath been said of old, [Page 28]there are many sheep without, and many wolves with­in; many of the visible church which are not of the invisible church, and many of the invisible church which never come into the visible church: But this, say I, is not according to the revealed will of God in his word; but by men's default and sin. It is their sin of ignorance, or infirmity, which, being of the invisible church, do not, if possibly they can, join themselves unto the visible church, there to partake in the visible ordinances. It is their sin of hypocrisy and presumption, which not being of the invisible church, do adjoin themselves to the visible church, there to prophane the Lord's covenant and ordinances, to which they have no right. For how can they, being wicked and unholy, challenge the Lord to be their God, that is, all happiness and goodness unto them, which is one part of the cove­nant; or profess themselves to be his people, which is another part, when the devil and their lusts is their God?" p. 313, 314.

Of the Difference between Civil and Ecclesiastical Go­vernment.

"1. CIVIL officers are called in the word of God princes, beads, captains, judges, magistrates, nobles, lords, kings, them in authority, principalities and powers, yea in their respect Gods; and according to their names so are their offices: But on the contrary, ecclesiastical officers are not capable of these, or the like titles, which can neither be given without flattery unto them, nor received by them without arrogancy: Neither is their office an office of lord­ship, sovereignty or authority, but of labour and service, and so they, the labourers and servants of the church, as of God, 2 Cor. iv. 5, 1 Tim. iii. 1.

"2. MAGISTRATES may publish and execute their own laws in their own names, Ezra i. 1, &c. [Page 29]Esther viii. 8, Matt. xx. 25. But ministers are only interpreters of the laws of God, and must look for no further respect at the hands of any to the things they speak, than as they manifest the same to be the commandments of the Lord, 1 Cor. xiv. 37.

"3. CIVIL administrations, and their forms of government, may be and oft times are altered, for the avoiding of inconveniences, according to the circumstances of time, place and persons, Exod. xviii. 13, &c. But the church is a kingdom which cannot be shaken, Heb. xii. 28, wherein may be no innovation in office, or form of administration, from that which Christ hath left, for any inconveniency whatsoever.

"4. CIVIL magistrates have authority by their offices to judge offenders, upon whom also they may execute bodily vengeance, using their people as their servants and ministers for the same purpose; but in the church the officers are the ministers of the people, whose service the people is to use for the administring of the judgments of the church, and of God first, against the obstinate, which is the utmost execution the church can perform.—But here it will be demanded of me, if the elders be not set over the church for her guidance and government? Yes certainly, as the physician is set over the body, for his skill and faithfulness, to minister unto it, to whom the patient, though his lord and master, is to submit; the lawyer over his cause, to attend unto it; the steward over his family, even his wife and children, to make provision for them: Yea, the watchman over the whole city, for the safe keeping thereof. Such, and none other, is the elder's or Bishop's government" p. 135—137.

BUT, says Mr. Robinson, "What sway authority hath in the [...]rch of England, appeareth in the [Page 30]laws of the land, which make the government of the church ALTERABLE at the magistrate's pleasure; and so the clergy, in their submission to King Henry VIII. do derive, as they pretend, their ecclesiastical jurisdiction from him, and so execute it. Indeed many of the late Bishops and their proctors, seeing how monstrous the ministration is of DIVINE things, by an human authority and calling; and growing bold upon the present disposition of the magistrate, have disclaimed that former title, and do professedly hold their ecclesiastical power and jurisdiction de jure divino, and so consequently by God's word unalterable: Of whom I would demand this one question:

"WHAT if the King should discharge and expel the present ecclesiastical government, and plant in­stead of it the presbytery or eldership, would they submit unto the government of the elders, yea or no? If yea, then were they traitors to the Lord Jesus, submitting to a government overthrowing his go­vernment, as doth the Presbyterian government that which is Episcopal: If no, then how could they free themselves from such imputations of disloyalty to Princes, and disturbance of states, as wherewith they load us and others opposing them? But to the question itself: "As the kingdom of Christ is not of [...]is world, but spiritual, and he a spiritual King, John xviii. 36, so must the government of this spiritual kingdom under this spiritual King needs [...] spiritual, and all the laws of it. And as Christ Jesus hath, by the merits of his priesthood, redeemed as well the body as the soul, 1 Cor. vi. 20; so is he also by the sceptre of his kingdom to rule and reign over both: Unto which christian magi­strates, as well as meaner persons, ought to submit themselves, and the more christian they are, the [Page 31]more meekly to take the yoke of Christ upon them, and the greater authority they have, the more effec­tually to advance his sceptre over themselves and their people, by all good means. Neither can there be any reason given why the merits of saints may not as well be mingled with the merits of Christ, for the saving of the church, as the laws of men with his laws, for the ruling and guiding of it. He is as absolute and entire a King as he is a priest, and his people must be as careful to preserve the dignity of the one, as to enjoy the benefit of the other." p. 38.

Of Ministers Maintenance.

MR. Bernard charged his opponents with error, in holding that ministers ought not to live of tithes, but of the people's voluntary contribution; and says, This is against the wisdom of God, who allowed a set­tled maintenance under the law; and there is nothing against it in the gospel. But in reply Mr. Robinson says, "As the Lord appointed under the law a set­tled maintenance by tithes and offerings, so did he a settled land of Canaan, which was holy, and a sacrament; so did he also appoint that the Levites be maintained there, should have no part nor inherit­ance with the rest of the Israelites their brethren. And hath God's wisdom so appointed now? If it had, I fear many would not rest in it, so wise are they for their bellies. And where you add, that there is nothing in the gospel against this ordinance in the law, the author to the Hebrews might have taught you, that the law is abolished by the gospel, in the sense we speak of; and the old testament by the new, in respect of ordinances, whereof this was one. If it be said that tithes were in use and given by Abraham to Melchizedech, priest of the most high God, before the law or old testament was given [Page 32]by Mosed, I answer, that so was circumcision ministred and sacrifices offered before Moses; which notwith­standing were parts of the old testament, and assumed by Moses into the body of it, and so are abolished by the new. To conclude this point, since tithes and offerings were appurtenances unto the priesthood, and that the priesthood, both of Melchizedech and Levi, are abolished in Christ, as the shadow in the substance; and that the Lord hath ordained that they which preach the gospel, should live of the gospel; we willingly leave unto you both you priestly or­der and maintenance, contenting ourselves with the people's voluntary contribution, whether it be less or more, as the blessing of God upon our labour, the fruit of our ministry, and declaration of their love and duty." p. 439, 440.

IN all these passages which begin and end with marks of quotation, I have recited Mr. Rohinson's own expression, without knowingly adding a single word. The spelling I have brought to the present times, but the language is entirely his; and it may be questioned whether any talked a purer one in that day or not, if there does in this. About the time of his publishing this book, and some following years, ‘many came to his church at Leyden from “divers parts of England, so that they grew a great congregation; even so as to have three hun­dred ”communicants ^*.’ And as the Arminian controversy caused great troubles in Holland, and especially at Leyden, their two divinity professors being divided, Episcopius appearing for, and Po­lydore against the Arminian tenets; Mr. Robinson, though he preached thrice a week, and went through much other labour, yet went constantly to hear them both, whereby he got well grounded in the [Page 33]controversy, so that when Episcopius, about the year 1613, set forth sundry Arminian theses at Ley­den, which he would defend against all opposers. Polydore insisted upon Mr. Robinson's engaging against him, telling him, that "Such was the abi­lity and expertness of the adversary, that the truth is in danger to suffer, if he would not help them; is so importunate as at length he yields; and when the day comes, he so defends the truth, and foils the opposer, as he put him to an apparent nonplus in this great and public audience. The same he does a se­cond and a third time, upon the like occasions, which as it causes many to give praise to God that the truth had so famous a victory; so it procures Mr. Robinson much respect and honor from those learned men and others ^*."

SEVERAL attempts were made to plant New-Eng­land from worldly motives, but they all proved abortive. In 1607 an hundred men were sent over to Sagadahock, with furniture to lay the founda­tion of a great state, and all lived through the win­ter but their president; yet the next year, ‘The “whole colony breaks up, and returns to England, and brands the country as over cold and not habi­table by our nation, and the adventurers give over ”their design ^†.’ Other fruitless attempts were made for a while, and then were given over. ‘Sir “Ferdinando Gorges and Captain Mason spent twenty thousand pounds each, in attempts for settlement, and each of them thought it adviseable to give over their designs, and sit down with the loss. Whether Britain would have had any colo­nies in America at this day, if religion had not ”been the grand inducement, is doubtful ^‡.’

THE people whose religious sentiments are de­scribed above, after long consideration, many earnest requests to heaven for direction and help, and well consulting matters with English friends, at last de­termined to come over to this wilderness; and divine providence made them the honored instruments of laying the foundation of this now flourishing coun­try. In December, 1617, Mr. Robinson and Elder Brewster wrote to the Council for Virginia, who then had the management of these affairs, wherein they say,

HEREIN they were not mistaken, as will soon ap­pear; for though contentions among the said Coun­cil, and other things, obstructed their proceeding till 1620, and they could not then obtain any royal promise of liberty of conscience in this country, [Page 35]only that the King would connive at them, and not molest them if they carried it peaceably, ‘Yet, cast­ing “themselves on the care of providence, they ”resolve to venture.’ But as the could not obtain shipping and provision enough to carry half their company the first year, Mr. Robinson was obliged to tarry in Holland with the larger part, while Mr. William Brewster, their ruling elder, came over with the other. Most of their brethren came with them from Leyden to Delph-Haven, where they spent the night in friendly, entertaining and christian con­verse. And July 22, the wind being fair, they go aboard, their friends attending them, when ‘Mr. “Robinson falling down on his knees, and they all with him, he with watry cheeks commends them with most fervent prayer to God; and then with mutual embraces, and many tears, they take their leaves, and with a prosperous gale come to South­ampton,”’ in England. July 27, 1620, Mr. Ro­binson wrote a letter, which was received and read to the company at that place ^*; which I think wor­thy of a place here. The letter is as follows:

THIS excellent letter properly describes the senti­ments, temper and rules of conduct of the chief founders of New-England; and may the same be duly regarded to their latest posterity!

BY Dutch intrigues and other's ill conduct they were hindered long, and at last forced to come with only one ship instead of two, which sailed from Plymouth, in England, on September 6, and arriv­ed in Cape-Cod harbour November 11, and at the place which they named Plymouth, in December, 1620.

AND now compare this company with that of Sa­gadahock. That company, who came upon worldly designs, had an hundred men; this religious society consisted of but one hundred and one souls, men, women, and children; the one arrived at the place designed for settlement in August, the other not till winter had set in: The worldly company only buried their president, and all returned the next year to their native country again; where­as this religious people, in about five months time, buried their Governor and full half their number, and yet with fortitude and patience they kept their station; yea, though they were afterwards deserted and abused by some who had engaged to help them. We cannot now form and adequate idea of what those pious planters endured, to prepare the way for what we at this day enjoy. In the year 1623 they say, ‘“By the time our corn is planted, our victuals are spent; not knowing at night where to have a bit in the morning, and have neither bread nor corn for three or four months together; yet bear our wants with chearfulness, and rest on ”providence ^*’."

IT pleased God further to try their faith, by send­ing a great drought and heat from the third week in May till the middle of July, which caused their corn to wither as if it were truly dead; and a ship that they had long expected did not arrive, but they thought [Page 41]they saw signs of its being wrecked on the coasts. ‘“The most courageous are now discouraged. Upon this the public authority set apart a solemn day of humiliation and prayer, to seek the Lord in this distress, who was pleased to give speedy answer, to our own and the Indians admiration; for though in the former part of the day it was very clear and hot, without a sign of rain, yet before the exercise is over the clouds gather, and next morning distil such soft and gentle showers ”as give cause of joy and praise to God.’ Their corn recovers, and soon after arrives the ship they expected, bringing over about sixty more of their friends, and a letter from others, wherein they say to those here ‘Let it not be grievous to you, “that you have been instruments to break the ice f [...] others who come after with less difficulty: The honor shall be yours to the world's end. We bear you always in our breasts, and our hearty affection is towards you all, as are the hearts of hundreds more who never saw your faces, who ”doubtless pray for your safety as their own ^*.’ Their harvest was plentiful; and above twenty years after Governor Bradford says, ‘Nor has “there been any general want of food among us ”since to this day ^†.’

MR. Robinson and many of his people were detained in Holland, till, after about a week's illness, he died there on March 1, 1625, aged near 50 years. Governor Bradford says, ‘His and “our enemies had been continually plotting how they might hinder his coming hither, but the ”Lord has appointed him a better place.’ Mr. Prince says, ‘His son Isaac came over to Plymouth [Page 42] “colony, lived to above 90 years of age, a vene­rable man, whom I have often seen, and has ”left male posterity in the county of Barnstable ^*.’

THE cause why Mr. Robinson and the remaining part of his church were kept back so long, was their inability to transport themselves, and several mer­chants who had engaged in the affair deserted them, pursuing separate schemes of their own, and sent over one company of sixty stout men, who began a plantation at Weymouth; but soon reduced them­selves to such straits that several perished, and the rest were forced to be beholden to the charity of Plymouth people, to keep them alive till they could get back whence they came. Another worldly scheme was begun at Braintree, which also proved abortive, while our christian fathers at Plymouth were enabled to keep their station. And some of the adventurers wrote to them on December 18, 1624, and said, ‘We are still persuaded you are “the people that must make a plantation in those ”remote places, when all others fail ^†.’ They were long destitute of a pastor, and yet constantly main­tained divine worship among them, of which a noted author gives this account; says he,

‘“To satisfy the reader, how a christian church could, in any tolerable measure, carry on the pub­lic worship of God without suitable officers, as was the case of those people of Plymouth, we must know that those were a serious and religious people, that knew their own principles—knew and were resolved on the way of their worship, but in many years could not prevail with any to come over to them, and undertake the office of a pastor amongst them, at least none in whom they [Page 43]could with full satisfaction acquiesce, and there­fore in the mean while they were peaceably and prudently managed by the wisdom of Mr. Brewster, a grave and serious person—ruling elder among them. Besides also several of his people were well gifted, and did spend part of the Lord's day in their wonted prophesying, to which they had been accustomed by Mr. Robin­son. Those gifts while they lasted made the ”burthen of the other defect more easily born ^*.’

THE names of those first planters were, John Car­ver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, successive Governors; William Brewster, elder; Captain Miles Standish, Robert Cushman, John Alden, Samuel Fuller, Richard Warren, Stephen Hopkins, and others, each of whom have posterity remaining among us to this day. ‘I am not preserving from “oblivion the names of heroes, whose chief merit is the overthrow of cities, provinces and empires; but the names of the founders of a flourishing town and colony, if not of the whole British empire in ”America ^†.’ Their deep poverty, and the abundance of their joy, abounded unto the riches of their liberality, so as not only to enable them to relieve many in distress, but also to launch out so as to help over about 35 [Page 44]families more of their friends from Leyden, who were transported hither in 1629, at the charge of their brethren here, which was chearfully born by them, though it amounted to above five hundred and fifty pounds sterling, besides supporting them after their arrival for 16 or 18 months, till they had a harvest of their own, which cost near as much more. ‘Mean while, says Governor Bradford, “God gives us peace and health, with contented minds, and so succeeds our labours that we have corn sufficient, and some to spare, with other pro­visions: Nor had we ever any supply from ”England but what we first brought with us ^*.’ The first horned cattle that they ever had here were a bull and three heifers, which Governor Winslow brought over to Plymouth in March, 1624.

ABOUT that time, ‘the fame of the plantation “at New-Plymouth being spread in all the western parts of England, the Rev. Mr. White, a fa­mous Puritan minister of Dorchester, excites se­veral gentlemen there to make way for another ”settlement in New-England ^†.’ This was the be­ginning of the Massachusetts colony; that year a few persons who gathered at Cape-Ann, that removed the next year, and began the town of Salem, to whom others resorted from time to time, till in the sum­mer, 1628, Mr. John Endicot came over to govern them; and in 1629, Mr. Francis Higginson and Mr. Samuel Skelton, two Non-conformist ministers, came with many others, and formed and organized a church in that place. Upon which we may see Mr. Robinson's words verified; for these Puritans, who had blamed him for an entire separation from the national church, yet were no sooner settled on this side the Atlantic, than they cast off the prelates [Page 45]yoke in such a manner, that when John Brown and Samuel Brown, two of the ‘first patentees, men of “ ”estates, and men of parts,’ attempted to set up Episcopal worship at Salem, Governor Endicot con­vented them before him, where they ‘accused “the ministers as departing from the orders of the church of England; that they were Separatists, and would be Anabaptists, &c. but for themselves they would hold to the orders of the church of ”England.’ These speeches and practices were judged by the Governor and Council to be such as tended ‘to mutiny and faction, and the Governor “told them, that New-England was no place for such as they, and therefore sent them back for England, at the return of the ships, the same ”year ^*.’

BY this and many other instances we may see, that the men who drew off from the national esta­blishment, as soon as they were convinced that truth called them to it, were not so severe against Dissent­ers from themselves, as they were who stayed till interest and civil power would favour the cause be­fore they separated.

IN the year 1630, Governor Winthrop with about fifteen hundred people came over, and plant­ed Charlestown, Boston, Dorchester, and Water­town, and soon formed churches in each town. Of these people Mr. Hubbard says,

‘“AFTER this manner have their ecclesiastical ”affairs been carried on ever since the year 1633,’ that is, down to 1680, when Mr. Hubbard wrote his history.

HERE let it be well observed and ever remember­ed, that these were the main points wherein they differed from others; and the reader is welcome to search through all their history from that day to this, and see if he can find that these principles, in themselves considered, ever produced any evil effects; but this people brought two other princi­ples with them from their native country, in which they did not differ from others; which are, that natural birth, and the doings of men, can bring children into the covenant of grace; and, that it is right to enforce and support their own sentiments about religion with the magistrate's sword. And those, let them live in England, Scotland, Rome, or elsewhere, who reproach and condemn New-England for the evils which these two principles [Page 49]have produced, while they hold the same things, ought to consider that in so doing they will be found inexcusable before our GREAT JUDGE.

THE root of a compulsive uniformity was planted at a General Court in Boston, May 18, 1631, when it was ‘ordered and agreed, that for the time to “come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the limits of the ”same ^*.’ This test in after times had such in­fluence, that he who ‘did not conform, was de­prived of “more civil privileges than a Non-con­formist is deprived of by the test in England. Both the one and the other must have occasioned much formality and hypocrisy. The mysteries of our holy religion have been prostituted to mere ”secular views and advantages ^†.’

IF in any instances this people carried their zeal to a greater severity than Episcopalians have often done, let it be remembered, that the latter hold a power in their church to decree rites and ceremonies, and so consequently a power to abate or alter the same as occasion suits; but the fathers of the Mas­sachusetts held the scriptures to be their unalterable rule, and having formed a plan which they thought was truly scriptural, Captain Johnson in 1651 said, ‘To “them it seems unreasonable, and to savour too much of hypocrisy, that any people should pray unto the Lord for the speedy accomplishment of his word in the overthrow of Antichrist, and in the mean time become a patron to sinful opinions and damnable errors that oppose the truths of Christ, ”admit it be but in the bare permission of them ^‡.’ Hence it appears, that it was this erroneous notion [Page 50]of using carnal weapons against what they looked upon false opinions, that ought to bear the blame and reproach of those persecutions, and not their particular religious denomination, nor any of their zeal to promote religion by gospel means and me­thods.

THAT they were not aware how unscripturally they had confounded church and state together, appears from many facts. They were so much concerned to keep them distinct, that in 1632 the church of Boston wrote to the elders and brethren of the churches of Plymouth, Salem, &c. for their advice in three questions;

• 1. Whether one person might be a cavil magistrate and a ruling elder at the same time?
• 2. If not, then which should they lay down?
• 3. Whether there might be divers pastors in the same church?

The first was agreed by all negatively; the other two doubtful ^*. In conse­quence of which Mr. Nowel resigned his office of ruling elder, to which he had been ordained in the church, to hold those of a magistrate and secretary in the state. Hubbard. On the other hand, Mr. John Doan, having been formerly chosen to the office of deacon in the church of Plymouth, at his and the church's request, he was freed from the office of assistant in the commonwealth ^†.

AGAIN our late Governor says, "I suppose there had been no instance of a marriage lawfully cele­brated by a layman in England, when they left it. I believe there was no instance of marriage by a clergyman after they arrived, during their charter; but it was always done by a magistrate, or by per­sons specially appointed for that purpose. It is difficult to assign a reason for so sudden a change ^‡." [Page 51]I happened to observe a passage in Mr. Robinson which I suppose gives us the true reason of that great change. Mr. Bernard had charged the Sepa­ratists with an error, which he said they had given neither reason nor scripture for, in holding that ministers may not celebrate marriage, nor bury the dead. To which Mr. Robinson answers,

‘“IN our third petition to the King, and the fourth branch of the sixth proposition, there are almost twenty several scriptures, and nine distinct reasons grounded upon them, to prove, that the celebration of marriage, and bu­rial of the dead, are not ecclesiastical actions, apper­taining to the ministry, but civil, and so to be performed. The apostle testifieth that the scrip­tures, being divinely inspired, do make perfect, and fully furnished, the man of God, or minister, to every good work of his calling. Now I suppose Mr. B. will not be so ill advised, as to go about to prove that the celebration of marriage, and burial of the dead, are duties prescribed by the Lord Jesus to be done in the pastor's office, or that the scriptures lay this furniture upon the man of God for the proper works of his office. They are then other spiritual lords than the Lord Christ, that prescribe these duties to done by their men, furnished by other scriptures than the divine scriptures, the Bishop's scriptures, their canons and constitutions; whereby they are furnished indeed with ring, service-book, and ”other priestly implements for the business ^*.’ This I suppose accounts for that change in our father's conduct then; though it is likely we are agreed in general now, that as it was an error of [Page 52]Popery to call marriage a sacrament, and to limit its administration to the clergy; so on the other hand that it was a mistake in those fathers to think that the civil state might not as well appoint mini­sters to celebrate marriages as any other persons.

THESE and many other things prove that those fathers were earnestly concerned to frame their con­stitution both in church and state by divine rule; and as all allow that nothing teaches like experi­ence, surely they who are enabled well to improve the experience of past ages, must find it easier now to discover the mistakes of that day, than it was for them to do it then. Even in 1637, when a num­ber of Puritan ministers in England, and the famous Mr. Dod among them, wrote to the ministers here, that it was reported that they had embraced certain new opinions, such as "that a stinted form of prayer and set liturgy is unlawful. That the chil­dren of godly and approved christians are not to be baptized, until their parents be set members of some particular congregation. That the parents them­selves, though of approved piety, are not to be re­ceived to the Lord's supper until they be admitted set members," &c. Mr. Hooker expressed his fears of troublesome work about answering os them ^*; though they may appear easy to the present gene­ration.

CHAP. II. Mr. ROGER WILLIAMS'S Sentiments and his Banishment, with other Affairs of the Colonies, from 1634 to 1644.

MR. Hubbard tells us, that ‘February 5, 1631, “arrived Mr. William Peirse at Nantasket; with him came one Mr. Roger Williams, of good account in England for a godly and zealous preacher;—he had been some years employed ”in the ministry in England ^*.’ Accordingly I find Mr. Williams reminding Mr. Cotton of conver­sation he had with him and Mr. Hooker, while they were riding together, to and from Sempring­ham. ^†." From whence it appears that Mr. Williams was acquainted with those two famous men, in our mother country, and the subject of that conversation shews that he could not then con­form to the national church so far as they did.

MR. Hubbard says, "Immediately after his ar­rival he was called by the church of Salem to join with Mr. Skelton; but the Governor and Council being informed thereof, wrote to Mr. Endicot, to desire they would forbear any further proceeding therein, till the said Council had conferred further about it.

• 1. Because he refused to join with the congregation [i. e. church] of Boston, because they would not make a public declaration of their re­pentance, for holding communion with the church [Page 54]of England while they lived there.
• 2. Because he declared it as his opinion, that the civil magistrate might not punish any breach of the first table; whereupon they for the present forbore proceeding with him, which occasioned his being called to Plymouth;" where, Governor Bradford says, "He was freely entertained, according to our poor ability, and 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 still bless God, and am thankful to him even for his sharpest admonitions and reproofs, so far as they agreed with truth ^*."

As the two points which were so offensive to the rulers at Boston, were the foundation cause of their after-proceedings against Mr. Williams, and nearly affect the history of our country to this day, they demand our close attention. The Governor and Company of the Massachusetts colony held commu­nion with the national church, and reflected upon their brethren who separated from her, while in their native island, and on their departure from it, they from on board their chief ship wrote to those who were left behind, April 7, 1630, in these words ^†:

Reverend Fathers and Brethren,

‘“HOWSOEVER your charity may have met with some occasion of discouragement, through the misrepresentation of our intentions;—yet we de­sire you would be pleased to take notice of the principles and body of our company, as those who esteem it our honor to call the church of England, from whence we rise, our dear mother, and cannot part from our native country, where [Page 55]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 there, but blessing God for the parentage and education, as members ”of the same body, shall always rejoice in her good.’

• John WINTHROP, Governor.
• CHARLES FINES,
• GEORGE PHILIPS,
• RICHARD SALTONSTALL,
• ISAAC JOHNSON,
• THOMAS DUDLEY,
• WILLIAM CODDINGTON," &c. ^*

Now as Episcopalians, down to this day, try to improve this address, as an evidence that New-England was first planted by members of their church (though the foregoing history snews that it was not so) we may safely conclude that the ruling party in the nation did not neglect the advantage hereby given to strengthen themselves then in their way, which was so corrupt, that when the Arch­bishop of Canterbury a little after commenced a prosecution against Mr. Cotton, the Earl of Dorset interceded for him, till he found matters were got to such a pass that he sent Mr. Cotton word, ‘That “if he had been guilty of drunkenness or uncleanness, or any such lesser fault, he could have obtained his pardon; but inasmuch as he had been guilty of Nonconformity and Puritanism, the crime was unpardonable; and therefore, said he, you must ”fly for your safety ^†.’ And can we wonder that [Page 56]Mr. Williams, who came over the year after the aforesaid address was made, should not incline to join in fellowship with the authors of it, without some honest retraction! Yet he was not so rigid but that he did hold occasional communion at the Lord's table in the church of Plymouth, with Governor Winthrop, and his minister, Mr. Wilson, of Boston, October 28, 1932 ^§."

MR. Williams preached at Plymouth between two and three years, and then discerning in a lead­ing part of the church a disagreement with some of his sentiments, and being invited to Salem, he re­quested a dismission there, and though a number were unwilling for it, yet elder Brewster prevailed with the church to grant his request, fearing, he said, "That he would run the same course of rigid sepa­ration and Anabaptistry, which Mr. John Smith at Amsterdam had done ^*. Such as did adhere to him were also dismissed, and removed with him, or not long after him, to Salem ^†:" The court again wrote to Salem against Mr. Williams, but could not pre­vent his being called to office there; and we are told that, ‘in one year's time he filled that place with “principles of rigid separation, and tending to Ana­baptism ” ^‡:"’ For which they afterwards banished him; though as it was a confused piece of work for them thus to deal with him, so their historians have given the world a very confused account about it. Morton, Hubbard, Dr. Cotton Mather, and others, [Page 57]have set his banishment in 1634, yet all agree that he was not ordained till after Mr. Skelton's death, which was in August that year; and they tell us of a twelvemonth's labour with him and his church af­ter his ordination, before his banishment; neither do they give us a better account of the true causes of that sentence, than they do of the date of it. I have taken much pains to collect as exact an account of this affair as possible, and have succeeded be­yond my expectation.

THE dates I find to be as follow: Governor Winthrop and his Council first wrote to Salem against Mr. Williams, April 12, 1631 ^*, which occasioned his going to Plymouth. His first child was born there the first week in August, 1633 ^†, and Mr. Cotton, who arrived at Boston the fourth of September following, says he had removed into the Bay before his arrival ^‡. Mr. Skelton died August 2, 1634 ^§, and we shall find proof enough that Mr. Williams was not banished till above a year afterward; so that instead of such hasty pro­ceedings at Salem as his opponents would represent, he preached there more than a year before he was ordained, and as long after it.

As to the causes of his sentence, Mr. Morton has given us five articles, Mr. Hubbard six; Mr. Wil­liams has reduced them to four, but Mr. Cotton is not willing to let them stand as he stated them, but tells us that, ‘two things there were, which “(to my best observation and remembrance) caused the sentence of his banishment; and two others fell in that hastened it.’

‘“1. His violent and tumultuous carriage against ”the patent.’

LET it be here noted, that we have no proof that Mr. Williams ever preached or objected against the whole patent, or charter, without distinction, much less not against that part of it which consti­tuted them a civil government, His own account of this matter 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.’

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 chief of New-England, then tender also upon this point before God, directed unto the King himself, humbly acknowledging the [Page 59]evil of THAT PART of the patent which respects ”the donation of lands, &c. ^*"’

WHAT grounds Mr. Williams and others had for this concern will plainly appear by what follows; for in the said patent from Charles the first, he re­cites that which was given by his father, King James the first, dated November 3, 1620, wherein he ‘“gave and granted unto the Council established at Plymouth, in the county of Devon, all that part of America lying and being in breadth from 40 degrees of northerly latitude from the equinoxial line to 48 degrees of the said northerly latitude inclusively, and in length of and within all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main land from sea to sea, together also with all the firm lands, soils, grounds, havens, ports, rivers, waters, fishing, mines and minerals—jurisdic­tions, privileges, franchises, and preheminences, both within the said tract of land upon the main, and also within the islands and seas adjoining. Provided always, that the said islands, or any of the premises by the said letters patent intended and meant to be granted, were not then actually possessed or inhabited by any other christian Prince or state—To have and to hold, possess and enjoy, all and singular the aforesaid continent lands, and every part and parcel thereof, unto the said Council, and their heirs and assigns for ever—To be holden OF our said most dear and royal father, his heirs and successors, AS OF HIS MANOR of East-Greenwich, in the county of ”Kent.’ Then King Charles went on to name the Massachusetts Company, and to describe the limits of their colony through the main lands of America, and granted it to them in the same manner, [Page 60] ‘“to be holden OF US, our heirs and successors, AS ”of OUR manor of East-Greenwich ^*,’ &c.

CAN any man claim a fuller property in any land in the world, than here was assumed over this vast tract of America! And though the men who had taken this patent banished Mr. Williams out of it, yet before we have done we may see this very principle which he abhorred turned back into their own bosoms, and made use of by a tyran­nical party to give them a severe scourging, after their patent was vacated.

THE other foundation cause of Mr. Williams's banishment Mr. Cotton gives in these words:

‘“2. 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 vehemently withstood, and dissuaded sundry from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christ's prerogative to have his office established by 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 ^†.’

THIS case thus stated carries a sad face with it, but one acquainted with the history of the coun­try would be ready to doubt whether it was truly stated or not; for every freeman had taken an oath [Page 61]of fidelity to the government before that time, and if there was no intent of imposing but only of offering this new oath, could they not find men enough for officers that would take it? Indeed when I come to find how the truth of this matter was, by the colo­ny records, and to think that Mr. Cotton had them at his door when he wrote, I am the most shocked about him by this publication of his against Mr. Williams, of any thing I ever met with concerning him. Upon the colony records, when the Gene­ral Assembly met at Boston, May 14, 1634, I find those words, viz.

"It was agreed and ordered, that the former oath of freemen shall be revoked, so far as it is dissonant from the oath of freemen here underwritten, and that those that received the former oath shall stand bound no further thereby to any intent or purpose than this new oath tyes those that take the same."

The Oath of a Freeman.

"I A. B. being by God's providence an inhabi­tant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this com­monweal, do freely acknowledge myself to be sub­ject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear, by the great and dreadful name of the ever-living God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto with my person and estate as in equity I am bound, and I will also truly endeavour to maintain and preserve all the liberties and pri­vileges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same. And further, that I will not plot nor practise any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall so do, but will truly discover and reveal the same to lawful authority now here established, for the speedy pre­venting thereof. Moreover I do solemnly bind my­self [Page 62]in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice, touching any such matter of this state, wherein freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage, as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body, without respect of persons or favour of any man; so help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ."

THIS oath was framed and taken before they pro­ceeded to election at the time abovesaid. When the Assembly met again at Newtown, now Cam­bridge, March 4, 1635, they enacted, "that every man of or above the age of sixteen years, who hath been or shall be resident within this jurisdiction, by the space of six months (as well servants as others) and not infranchised, shall take the oath of residents, before the Governor, Deputy-Governor, or two of the next Assistants, who shall have power to convent him for that purpose, and upon his refusal to bind him over to the next Court of Assistants, and upon his refusal the second time, to be punished at the discretion of the Court.

"IT is ordered, that the freeman's oath shall be given to every man of or above the age of sixteen years, the clause for election of magistrates only excepted ^*."

Now let the candid reader judge,

1. WHO was the best friend to CHARTER-RIGHTS? The Massachusetts Company were limited, in three different passages of their patent, not to make any laws contrary to the laws of England; yet one pro­fessed design of this new oath, was to guard against Episcopal practices, to effect which they left out the clause in their former oath, which bound them to submit to ‘all such laws, orders, sentences and [Page 63] “decrees, as should be lawfully made and publish­ed ”by them;’ and instead of it obliged men to swear to submit ‘to the wholesome laws and or­ders “ ”made and established by the same.’ And though Mr. Cotton asserts that they did not impose but only offer this new oath, yet the colony records are express, that every man who resided within their jurisdiction six months, servants as well as others, must swear to obey all their wholesome laws and orders, or be punished at their discretion; yea, and also swear to reveal any plot that they should know of against such government, ‘to lawful authority “ ” now here established:’ That is, not to complain to any but themselves.

2. FROM whence came the power that presumed to abosolve themselves and others from their oath, to keep to acts lawfully made, and to substitute the word wholesome in the room of it? Let the learned Cotton Mather answer the question. Says he, ‘startq;the reforming churches, flying from Rome, car­ried some of them more, some of them less, all of them something, of Rome with them; espe­cially in that spirit of imposition and persecution, ”which has too much cleaved unto them all ^*’

THAT spirit of imposition and persecution ran so high in England at the time we are upon, that King Charles the first gave a commission, April 28, 1634, to Archbishop Laud, and ten courtiers more ^§, some of them known Papists, committing to any five of them ‘power of protection and government, as “well over the English colonies already planted, [Page 64]as over all such other colonies, which by any of our people of England hereafter shall be de­duced into any other like parts whatsoever, and power to make laws, ordinances and constitutions, concerning either the state public of the said colonies, or utility of private persons and their lands, goods, debts and succession, within the precincts of the same, and for ordering and di­recting of them, in their demeanors towards fo­reign Princes and their people, and likewise towards us and our subjects, as well within any foreign parts whatsoever beyond the seas, as du­ring their voyages, or upon the seas, to and from the same. And for relief and support of the clergy, and the rule and cure of the souls of our people living in those parts, and for consigning of convenient maintenance unto them by tythes, oblations and other profits accruing, according to your good discretion, with the advice of two or three of our Bishops, whom you shall think fit to call unto your consultations, touching the distribution of such maintenance unto the clergy, and all other matters ecclesiastical, and to inflict punishment on all offenders or violators of con­stitutions and ordinances, either by imprisonments or other restraints, or by loss of life or members, according as the quality of the offence shall re­quire; with power also, our royal assent being first had and obtained, to remove all Governors and Presidents of the said colonies, upon just cause appearing, from their several places, and to ap­point others in their stead—and power also to ordain temporal judges and civil magistrates to determine civil causes, with such powers, in such a form, as to you or any five of you shall seem expedient; and also to ordain judges, magistrates [Page 65]and officers for and concerning courts eccle­siastical, with such power and such a form, as to you or any five or more of you, with the advice of the Bishops suffragan to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being, shall be held meet. Giving, moreover, and granting to you, that if it shall appear, that if any officer or Governor of the said colonies shall unjustly wrong one another, or shall not suppress all rebels to us, or such as shall not obey our commands, that then it shall be lawful, upon advice with ourself first had, for the causes aforesaid, or upon any other just reason, to remand and cause the offender to return into England, or into any other place, according as in your good discretions you shall think just and necessary. And we do furthermore give unto you, or any five or more of you, letters patent and other writings whatsoever, of us or of our royal predecessors granted, for or concern­ing the planting of any colonies, in any countries provinces, islands or territories whatsoever beyond the seas; and if upon view thereof, the same shall appear to you, or any five or more of you, to have been surreptitiously and unduly obtained, or that any privileges or liberties therein granted be hurtful to us, our crown or prerogative royal, or to any foreign Princes, to cause the same to be revoked, and to do all other things, which shall be necessary for the wholesome governemt and protection of the said colonies, and our people ”therein abiding ^*’

THUS the words discretion and wholesome were brought in to violate charters and all public faith, and to set up tyranny over the colonies; but Mr. Edward Winslow being sent over agent for the [Page 66]country, by his indefatigable endeavours, and the influence of some great men, prevented the taking place of this arbitrary commission; upon which Laud turned his resentment against him, and got him imprisoned seventeen weeks in the Fleet prison, in London, for having sometimes taught publicly in the church of Plymouth, and for marrying peo­ple, which Laud called "assuming the ministerial "office ^*."

HAD the Massachusetts fathers only taken lawful and prudent methods to guard against such Epis­copal and malignant practices as these, they would have been justified, and applauded by posterity; but now we mourn to think that they brought so much of the same distemper into this country with them as they did.

THE same court that passed the act to oblige all to take the above oath, or be punished at their dis­cretion, also passed the following, viz.

"THIS court doth intreat of the brethren and elders of every church within this 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 peace of the churches ^†."

UPON this Mr. Williams publicly preached against the oath they had framed, of submission to such a power; for which the Governor and Assistants called him before them, March 30, 1635, when ‘he was “heard before all the ministers, and, according to Governor Winthrop's opinion, was clearly re­futed ^‡.”’ The two things which Mr. Cotton says hastened his banishment were, Mr. Williams's [Page 67]stirring up his church to write to other churches to which those rulers belonged, admonishing them of injustice about some land near Salem; and his sepa­rating from his own church when they turned against him is these things ^*. Concerning the first of these articles Governor Winthrop says, ‘Salem men pre­ferred “a petition at the General Court, May, 1635, for some land in Marblehead rock, which they did challenge as belonging to their town; but becuase they had chosen Mr. Williams their teacher while he stood under question of autho­rity, and so offered contempt to the magistracy, &c. their petition was refused till, &c. Upon this the church of Salem wrote to other churches to admonish the magistrates of this as a heinous ”sin, and likewise the deputies, &c. ^†"’ By, the conlony records I find, that the town of Marblehead was first granted by the Assembly which met May 6, 1635, when sundry parcels of land which Salem had improved were granted to them as soon as they should want them, only with order that Marblehead should pay Salem for what they had done upon the land; among the rest ‘the land betwixt the clift and “ ”the forest river, near Marblehead,’ was so grant­ed, but with this proviso, ‘that if in the mean time “the inhabitants of Salem can satisfy the Court that they have true right unto it, that then it shall ”belong unto the inhabitants thereof.’

THE generality of those inhabitants turned the next fall, and joined with the rulers in banishing Mr. Williams, and when the General Assembly met again, March 3, 1636, I find these words, viz. ‘“it was proved this Court that Marble-Neck be­long ”to Salem ^‡’ Now what can be more na­tural [Page 68]than to conclude from hence, that the way for Salem to satisfy the Court that they had a true right to their land, was to submit their ecclesi­astical as well as civil affairs to their direction?

AT a General Court, July 8, 1635,

THIS is the most plain and ingenious account of the real cause of Mr. Williams's banishment that I have ever met with, from any who were opposite to him, and carries the more weight with it, as it was wrote by one of the greatest gentlemen in the country, in the time of it, and who was personally concerned in these tranfactions. And by the first and last of this account it is evident, that the grand difficulty they had with Mr. Williams was, his de­nying the civil magistrates right to govern in eccle­siastical affairs.

THIS honorable writer informs us, that on August 15, 1635, ‘Mr. Williams, pastor of Salem, be-being “sick, and not able to speak, wrote to his church a protestation that he would 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 thereby.’

SEPTEMBER 1. ‘At this General Court, Mr. “Endicot made a protestation, in justification of the letters formerly sent fom Salem to the other churches against the magistracy and deputies, for which he was committed; but the same day he came and acknowledged his fault, and was dis­charged ^†.”’

OCTOBER ‘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 his said two letters, that to the churches, complaining of the magistrates for injustice, &c. and the other to his own church.—He justified both,—and main­tained all his opinions; and being offered further [Page 70]conference or disputation, and another respite, he chose to dispute presently; so Mr. Hooker was appointed 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 approving the sentence; and his own church had him under question also for the same case, 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 ^*’

JOHN SMITH was banished at the same time with Mr. Williams, for his dangerous opinions, but we are not told what they were. It seems that the Court after this gave Mr. Williams liberty to stay till spring, only enjoined it upon him not to go about to draw others to his opinions; but in January, 1636, the Go­vernor and Assistants were informed, that he received and preached to companies in his house, ‘even of “ ”such points as he had been censured for.’ Upon which they agreed to send him into England by a ship then ready to depart; ‘the reason was, because “he had drawn about twenty people to his opinions, they were intended to erect a plantation about the Narraganset bay, from whence infection would easily spead into these churches, the people be­ing many of them much taken with the appre­hension ”of his godliness.’ They sent for him to come to Boston, but he sent an excuse; upon which [Page 71]they sent a pinnace, with a commission to Captain Underhill, to apprehend him and carry him on board the ship then at Nantasket; but when they ‘“came to his house, they found he had been gone ”three days ^§.’

THIS I believe is the exact date of his departure, instead of being in 1634, as their historians have represented. Sixteen years after Mr. Williams tells us, he remembered ‘a serious question which many “fearing God have made, to wit, whether the promise of God's spirit blessing conferences, be so comfortably to be expected in New-England, because of those many public sins which most of God's people in New-England lie under, and one especially, to wit, the framing a gospel or Christ to themselves without a cross, not professing nor practising that in Old, which they professedly came over to enjoy with peace and liberty from any cross of Christ in New. I know those thoughts have deeply possessed not a few, considering also the sin of the patents, wherein christian Kings, so called, are invested with right, by virtue of their christianity, to take and give away the lands and countries of other men; as also considering the unchristian oaths, swallowed down, at their coming forth from Old-England, especially in supersti­tious ”Laud his time and domineering ^*.’

IT is evident by the foregoing list of errors charg­ed upon Mr. Williams, that the Massachusetts mini­sters and rulers meant to carry their uniformity so far, as to oblige ministers and christians, throughout their jurisdiction, not only to ask a blessing at the Lord's table and at common meals, but also to re­turn [Page 72]thanks afterward; and it is likely that this straining of that matter beyond scripture example, has had not a little influence upon many since to carry them to the other extreme. Be that as it may, what human heart can be unaffected with the thought, that a people who had been sorely persecuted in their own country, so as to flee three thousand miles into a wilderness for religious liberty, yet should have that imposing temper cleaving so fast to them, as not to be willing to let a godly minister, who testified against it, stay even in any neighbouring part of this wilderness, but moved them to attempt to take him by force, to send him back into the land of their persecutors! To avoid which he fled to the heathen in the depth of winter, and obtained such favour in their sight, that Osamaquin (otherwise called Masasoit) chief Sachem at Mount Hope, made him a grant of part of that which is since called Rehoboth; yet that was so far then from answering to its present name, that a letter and messenger was sent from Plymouth to let him know there was not ROOM for him in that place, because within their patent. This is a lamentation, and shall be for a la­mentation!

MR. Williams's own testimony, upon a particular occasion at Providence twenty-five years after, I think deserves notice here. Says he,

"I TESTIFY and declare in the holy presence of God, that when at my first coming into these parts I obtained the lands of Secunk of Osamaquin, 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 Secunk 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 [Page 73]out of their claim, and be as free as themselves, and loving neighbours together ^*. After I had obtained this place, now called Providence, of Canonicus and Myantinomy, they chief Nanhigganset Sachems de­ceased, Osamaquin (the Sachem aforesaid, also de­ceased) laid his claim to this place also. This forced me to repair to the Nanhigganset Sachems aforesaid, who declared, that Osamaquin was their subject, and had solemnly, himself in person, with ten men, subjected himself and his lands unto them at the Nanhigganset, only now he seemed to revolt from his loyalty, under the shelter of the English at Ply­mouth ^†. This I declared from the Nanhigganset Sachems to Osamaquin, who without any stick ac­knowledged to be true, that he had so subjected as the Nanhigganset Sachems had affirmed; but with­al he affirmed that he was not subdued by war, which himself and his father had maintained against the Nanhiggansets; but God, said he, subdued us by a plaque, which swept away my people, and forced me to yield. This conviction and confession of his, together with gratuities to himself, brethren and followers, made him often profess, that he was pleased that I should here be his neighbour, and the rather because he and I had been great friends at Plymouth; and also because 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. And whereas [Page 74]there hath been often speech of Providence falling in Plymouth jurisdiction by virtue of Osamaquin's claim; I add unto the testimonies abovesaid, that the Governor, Mr. Bradford deceased, 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 Secunk, but to continue loving friends and neighbours (among the barbarians) together. This is the true sum and substance of many passages between our coun­trymen of Plymouth and Osamaquin, and me.

ROGER WILLIAMS ^*"

THE above date of Mr. Williams's removal is confirmed by Mr. Winslow's being then Governor of Plymouth; for 1636 was the only year that he sustained that office between 1633 and 1644: And as is appeared by Plymouth records that he en­tered on his government the first of March that year, we may conclude that Mr. Williams fled to Secunk in the depth of winter, and removed with a few friends over the river in the spring ^†. And here let us admire the wisdom that governs the world, "As Joseph was sold by his envious bre­thren, with intent to get him out of their way, yet divine providence over-ruled this cruel action quite otherwise than they intended, and made it the means of their future preservation; so the harsh treatment [Page 75]and cruel exile of Mr. Williams seem designed by his brethren for the same evil end, but was, by the goodness of the same over-ruling hand, turned to the most beneficent purposes ^‡."

JUST at this juncture the Pequods, a powerful Indian tribe, who lived upon the lands where are now the towns of Groton and Stonington, were forming plots against the English colonies, even the very year that those of Connecticut and Providence began, and when Boston was but six years old; and as a vessel was sent by the government from thence, under the command of John Oldham, to trade with the natives at Block-Island, about fourteen Indians boarded the vessel, and murdered him; but as John Gallop happened to come upon them, in his return from Connecticut river, they leaped into the sea, where some were drowned, and others reached the shore. The first news of this sad event that they received was from Mr. Williams's pen, by two In­dians who went with Oldham, and one from Co­nanicus, a Narraganset Sachem, who arrived —at Boston July 26, 1636. Governor Vane wrote back to Mr. Williams, to let the Narragansets know that they expected them to send home two boys who were with Oldham, and to take revenge upon the islanders. Four days after the boys came home with one of Miantinomy's men, with another letter from Mr. Williams, informing that said Sachem had caused the Sachem of Niantick to send to Block-Island for them, and that he had near a hun­dred fathom of peag, and much other goods of Oldham's, which should be reserved for them, and that three of the seven Indians who were drowned were Sachems ^*. August 26 came a third letter from Mr. Williams, and Governor Winthrop says, [Page 76] ‘“In these Indian troubles Mr. Williams was as­siduous to influence the Narragansets in favour of the English, and to keep them from joining ”with the Pequods ^*.’

SEPT, ‘Canonicus sent word of some English “whom the Pequods had killed at Saybrook, and Mr. Williams wrote that the Pequods and Narragan­sets were at truce, and that Minatonomoh told him that the Pequods had laboured to persuade them that the English were minded to destroy all the Indians. Whereupon we sent for Mino­tonomoh ”to come to us.’ Accordingly he and two of Canonicus's sons and another Sachem, and near twenty of their men whom they call Sannups, came to Boston October 21, where the Governor called together all the magistrates and ministers: And next day a firm league was signed between them. ‘But because they could not make them “well understand the articles, they told them they would send a copy of them to Mr. Williams, who could best interpret the same to them. So after ”dinner they took leave ^†.’ What would the Massachusetts have now done, if Mr. Williams had been sent to England, as they intended the winter before!

LET us now review their religious state. In Oc­tober, 1635, arrived Mr. Thomas Shepard and Hugh Peters, two ministers, who were much improved afterward; also Mr. afterward Sir Hen­ry Vane, the latter of whom was admitted a member of Boston church November 1 ^‖. At the General Assembly held March 3, 1636, "Order­ed, that all persons are to take notice that this Court doth not, nor will hereafter, approve of any [Page 77]such companies of men, as shall henceforth join in any pretended way of church fellowship, without they shall first acquaint the magistrates and the elders of the greater part of the churches in this jurisdiction with their intentions, and have their approbation herein. And further it is ordered, that no person being a member of any church which shall hereafter be gathered without the approbation of the magistrates and the greater part of the said churches, shall be admitted to the freedom of this common wealth ^*."

AT the election at Boston, May 25, Mr. Vane was chosen Governor, and Mr. Winthrop Deputy-Governor; and a standing Council was formed of three men; ‘The reason was, for that it was shew­ed “from the word of God, &c. that the principal ”magistrates ought to be for life.’ Mr. Winthrop and Mr. Dudley were chosen for life, and Governor Vane to be their President ^†. The next year Mr. Endicot was chosen for life in Vane's room. This [Page 78]Council soon found work to do, one article of which here follows.

THEY were somewhat too short in declaring the laws and orders of their government already esta­blished, for that work was yet to do; therefore this Court now passed the following act, viz. ‘The “Governor, Deputy-Governor, Thomas Dudley, John Haynes, Richard Bellingham, Esquires, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Peters; and Mr. Shepard, are entreated to make a draught of laws agreeable to the word of God, which may be the fundamentals of this commonwealth, and to present the same to the next General Court; and it is ordered that in the mean time the magistrates and their asso­ciates shall proceed in the courts to hear and de­termine all causes according to the laws now esta­blished, and where there is no law, then as near ”the laws of God as they can ^*.’

SOON after this came on such disputes in the coun­try about grace and works, that ‘it began to be as “common there to distinguish between men be­ing under a covenant of works, and a covenant of grace, as in other countries between Pro­testants ”and Papists ^†.’ It divided the General [Page 80]Court, and from thence it was carried into Boston church, where it caused sharp debates on Lord's day, December 31, between the two ministers, Cotton and Wilson, and between the Governor and Deputy-Governor, [Page 81]who were members of it ^†. In this con­troversy Mr. Cotton found what it was to fall into the minority, for none of the ministers held fully with him but Mr. Wheelwright, who was not a settled minister, but was preaching to a branch of Boston church, at the place now called Braintree; where at a general fast on January 19, 1637, he delivered a discourse that greatly increased the flame. Under his third use we are told that he said, ‘The “second sort of people that are to be condemned, are all such as do set themselves against the Lord Jesus Christ; such are the greatest enemies to the state as can be; if they can have their wills, you see what a lamentable state both church and com­monwealth will be in; then we shall have need of mourning; the Lord cannot endure those that are enemies to himself and kingdom and people, ”and unto the good of his church ^‡’

AT the General Court, March 9, Mr. Wheelwright was called to account for the words which tended to sedition in his sermon, but the matter was defer­red [Page 82]from court to court till fall, when he was banish­ed. Contention arose to a great height. Stephen Greensmith, for saying "that all the ministers ex­cept A. B. C. did teach a covenant of works, was censured to acknowledge his fault in every church, and fined 40 l. ^*"

AT the General Court, May 17, 1637, after a hot dispute they proceeded to election, when Mr. Vane and his friends were left out ^§; and a law was made, "that no town or person shall receive any stranger resorting hither with intent to reside in this jurisdiction, nor shall allow any lot or habi­tation to any above three weeks, except such per­sons shall have allowance under some one of the coun­cil, or of two other of the magistrates their hands, upon pain that every town that shall give or sell any lot or habitation to any such not so allowed shall forfeit 100 l. for every offence; and every person receiving any such for longer time than is here expressed, or than shall be allowed in some special case—shall forfeit for every offence 40 l. and for every month after such person shall there continue 20 l. ^†"

MR. Cotton was for a while so much dissatisfied with this law, that he had thoughts of removing out of that jurisdiction ^‡. Governor Winthrop wrote a defence of it, in which he does not deny but that a principal design of that law was to keep away per­sons of Mr. Wheelwright's opinions, and says, ‘If “we find his opinions such as will cause divisions, and make people look at their magistrates, mi­nisters, and brethren, as enemies to Christ, an­tichrists, &c. were it not sin and unfaithfulness [Page 83]in us, to receive more of their opinions, which we already find the evil fruit of? Nay, why do not those who now complain join with us in keep­ing out such, as well as formerly they did in ex­pelling Mr. Williams for the like, though less dangerous?" Where this change of their judg­ments should arise I leave to themselves to ”examine ^*.’ Ah! less dangerous, sure enough! for Mr. Williams was banished for holding that the magistrates sword ought not to be brought in to decide religious controversies; but Wheel­wright would have turned that sword against the rulers, ministers and people, that he judged to be under a covenant of works, and so enemies to grace.

MR. Wheelwright was brother in-law to Mrs. Anne Hutchinson, who had been a principal instru­ment of the division in the country about grace and works. We are told that she brought these two errors out of England with her, viz. ‘1. That the per­son “of the Holy Ghost dwells in a justified person. 2. That no sanctification can help to evidence our ”justification ^†’ A synod of ministers and mes­sengers from all parts of the country met at New­town, the 30th of August, and spent three weeks in debates upon these controversies, and drew up and condemned fourscore errors. The General Court adjourned to attend on their debates, and after their result was signed by all the settled ministers except Mr. Cotton, who also appeared to incline toward the majority; they met Sept. 26, when ‘Mr. Wheel­wright “appearing, was dismissed until he should be sent for by the court or courts which shall [Page 84]succeed. This present court is dissolved, until a ”new one be called, and to be kept at Newtown ^*.’

HERE opens something that I never heard of till I found it upon the colony records. It was custom­ary to elect their deputies twice a year, namely, in the spring and fall; but to choose them twice in one fall was an unprecedented act, of which I believe no parallel can be found from the foundation of the country to this day. It seems that a major vote of those deputies, to execute the decrees of the late synod, could not be obtained, therefore the house was dissolved, and a new one convened on Novem­ber 2, 1637; to whom a remonstrance against those former proceedings was presented, signed by above sixty men; of whom William Aspinwall, who drew it, and John Coggshall were members of the Assem­bly; but for which they were now excluded, and an order was sent for Boston to choose two other de­puties. Also, "John Oliver, justifying the sedi­tious libel called a remonstrance or petition, was discharged from being a deputy in this court ^† The court then proceeded to pass the following [Page 85]sentences, viz. "Mr. John Wheelwright being for­merly convicted of contempt and sedition, and now justifying himself and his former practice, being the disturbance of the civil peace, he is by the court disfranchised and banished, having fourteen days to settle his affairs.

"MR. John Coggshall being convented for di­sturbing the public peace, was disfranchised, and enjoined not to speak any thing to disturb the pub­lic peace, upon pain of banishment.

"MR. William Aspinwall being convented for having his hand to a petition or remonstrance, being a seditious libel, and justifying the same, for which and for his insolent carriage, he is disfranchised and banished, putting in sureties for his departure be­fore the end of the first month next ensuing.

"MRS. Hutchinson, the wife of Mr. William Hutchinson, being convented for traducing the ministers and their ministry in this country, she declared voluntarily her revelations were the ground, and that she should be delivered, and the court ruin­ed [Page 86]with their posterity, and hereupon was banished; and the mean while was committed to Mr. Joseph Weld, until the court shall dispose of her."

CAPTAIN Underhill, and two serjeants, were put from office and disfranchised, one of the serjeants being also fined 40 l. the other 20 l. Four men more were disfranchised for having their hands to said petition, one of whom was William Dyer, af­terward the first secretary of Rhode-Island colony. Ten men retracted their signing that remonstrance, and were forgiven. Then upon the 20th of No­vember the court passed the following sentence:

"WHEREAS the opinions and revelations of Mr. Wheelwright and Mrs. Hutchinson have seduced and led into dangerous errors many of the people of New-England, insomuch as there is just cause of suspicion that they, as others in Germany in former times, may upon some revelation make sudden irruption upon those that differ from them in judg­ment; for prevention whereof it is ordered that all those whose names are underwritten (upon warning given at their dwelling-houses) before the 30th day of this month of November, deliver in at Mr. Keayne's house, at Boston, all such guns, pistols, swords, powder, shot and match, as they shall be owners of, or have in their custody, upon pain of 10 l. for every default to be made thereof; which arms are to be kept by Mr. Keayne till this court shall take further order therein. Also it is ordered, upon like penalty of 10 l. that no man who is to ren­der his arms by this order, shall buy or borrow any guns, swords, pistols, powder, shot or match, until this court shall take further order therein." Seventy-six men are named as being disarmed by this sen­tence, only if any of them would acknowledge and not justify said petition before two magistrates, they [Page 87]should then be free from it ^§. Of these men 58 be­longed to Boston, 5 to Roxbury, 2 to Charlestown, 6 to Salem, 2 to Ipswich, and 3 to Newbury; of whom Richard Dummer, of Newbury, had been an Assistant, and Mr. Hutchinson, Underhill, Aspin­wall, Coggshall and Oliver, of Boston, Robert Moulton, of Salem, and others, had been deputies.

DIRECTLY upon the foregoing act the Assembly added the following, viz. "The court being sen­sible of great disorders growing in this common­wealth, through the contempts which have been of late put upon the civil authority, and intending to provide remedy for the same in tim [...], doth order and decree, that whosoever shall hereafter openly or willingly defame any court of justice, or the sentence or proceedings of the same, or any of the magistrates or other judges of any such court, in respect of any act or sentence therein passed, and being thereof lawfully convicted in any general court or courts of Assistants, shall be punished for the same, by fine, imprisonment or banishment, as the quality and measure of the offence shall deserve.—Provided al­ways, that seeing the best judges may err through ignorance or misinformation—it is not the intent of this court to restrain the free use of the way of God, by petition," &c.

A COMPLAINT being made at the same time that some ministers were not well maintained, the court sent out a request, ‘That the several churches will “speedily enquire hereinto, and if need be to con­fer together about it, and send some to advise with this court at the next session thereof, that some order may be taken according to the rule of [Page 88] ”the gospel. ^*’ The effects of these proceedings we shall soon see; though by the way it is proper to observe, that as Mr. Williams had been instrumen­tal of procuring the Narragansets help against the Pequods, the several colonies sent out their forces against them, and Governor Winthrop says, May 24, "By letters from Mr. Williams we were no­tified, that Capt. Mason was gone to Saybrook with 80 English and 100 Indians," &c. so that he was constantly engaged for their good; the army was successful, the Pequods were subdued, and I find a proposal of a day of thanksgiving for the soldiers return, at the General Court, August 1. But at the same time they say "Mr. John Greene, of New-Providence, having spoken against the magi­strates contemptuously, stands bound over in 100 marks to appear at the next quarter court." At that court he was fined 20 l. and committed till it was paid; though upon a submissive petition to the General Court, Sept. 26, he was released ^†. He with others had resorted to Mr. Williams's planta­tion, to which there was a great addition the next spring, as well as a new one begun at Rhode-Island, of which take the following account:

MR. John Clarke, a learned physician, who I find was admitted a freeman at Boston May 6, 1635, as his brother Joseph had been the March before, seeing how things were turned at the court in November, 1637, he made a proposal to his friends, for peace sake, and to enjoy the freedom of their consciences, to remove out of that jurisdiction. The motion was accepted, and he (being then a gentleman in his 29th year) was requested with some others to look out for a place; they did so, [Page 89]and by reason of the heat of the preceding summer, they first went northerly into that which is now the province of New-Hampshire; but the coldness of the following winter made them incline to turn the other way. "So having sought the Lord for direction, they agreed that while their vessel was passing about Cape-Cod they would cross over by land, having Long-Island and Delaware bay in their eye, for the place of their residence. At Providence Mr. Williams lovingly entertained them, and being consulted about their design, readily presented two places before them; Sowams, now called Barrington, and Aquetneck, now Rhode-Island. They being determined to go out of the other jurisdictions, Mr. Williams, Mr. Clarke, and two others, went to Plymouth to enquire how the case stood; who lovingly entertained them, and let them know that they claimed Sowams, but ad­vised them to settle at Aquetneck, and promised that they should be looked upon as free, and to be treated and assisted as loving neighbours." Upon their return nineteen men incorporated themselves into a body politic, and chose Mr. Coddington to be their Judge or chief magistrate. ^*."

Now to take things in their order, it is to be observed, that though Mr. Williams and a few of his friends had, with the consent of the Narraganset sachems, been settled at Providence near two years, yet the first deed of the place that is extant bears date the same day with that of Aquetneck; and is as follows:

"AT Nanhiggansick the 24th of the first month, commonly called March, in the 2d year of our plantation, or planting at Mooshausick, or Providence: Memorandum, that we Caunannicus and Mianti­nomu, [Page 90]the two chief sachems of Nanhiggansick, having two years since sold unto Roger Williams the lands and meadows upon the two fresh rivers called Mooshausick and Wanaskatuckett ^*, do now by these present establish and confirm the bounds of those lands, from the rivers and fields of Pautuckett, the great hill of Neoterconkenitt on the northwest, and the town of Mashapauge on the west. As also, in consideration of the many kind­nesses and services he hath continually done for us, both for our friends of Massachusetts, as also at Quininkticutt and Apaum, or Plymouth; we do freely give unto him all that land from those rivers reaching to Pautuxett river, as also the grass and meadows upon Pautuxett river; in witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands, in the presence of,

• The mark of ‡ CAUNANNICUS,
• The mark of ‖ MIANTINOMU.
• The mark of † SEATAGH,
• The mark of * ASSOTEMEWETT.

"1639, MEMORANDUM, 3 month 9 day, this was all again confirmed by Miantinomu; be acknowledged this his act and hand; up the stream of Pautuckett and Pautuxett without limits we might have for our use of cattle; witness hereof,

• ROGER WILLIAMS,
• BENEDICT ARNOLD ^†

THE deed of Rhode-Island was also given the same March 24, 1638; and 20 years after Mr. Williams having occasion to give his testimony concerning it, says, "I have acknoledged (and have and shall endeavour 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 favour which that honorable gentleman Sir Henry Vane and myself had with that great sachem Miantinomu, 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 acknowledgement 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 ^*."

MR. Williams having obtianed the aforesaid grant of Providence, conveyed the same to his friend by the following instrument.

"Providence, 8th of the 8th month, 1638 (so cal­led.) Memorandum, that I Roger Williams, having formerly purchased of Caunannicus and Mianti­nomu this our situation or plantation of New-Pro­vidence, viz. the two fresh rivers Wanasquatuckett and Mooshausick, and the ground and meadows thereupon; in consideration of thirty pounds receiv­ed from the inhabitaints 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 neighbours, Stuckely Westcoat, William Arnold, Thomas James, Robert Cole, John Greene, John Throckmorton, William Harris, William Carpenter, Thomas Ol­ney, Francis Weston, Richard Waterman, Ezekiel Holliman, and such other 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 Pautuxett, with the grass and meadows thereupon, which was so lately given and granted by the aforesaid sachems to me; witness my hand, ROGER WILLIAMS ^*."

THOSE who were thus received signed the fol­lowing covenent, viz.

‘“WE whose names are here underwriten 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.’

BY the records, compared with a more ample and full deed of Mr. Williams's to the town, executed December 20, 1661, which is entered there, it ap­pears that he generously gave the aforesaid twelve men their interest in the town freely, and the thirty pounds were paid by the next who were admitted, at the rate of thirty shillings a man, the names of whom were Chad Brown, William Field, Thomas Harris, William Wickenden, Robert Williams, Richard Scott, William Renolds, John Field, John Warner, Thomas Angell, Benedict Arnold, Joshua Winsor, Thomas Hopkins, Francis Weeks," &c ^*. In the last mentioned deed, after referring to the former ones, and expressing that the sachems deed was two years after his first purchase, he more fully explains the nature and motives of those transactions. Says he, ‘notwithstanding I had the frequent promise [Page 94] “of Miatinomu, my kind friend, that it should not be land that I should want about those bounds mentioned, provided that I satisfied the Indians there inhabiting, I having made convenant of peaceable neighbourhood will all the sachems and natives round about us, and having, in 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 conditions of divers of my countrymen, I communicated by said pur­chase unto my loving friends John Throckmorton, and others, who then desired to take shelter here with me. 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 favour 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 neighbourhood with them, to my great charge und travel; it was therefore thought fit that I should receive some considera­tion ”and gratuity.’ Thus, after mentioning the said thirty pounds, and saying, ‘this sum I “received; and in love to my friends, and with respect to a town and place of succour for the di­stressed as aforesaid, I do acknowledge this said sum ”and payment a full satisfaction;’ he went on in full and strong terms to confirm those lands to said inhabitants; reserving no more to himself and his heirs than an equal share with the rest; his wife also signing the deed.

I TRUST the reader will excuse the length of this account, when he considers that these were the foun­dations of a now flourishing colony, which was laid upon such principles as no other civil government ever had been, as we know of, since Antichrist's first appearance; ‘and ROGER WILLIAMS justly “claims the honor of having been the first legislator in the word, in its latter ages, that fully and ef­fectually provided for and established a free, full ”and absolute LIBERTY of CONSCIENCE. ^*’

NONE might have a voice in government in this new plantation, who would not allow this liberty. Hence about this time I find the following town act, viz. "It was agreed that Joshua Verin, upon [Page 96]breach of covenant, or restraining liberty of con­science, shall be withheld from the liberty of voting till he shall declare the contrary." It appears from Mr. Hubbard, that the way in which he restrained that liberty was, in not letting his wife go to Mr. Williams's meeting so often as she was called for. Verin soon removed to Barbados, and left his in­terest in Providence in such a state as has caused much trouble since.

WE will now turn to the affairs of Rhode-Island people, who on March 7, 1638, signed the follow­ing instrument: "We whose names are under-writ­ten 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 Dyre,
• William Freeborne,
• Philip Sherman,
• John Walker,
• Richard Carder,
• William Baulstone,
• Edward Hutchinson, sen.
• Henry Bull,
• Randal Holden,
• William Coddington,
• John Clarke,
• William Hutchinson,
• John Coggshall,
• William Aspinwall,
• Samuel Wilbore,
• John Porter,
• Edward Hutchinson, jun.
• John Sanford ^‖."

THIS was doubtless in their view a better plan than any of the others had laid, as they were to be governed by the perfect laws of Christ. But the question is, how a civil polity could be so governed, when he never erected any such state under the gos­pel? As much as they had been against the legal covenant, yet they now went back to the first order of government after Israel came into Canaan, and to imitate it chose Mr. Coddington their judge, and Mr. Nicholas Easton, J. Coggshall, and William Brenton, elders to assist him. This form continu­ed, till on March 12, 1640, they altered it, and chose Mr. Coddington Governor, Mr. Brenton Deputy-Governor, and Messieurs Easton, Cogg­shall, William Hutchinson, and John Porter, Assist­ants, Robert Jefferies Treasurer, and William Dyre Secretary; which form continued till they re­ceived a charter.

BUT before we proceed further upon their affairs, it may be proper to observe, that the Assembly, who met at Boston, September 6, 1638, made the two following laws.

• 1. "WHEREAS it is found by sad experience, that divers persons, who have been justly cast out of some of the churches, do profanely contemn the same sacred and dreadful ordinance, by presenting themselves over-boldly in other assemblies, and speaking lightly of their consures, to the great of­fence and grief of God's people, and encourage­ment of evil-minded persons to contemn the said ordinance; it is therefore ordered, that whosoever shall stand excommunicated for the space of six months, without labouring what in him or her lieth to be restored, such person shall be presented to the Court of Assistants, and there proceeded with by fine, imprisonment, banishment, or further, for the good behaviour, as their contempt and obstinacy upon full hearing shall deserve."
• 2. "THE court taking into consideration the necessity of an equal contribution to all common charges in towns, and observing that the chief occa­sion of the defect herein ariseth hence, that many who are not freemen nor members of any church, do take advantage thereby to withdraw their help, in such voluntary, contributions as are in use; it is therefore hereby declared, that every inhabitant in any town is liable to contribute to all charges both in church and commonwealth whereof he doth or may receive benefit; and withal it is also ordered, that every such inhabitant who shall not voluntarily contribute proportionably to his ability with other freemen of the same town, to all common charges, as well for upholding the ordinances in the churches at otherwise, shall be compelled thereto by assess­ment [Page 99]and distress, to be levied by the constable or other officer of the town, as in other cases ^†."

HERE, my dear countrymen, let us make a little pause. Not long since, in the presence of a num­ber of gentlemen, mention was made of the former persecutions in New-England, upon which one of their legislators arose and said, "it is monstrous cru­elty and injustice, thus to rake up the ashes of our good fathers, and to reproach their children there­with, when we never think of those transactions with­out grief and abhorrence!" If so, why are those deeds imitated by our present rulers? And why do the people love to have it so? Certainly the support of good order and government in the church is of greater importance than ministers maintenance; and to vindicate the methods then taken to support the former of these, Mr. Cotton brought that plain text, thou shalt surely kill him, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God; and, said he, ‘this reason is of moral, that is, of universal “ ”and perpetual equity ^‖.’ But I never heard any man say so of that other text, thou shalt give it me now, and if not, I will take it by force, which is the most like the practice of many in this generation of any thing that I could ever find in our bible. Go­vernor Winthrop informs us, that the next May after the above laws were passed, Mr. Cotton, in preaching from Heb. viii. 8, taught ‘that when “magistrates are forced to proceed for the main­tenance of ministers, &c. then the churches are in a declining state. Here he shewed that the ministers maintenance should be by voluntary con­tribution. ”’ But the law to impower their execu­tive court to punish excommunicates, for disregard­ing the churches authority, was repealed the next [Page 100]fall, while that to maintain ministers by assessment and distress was continued in full force; and their practice upon it in Watertown moved Nathaniel Briscoe to write a book against it, the consequence of which was, that he was brought before the quar­ter court at Boston, March 7, 1643, and fined ten pounds; and ‘John Stowers, for reading of divers “offensive passages (before company) out of a book, against the officers and church of Water­town, and for making disturbance there, was ”fined forty shillings.’ This severity brought Briscoe to a public acknowledgment, and then his fine was remitted to forty shillings, ‘and that to be “ ”taken ^§.’ The ministers thus left it to the secular arm to convince him, and said, ‘his arguments “were not worth the answering; for he that shall deny the exerting of the civil power, to provide for the comfortable subsistence of them that preach the gospel, fuste potius erudiendus, quam argumento, as they say of them that are wont, negare principia, let him that is taught communicate to him that teach­eth ”in all good things ^†;’ that is, he that shall deny such an exertion of power, is rather to be taught by a cudgel than argument, as they say of them who are wont to deny first principles. But let us take heed that we are not imposed upon, by a confounding of two things together, which are as distinct in their nature as light and darkness are, namely duty itself, and the right way of enforcing of it. The duty of offering daily or continual thanksgivings to our great creator, and of a liberal communication to Christ's ministers and members, are both called sacrifices to God, in Heb. xiii. and why do our rulers neglect to enforce the daily exercise of family worship, by the [Page 101]same sword as they do ministers maintenance? Is not God's honor of greater concernment than men's livings are! A college was founded this year in Newtown, which for that reason was called Cam­bridge; and the importance of receiving learning at that or like places, to qualify men for the ministry, has been much insisted upon ever since; and those who have not been educated at such places have commonly been called laymen. And among the many reflections that have been cast upon them, one is, that they often beg the question in argument. But who are guilty of this mean sort of conduct now? The question between us is not, whether it be the duty of those who are taught to communicate unto their teachers or not; but it is, whether that duty ought to be enforced by the sword, or only by in­struction, persuasion and good example? And what have learned ministers ever done towards proving their side of the question better than begging!

THE great events of this year have taken up con­siderable room, yet I must request a place for a few articles more, that will affect the following part of our history ^‡.

ON June 5 Uncas, the sachem of the Mohegan Indians, "having entertained some of the Pequods, came to the Governor at Boston with a present, and was much dejected because at first it was not accepted; but afterward, the Governor and Coun­c [...] being satisfied about his innocency, they accept­ed it; whereupon he promised to submit to the or­ders of the English, both touching the Pequods he had received, and as concerning the differences be­tween the Narragansets and himself; and confirmed all with this compliment; laying his hand upon his [Page 103]heart, he said, this heart is not mine, but yours; I will never believe any Indian against the English any more; and so he continued ever after.—Uncas was alive and well in the year 1680 ^*.

MR. Cotton had entertained a favourable opinion of Mrs. Hutchinson, and when she was upon exa­mination before the court that banished her, he was asked what he thought of her revelation concerning her deliverance? He replied, "if she doth look for for deliverance from the hand of God by his provi­dence, and the revelation be in a word, or according to a word, I cannot deny it." Upon which Mr En­dicot said, "you give me satisfaction." "N [...], no, (said Mr. Dudley) he gives me none at all—Y [...] weary me, and do not satisfy me" Mr. N [...]el said, "I think it is a devilish delusion." A [...]d Go­vernor Winthrop said, "of all the revelations that ever I heard of, I never heard the like ground l [...] as is for this. The enthusiasts and Anabaptists h [...]d never the like." Mr. Dudley added, "I never law such revelations as these among Anabaptists, therefore am sorry that Mr. Cotton should stand to justify her;" and he and others of the court would have brought him upon trial also, but the Governor pre­vented it ^†.

AFTER a year's consideration, Mr. Cotton, at a public fast, December 13, 1638, "did confess and [Page 104]bewail, as the churches, so his own security and cre­dulity, whereupon so many and dangerous errors had gotten up, and spread in the churches, and went over all the particulars, and shewed how he came to be deceived; the errors being formed, in words, so near the truth he had preached, and the falshood of the maintainers of them was such, as they usually would deny to him what they had de­livered to others. He acknowledged that such as had been seducers of others (instancing in some of those of Rhode-Island, though he named them not) had been justly banished; yet he said such as only had been misled, and others who had done any thing out of a misguided conscience (not being grosly evil) should be born withal, and first referred to the church, and if that could not heal them, they should rather be imprisoned or fined than banished, it being likely that no other church would receive them.— If he were not convinced, yet he was persuaded to an amicable compliance with the other ministers, by a studious abstaining on his part from all expressions that were like to be offensive; for although it was thought he did still retain his own sense, and enjoy his own apprehension, in all or most of the things then controverted (as is manifest by some expres­sions of his in a treatise of the new covenant, since published by Mr. Thomas Allen, of Norwich) yes was there an healing of the breach that had been between him and the rest of the elders, and a putting a stop to the course of errors in the country for the future. By that means did that reverend and worthy minister of the gospel recover his former splendor throughout the country of New-England ^‡."

This year, upon an occurrence, Governor Win­throp wrote to Mr. Clarke at Aquetneck, and stiled him, ‘a physician and a preacher to those of that “ ”island.’

We are now come to an event which has made much noise in the world, I mean Mr. Williams's baptism. The reader may remember that he was charged with advancing principles at Plymouth that tended to Anabaptism, and that he filled Salem therewith; and could he have found an agreeable administrator, it is not likely that he would have neglected the putting of this principle into practice so long as he did. At length, being in such a state of exile in a heathen land, it is probable he conclud­ed that the case about baptism, which Mr. Robinson recites, was applicable to theirs, which is in these words:

‘“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 churches, 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 of Christ: And so as such a [Page 106]minister may, with the consent of that small church, appoint one of the communicants, and ”provide that he be baptized by him ^*.’

Mr. Williams took such a method, with only this difference, that one of the community was first ap­pointed to baptize him, and then he baptized the rest; for Mr. Hubbard, says he, ‘was baptized by “one Holliman, then Mr. Williams rebaptized him, ”and some ten more.’ With this Governor Win­throp agrees, and sets the date of it in March, 1639. The Governor called Holliman a poor man, and Hubbard stiles him a mean fellow; but after the year 1650 I find him more than once a deputy from the town of Warwick in their General Court. The above gentlemen represent that Mrs. Hutchinson's sister, the wife of one Scott, stirred Mr. Williams up to this action; though afterward Mr. Hubbard does not pretend to certainty as to that, and says it was difficult for one to give an exact account of their religious affairs in that colony, that did not live among them; and it is certain that he and the Go­vernor were both mistaken in calling "those of Providence all Anabaptists." For it appears from under Mr. Williams's own hand, seventeen years after, that Arnold and Carpenter, two of the first twelve, were not such ^‡; neither have I met with any proof that Gorton, Weston or Waterman, who went to Warwick, were ever of that denomi­nation ^†.

Before this time Mr. Peters was got to be mini­ster of Salem, and he wrote to the church of Dor­chester on July 1, this year, to acquaint them that their "great censure" was past upon Roger Williams and his wife, John Throgmorton and his wife, Stukely Westcot and his wife, Mary Holliman, and the widow Reves, and that all but two of these were rebaptized ^‡.

Besides the above men, we are well informed that William Wickenden, Chad Brown, and Gregory Dexter, were of this Baptist church in Providence, and in 1765 Governor Hopkins, who is not a Bap­tist, said, ‘this first church of Baptists at Provi­dence “hath from its beginning kept itself in re­pute, and maintained its discipline to this day; hath always been, and still is, a numerous con­gregation, and in which I have with pleasure ob­served very lately sundry descendents from each ”of the above named founders, except Holliman ^*.’ It seems he removed away.

I am sensible that this testimony is very different from the accounts of many New-England historians, [Page 108]who represent that the church soon broke up, because Mr. Williams did not walk long with it. His stop in that travel Governor Winthrop mentions in July following; and Richard Scott, who afterward turn­ed to the Quakers, says, ‘I walked with him in “the Baptists way about 3 or 4 months, in which time he brake from the society, and declared at large the ground and reasons of it; that their baptism could not be right, because it was not administred by an apostle. After that he set upon a way of seeking (with two or three of them 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. That which took most with him was to get honor amongst men. After his society and he in a church way were parted, he then went to England, and there got a charter; and coming from Boston to Pro­vidence, at Seaconk the neighbours of Provi­dence met him with fourteen canoes, and car­ried him to Providence. And the man being hemmed in the middle of the canoes, was [...] 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.—Though he professed liberty of con­science, and was so zealous for it at the first coming home of the charter, that nothing in government must be acted till that was granted; yet he could be the forwardest in their government to prosecute against those that could not join with him in it; as witness his presenting of it to the court at ”Newport ^†.’

Thus Quakers, as well as Paedobaptists, could cast out hard reflections against him; whether justly or [Page 109]not, the reader when he has heard the whole story will judge. At present I would only remark, that this man had been Mr. Williams's neighbour 38 years when he wrote this letter, and the spirit of it fully proves that he was not prejudiced at all in his or the Baptist's favour; yet the facts according to him were, that but two or three persons went off with Mr. Williams, leaving the rest in a church way still; neither does he say a word of Mr. Williams's expecting to be an apostle himself. Indeed as to that point, Mr. Hubbard goes no further than to say, "expecting (as was supposed) to become an apostle;" and Governor Winthrop has the same parenthesis; so that it was no more than a supposi­tion in that day, but a late historian has delivered it off as fact, without the parenthesis; and Dr. Mather, from his grandfather Cotton, says they ‘broke “forth into Anabaptism, and then to Antibaptism and Familism, and now finally into no church at ”all ^‡.’ Such naked untruths have one generation after another told about these people!

An evident cause of Mr. Williams's refraining from a farther proceeding in church ordinances, was an apprehension of the necessity of a visible succession of regular ordinations from the apostles, to impower men to it, which succession he could not find: Yet how fond are many ministers in our day of this suc­cessive notion? A minister's preaching upon it was vindicated in the Boston Evening-Post of May 9, 1774, which informs us that the preacher said, ‘“God the Father sent forth the Son; he sent forth the apostles as the Father sent him; they sent forth others, with command to commit these things to faithful men. And the preacher said that Christ had never committed this power (to put into office) [Page 110]to any but such as were in office; and conse­quently ”no other had a power to put out of office.’ But I am not afraid boldly to assert, that I verily believe, according to this doctrine, there is not a minister this day under heaven but what must stop from administring baptism, as Mr. Williams did, if they were as honest as he was. A minister in Con­necticut a few years ago published a pamphlet to support the above opinion; wherein, to get over the difficulty that arises for want of any proof of such a lineal succession, he observed that none under the law were to be priests but the lawful posterity of Aaron; yet supposing a bastard son of that family should have posterity, in so long a succession that the knowledge of his illegitimacy was lost, he asserted that such priests might well be admitted into office with others. According to which doctrine, know­ledge must be very detrimental to such priests, and ignorance must be the mother of such devotion. The minister who published said pamphlet is a trustee of Yale College; and likely he is better acquainted with philosophy and school divinity than he is with his bible, or else he would have known that Ezra the priest, a scribe of the law of the God of heaven (in distinction from all earthly gods) refused to admit or suffer men upon negatives: And such as sought, but could not find THEIR REGISTER, were, as polluted, put from the priesthood. Ezra ii. 62. And if we review the text that is now so much harped upon, we shall find that the apostolic succession is in the line of faithful men, and no others are truly in it, though false bre­thren have sometimes crept in unawares.

Mr. John Spilsbury, pastor of the first Baptist church in London, says, ‘because some think to “shut up the ordinance of God in such a strait, that none can come by it but through the authority [Page 111]of the popedom of Rome; let the reader consi­der who baptized John the Baptist before he bap­tized others, and if no man did, then whether he did not baptize others, he himself being unbap­tized. We are taught by this what to do upon the like occasion. I fear men put more than is of right due to it, that so prefer it above the church, and all other ordinances; for they can assume and erect a church, take in and cast out members, elect and ordain officers, and admini­ster the supper, and all anew, without looking after succession, any further than the scriptures; but as for baptism, they must have that successively from the apostles, though it comes through the hands of Pope Joan. What is the cause of this, that men can do all from the WORD but only bap­tism?”’

The learned Mr. John Tombs also in that day produced the foregoing passage from Zanchy, for the same purpose that I have now done ^*.

I would just add, that though the express rule to Israel was, that every male must needs be circumcised at eight days old, or be cut off from their people, yet this general rule was so far dispensed with in a particular case, that circumcision was omitted forty years in the wilderness; and multitudes of them stood before God, and entered into or renewed their father Abraham's covenant in the plains of Moab, who yet were not circumcised till after they came over Jordan. Deut. xxix. Joshua v. 4—7. But the Christian church had been through a worse wilderness than that of Arabia, between the apostolic age and that we are now treating of; therefore that ancient example seems to give light in the case before us.

Mr. Pelatiah Mason, who was born near Provi­dence ferry in 1669, told his sons (three of whom are now public preachers in Swanzey) that he heard from the fathers of that day, that in the trial they then had, they heard that the Queen of Hungary, or some in those parts, had a register of a regular succession from the apostles, and had thoughts of sending Mr. Thomas Olney (who succeeded Mr. Williams as their pastor) into that country for it; but at length concluded that such a course was not expedient, but believing they were now got into the right way, determined to persevere therein.

Mr. Hubbard speaking of that colony says, "as to matters of religion, it was hard to give an exact account to the world of their proceedings therein, by any who have not been conversant with them from the beginning of their plantations; yet this was commonly said by all that ever had any occa­sion to be among them, that they always agreed in this principle, that no man or company of men ought to be molested by the civil power upon the account of re­ligion, or for any opinion received or practised in any matter of that nature; accounting it no small part of their happiness that they may therein be left to their own liberty; by which means the inhabitants are of many different persuasions. But what tendency that liberty had, by so long experience, towards the pro­moting of the power of godliness, and purity of religion, they are best able to judge that have had occasion to be most conversant amongst them."

By this and many other passages, that learned writer, as well as Governor Winthrop, discovered more candor of mind toward Mr. Williams and Rhode-Island colony, than almost any other of the Massachusetts writers have ever done, first or last. Mr. Hubbard says, "at Rhode-Island they gather­ed [Page 113]a church, but in a very disordered way; taking in some excommunicate persons, and others which were members of the church of Boston, but not dis­missed;—yet had they afterwards one Mr. Clarke for their minister, who had been bred to learning."

At the General Court at Boston, March 13, 1639, "John Smith, for disturbing the public peace, by combining with others to hinder the orderly gather­ing of a church at Weymouth, and to set up another there, contrary to the orders here established, and the constant practice of all our churches, and for undue procuring the hands of many to a blank for that purpose, is fined 20 l. and committed during the pleasure of the court or the council.

"Richard Silvester, for going with Smith to get hands to a blank, was disfranchised and fined forty shillings.

"Ambrose Morton, for calling the church cove­nant a stinking carrion, and a human invention, and saying he wondered at God's patience, feared it would end in the sharp, and said the ministers did dethrone Christ and set up themselves, he was fined 10 l. and counselled to go to Mr. Mather to be in­structed by him ^*. Thomas Mackpeace, because of his novel disposition, was informed we were wea­ry of him unless he reformed.

"The fourth of the 2d month was thought fit for a day of humiliation, to seek the face of God, and reconciliation with him by our Lord Jesus Christ in all the churches. Novelties, oppression, Atheism, excess, superfluity, idleness, contempt of authority, and troubles in other parts, to be remembered.

"Mr. Robert Lenthal, upon his free acknow­ledgment under his hand, given into the court, was [Page 114]appointed to appear at the next court, and enjoined to acknowledge his fault, and give satisfaction to the church at Weymouth, and to give a copy of that he gave into the court to the church of Weymouth.

"John Smith and John Spur are bound in 40 l. to pay 20 l. the first day of the next court ^*."

Mr. Lenthal went to Rhode-Island, was admitted a freeman there on August 6, 1640; and he kept school and preached there for a while, but before March, 1642, was gone for England. The first settlement of the island began the same spring they purchased it, the second the spring after; the latter of which was named Newport, on May 16, 1639; the other was called Portsmouth, at a general court, March 12, 1640.

At a General Court at Boston, Oct. 8, 1640, "it is ordered, that the letter lately sent to the Governor by Mr. Eaton, Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Haynes, Mr. Coddington, and Mr. Brenton, but coming also to the General Court, shall be thus answered by the Governor, that the court doth assent to all the pro­positions laid down in the aforesaid letter, but that the answer shall be directed to Mr. Eaton, Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Haynes only, excluding Mr. Cod­dington [Page 115]and Mr. Brenton, as men not to be capitu­lated withal by us, either for themselves or the peo­ple of the island where they inhabit, as their case standeth ^*." Eaton was of New-Haven, the other of Connecticut, which had no more of a charter from England than Rhode-Island had; therefore it was a difference about religious affairs that caused this partiality.

‘“Our neighbours of Plymouth had procured from hence this year one Mr. Chauncy, a great scholar and a godly man, intending to call him to the office of a teacher; but before the fit time came, he discovered his judgment about baptism, that the children ought to be dipt, and not sprink­led. There arose much trouble about it. The magistrates and the elders there, and the most of the people, withstood the reviving of that practice, not for itself so much as for fear of worse conse­quences; as the annihilating our baptism, &c. Whereupon the church there wrote to all the other churches, both here and at Connecticut, &c. for advice, and sent Mr. Chauncy's arguments. The churches took them into consideration, and wrote several answers, wherein they shewed their dissent from his, and clearly confuted all his arguments;—yet he could not give over his opinion; and the church of Plymouth, being much taken with his able parts, were very loth to part with him. He did maintain also that the Lord's supper ought to be administred in the evening, and every Lord's day. And the church at Sandwich (where one Mr. Leveridge was mi­nister) fell into the practice of it. But that being [Page 116]a matter of no great ill consequence, save some outward inconvenience, there was little stir about it. This Mr. Chauncy was after called to office ”in the church of Scituate ^*.’

At a quarter cour at Boston, Dec. 1, "the jury found Hugh Buet to be guilty of heresy, and that his person and errors are dangerous for infection of others. It is ordered that the said Hugh Buet should be gone out of our jurisdiction by the 24th present, upon pain of death, and not to return upon pain of being hanged." This is the first instance that I find upon the Massachusetts records of banishment for heresy upon this penalty. Two years before they banished three persons at once, on pain of death, for adultery. The records give no account of what Buet's heresy was, but Governor Winthrop says, it was "for holding he was free from original sin, and from actual also, for half a year before, and for hold­ing that true Christians are enabled to live without committing actual sin."

The learned upon pious Mr. Henry Dunstar came over this summer, and on August 27 weas chosen President of Harvard College, which flourished under his care and influence fourteen years; till having openly renounced infant baptism, such a temper was manifested against him on that account, that he re­signed that office ^†." About this time it appears by Mr. Hooker's letters, that many inclined toward the Baptist way, and he expressed his apprehensions that the number would increase ^‡; which it seems moved him to "resolve that he would have an ar­gument able to remove a mountain before he would recede from" infant baptism. This resolution Mr. [Page 117]Mitchel, thirteen years after, adopted from him, as a shield against Mr. Dunstar's arguments. ^§.

The estate of Mr. Humphry, one of their magi­strates, being much impaired, he sold his plantation at Lynn to the lady Moody, and returned to Eng­land. ^¶. She soon embraced the Baptist principles, and suffered therefor. And divers of those at Aquid­net turned professed Anabaptists. ^‖. Mr. Hubbard says, Nicholas Easton used to teach at Newport, and m [...]tained, "that man had no power nor will in him [...], but as he [...]as acted by God; and seeing that God filled all things, nothing could be or move but by him, and so must needs be the author of sin, and that a Christian is united to the essence of God. Being shewed what blasphemous consequences would follow therefrom, they seemed to abhor the conse­quences, but sill defended the position.—Mr. Cod­dington, Mr. Coggshall, and some others, joined with Nicholas Easton in those delusions; but their mini­ster, Mr. Clarke, Mr. Lenthal and Mr. Harding, with some others, dissented and publicly opposed; whereby it grew to such a heart of contention that it made a schism amongst them." Mr. Coddington and Mr. Easton afterward joined the Quakers, Mr. Clarke and his friends formed the first Baptist church on Rhode-Island.

In June this year the General Assembly of the Massachusetts sent to Plymouth to know why they might not take Seaconk into their jurisdiction; they tried for it about three years, till the commis­sioners of the united colonies confirmed it to Ply­mouth.

At a quarte [...] court at Boston, Sept. 7, Mr. Wil­liam Collins, a man of learning, who had married [Page 118]Mrs. Hutchinson's daughter, being "found a se­ducer;" and Francis Hutchinson, for calling the church of Boston "a whore," &c. were both fined and banishep upon pain of death. ^*. About two years after they were both killed by the Indians, with their mother Hutchinson, towards New-York. It is evident that the planters of Rhode-Island did not at first see into the true nature and grounds of liberty of conscience, but their assembly at Portsmouth, Mar. 16, 1641, passed an act for that purpose, which on the 17th of Sept. following was confirmed as a perpetual law. And at an assembly in Newport, Sept. 19, 1642, they appointed Messrs. Coddington, Brenton, Easton, Coggshall, Baulston, Porter, Dyer, Clarke, Harding and Jefferies, a committee to im­prove the first and best opportunity that presented to send home for a charter, and to write to Sir Henry Vene to solicit his assistance and influence in the design. They accordingly sent over by Mr. Williams, and obtained their request; though in the mean time a most dreadful broil broke out, and pre­vailed to a terrible degree among them, of which take the following account.

Samuel Gorton, a man of learning from London, arrived at Boston in 1636, and doubtless had a consi­derable hand in the mystical disputes that then embroil­ed them. From thence he went to Plymouth, where he treated their pastor Mr. Smith in such a manner, as caused the authority to take him in hand, and required bonds of him for his good behaviour. This occasioned his departure to Rhode-Island, where such a difficulty arose, that by Mr. Coddington's order he was imprisoned and whipt. From thence he came to Providence, where he was kindly treated by Mr. Williams and others; and he and his friends [Page 119]sat down at Pawtuxet, now called Cranston. I find by the records that Mr. Gorton bought half of Robert Cole's interest there on Jan. 10, 1641. And as the court at Newport in March following dis­franchised Richard Carder, Randal Holden, Sampson Shatton, and Robert Potter, they and John Wickes. who had followed Gorton from Plymouth, came and formed a considerable party at Pawtuxet. And such a contention was raised between them and the former inhabitants, ‘as they came armed into the “field, each against other; but Mr. Williams pa­cified them for the present. This caused the weaker party to write a letter to the Massachusetts rulers, complaining of the wrong they suffered, desiring aid, or if not, counsel from us. We an­swered them, that we could not levy war without a General Court. For counsel we told them, that except they would submit to some jurisdic­tion (Plymought, or &c.) we had no calling or warrant to interpose in their contentions, but if they would submit to any, then they had a call to ”protect them. ^*’ How different was the temper here discovered, from that of the pious Mr. Wil­liams? He was ever ready wherever he came to exert all his influence to make peace so far as he could with a good conscience, but the court at Boston seemed willing to play one party against another, till all would submit to their power. Gorton took a like method to defend himself against them; the consequence of which was terrible in­deed; the true state whereof I shall give with all the exactness I can.

William Arnold, Robert Cole, William Carpen­ter, and Benedict Arnold, of Pawtuxet, went to the General Assembly at Boston, Sept. 8, 1642, and [Page 120]submitted themselves and their lands to that govern­ment. At the same time Mr. Leveret and Edward Hutchinson were sent to Miantinomu to demand satisfaction of him, and first to tell him "of credi­ble information received, partly by relation of the Indians themselves, that they have drawn in many other Sachems to join with the Narragansets, in making war upon the English." Benedict Arnold and Ahauton, the Indian, were to be their guides and interpreters ^†. Then, October 28, a warrant was sent from Boston to cite Gorton and his friends to come to their court, to answer to the complaints of Arnold's company against them, signed by the Governor and three assistants. To this an answer was returned on Nov. 20, signed by 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. It contained a long mystical paraphrase upon their warrant, and many provoking sentences against those rulers and their ministers, and a refusal to come to them. But in order to get out of their reach they removed and purchased Shawomet for 144 fathoms of wam­pum, and obtained a deed of it, signed by Mian­tinomu, Pomham, and others, on Jan. 12, 1643. John Greene had received a deed of an island, neck of land and meadow, called Ocupassutuxet-cove, dated October 1, 1642, signed by Miantinomu and Socononco ^‡.

The General Court at Boston, May 10, 1643, appointed Mr. Atherton and Tomlyns, with Wil­liam [Page 121]Arnold to speak with Mr. Greene, Warner, and their company. On June 22 through Benedict Arnold's influence and assistance, Pumham, Sachem of Shawomet, and Sacanocho, Sachem of Pawtuxet, signed at Boston a submission of their persons and lands to that government; and Arnold was allowed 4 l. for his pains ^§. Governor Winthrop tells us that they had 2 or 300 men under them. The plea for this action was, that Gorton's company and Miantinomu had oppressed these Sachems, and wrong­ed them of their lands. Pumham said he was forced to sign the deed, but would take none of the pay. The Governor, with another magistrate, wrote to Shawomet people about it; and also to Miantino­mu, and he came down and met said Sachems at Boston, where they were forced to confess that they had sometimes sent him presents, and had aided him in his wars against the Pequods; yet they and Ar­nold would have it, that they were as free Sachems as he was, because their people paid tribute to them. So the court received them (as is before noted) under their protection. We are told that be­fore this, Gorton and his company had sent a writing of four sheets, ‘full of reproaches against the “magistrates, ministers and churches, and stuffed likewise with absurd familistial stuff, and wherein they justified the purchase of the Sachems lands, ”and professed to maintain it to the death ^*.’

Miantinomu had already seen Uncas, a warlike Sachem to the west of him, putting himself and his people under the protection of the English; and [Page 122]he was accused of hiring a young Pequod to murder Uncas, but he brought the young man with him, who told the court that Uncas cut his own arm with a flint, and then charged him to report that Mian­tinomu had hired him to murder him. But upon private examination, the court were persuaded the young man was guilty, and advised Miantinomu to send him to Uncas; but instead of doing it, he cut off his head by the way, as he returned home ^*. What followed till his own death, we have recorded by Governor Winthrop, in a more distinct and clear light than has ever been published, I shall therefore give it to the reader in his own words.

August. "Onkus being provoked by Sequassion, a Sachem of Connecticut (who would not be persuad­ed by the magistrates there to a reconciliation) made war upon him, and slew divers of his men, and burnt up his wigwams; whereupon Miantinomu, being his kinsman, took offence against Onkus, and went with near one thousand men, and set upon Onkus before he could be provided for defence; for he had not then with him above three or four hundred men. But it pleased God to give Onkus the victory, after he had killed about thirty of the Narragan­sets, and wounded many more: And among these, two of Canonicus's sons, and a brother of Mian­tinomu, who fled; for having on a coat of mail ^†, he was easily overtaken, which two of his captains perceiving, they laid hold of him and carried him to Onkus, hoping thereby to procure their own par­don. But so soon as they came to Onkus he slew them presently; and Miantinomu standing mute, he demanded of him, why he would not speak? If you had taken me (saith he) I would have besought [Page 123]you for my life, &c. The news of Miantinomu's captivity coming to Providence, Gorton and his company wrote a letter to Onkus, willing him to deliver their friend Miantinomu, and threatned him with the power of the English if he refused. Upon this Onkus carries Miantinomu to Hartford to take advice of the magistrates there; and, at Miantino­mu's earnest entreaty, he left him with them, yet as a prisoner. They kept him under guard, but used him very courteously. So he continued till the commis­sioners of the united colonies met at Boston ^†, who taking into serious consideration what was safest and best to be done, were all of opinion that it would not be safe to set him at liberty; neither had we sufficient ground for us to put him to death. In this difficulty we called in five of the most judicious elders (it being in the time of the general assembly of the elders) and propounding the case to them, they all agreed that he ought to be put to death. Upon this concurrence we enjoined secresy upon ourselves and them, lest if it should come to the notice of the Narragansets, they might attempt somewhat against Hartford for this reason, or might set upon the commissioners, &c. upon their return, to take some of them to redeem him (as Miantinomu him­self had told Mr. Haynes had been in consultation amongst them) and agreed that upon the return of the commissioners to Hartford, they should send for Onkus, and tell him our determination, that Mian­tinomu should be delivered to him again, and he should put him to death so soon as he came within his own jurisdiction, and that the English should go along with him to see the execution. And if any Indians should invade him for it, we would send men to defend him. If Onkus should refuse to do it, [Page 124]then Miantinomu should be sent in a pinnace to Boston, there to be kept until further consideration.

"The reasons of this proceeding with him were these:

• 1. It was now clearly discovered to us that there was a general conspiracy among the Indians to cut off the English, and that Miantinomu was the head and contriver of it.
• 2. He was of a turbulent and proud spirit, and would never be at rest.
• 3. Al­though he had promised us in the open court to send the Pequod to Onkus, who had shot him in the arm, with intent to have killed him (which was by the procurement of Miantinomu, as did probably appear) yet in his way homeward he killed him.
• 4. He beat one of Pumham's men, and took away his wampam, and then bid him go and complain to the Massachusetts. According to this agreement the commissioners, at their return to Connecticut, sent for Onkus, and acquainted him herewith, who readily undertook the execution; and taking Mian­tinoma along with him, in the way between Hart­ford and Windsor (where Onkus hath some men dwell) Onkus's brother following after Miantinomu, clave his head with an hatcher, some English being present. And that the Indians might know that the English did approve of it, they sent 12 or 14 musqueteers home with Onkus to abide a time with him, for his defence, if need should be ^†."

Alas! when good men get into an evil path, where will it carry them? The next news we hear is as follows. September 12, the General Court sent a warrant to require Gorton and his company to come to Boston, to answer the Indians complaints against them. To which they sent a verbal answer, that they were out of that jurisdiction, and would own subjection to none but the government of Old. [Page 125]England. Upon which the court wrote the 19th, informing them that they intended to send commis­sioners for to seek to right these things among them ^§. The commissioners were, Captain George Cook, Humphry Atherton, and Edward Johnson, who were sent, ‘with forty able men to attend “them, which have authority and order to bring Samuel Gorton and his company, if they do not ”give them satisfaction.’ A Major-General was appointed in the colony, and the country put into a posture of was. ‘They of Aquidneck are granted “to buy a barrel of powder, pro [...]ded Lieutenant Morris give caution that it be employed for the defence of the island, by the advice of the Gover­nor and Deputy. It is ordered that the deputies should acquaint the elders, to desire them in special manner to commend this undertaking to ”God’

A large commitee of magistrates and deputies were appointed in the recess of the General Court, ‘“not knowing (say they) what may fall out, con­cerning the expedition now on foot against Sa­muel ”Gorton, and the rest of that company.’

‘“It is ordered that Pumham and Sochonoco should have, each of them, lent them a fowling­piece, and Benedict Arnold hath liberty to supply them with powder and shot as he sees oc­casion ” ^†.’

Hearing of their coming, Gorton's company sent a letter to meet them, dated September 28, to let them know, that if they came in a way of loving neighbourhood, they were welcome; but if with a band of soldiers, they charged them not to set foot on their land at their peril. The commissioners [Page 126]wrote a reply, signifying their great desire of hav­ing conversation with them, with hope of reclaim­ing them from their errors; but if that could not be done, that they should then ‘look upon them as “men prepared for slaughter, and accordingly should address themselves with all convenient ”speed;’ which we may well suppose was very surprizing to their wives and children, and it is said it scattered and occasioned some of their deaths. Some of the people of Providence went with those commissioners and soldiers, and procured a parley with Shawoment men, who demanded the reason of this proceeding; to which the others answered, that they had done wrong to certain of their subjects, and also held blasphemous errors. Shawomet men offered to appeal to England, but that was refused; then they offered to leave the controversy to indif­ferent men in this country. This appeared so rea­sonable that a truce was agreed upon, till they could send to Boston to know the mind of the court upon it. And Chad Brown, Thomas Olney, William Field, and William Wickenden, of Providence, wrote a letter to persuade the rulers of the Massachusetts to comply with this proposal. But an answer was returned, dated October 3, refusing any such thing ^*. After this those men were seized and forcibly carried to Boston, where the General Court by adjournment met October 17, when the accusation following was exhibited, viz.

"The charge of the prisoners, Samuel Gorton and his company.

"Upon much examination and serious considera­tions of your writings, with your answers about them, we do charge you to be a blasphemous enemy of the true religion of our Lord Jesus Christ, [Page 127]and his holy ordinances, and also of all civil autho­rity among the people of God, and particularly in this jurisdiction.

"It is ordered that Samuel Gorton shall be con­fined to Charlestown, there to be set on work, and to wear such bolts or irons as may hinder his escape, and to cotinue during the pleasure of the court; provided that if he shall break his said confinement, or shall in the mean time, either by speech or writing, publish, declare or maintain any of the blasphemous or abominable heresies wherewith he hath been charged by the General Court, contained in either of the two books sent unto us by him or Randal Holden; or shall reproach or reprove the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ in these united colonies, or the civil government, or the public ordinaces of God therein (unless it be by answer to some questions propounded to him, or conferrence with any elder, or any other licenced to speak with him privately under the hand of one of the assistants) that imme­diately upon accusation of any such writing or speech, he shall, by such assistant to whom such accu­sation shall be brought, be committed to prison till the next court of assistants, then and there to be tried by a jury, whether he hath so spoken or written, and upon conviction thereof shall be condemned and executed. Dated the third of the ninth month, 1643."

A like sentence was passed, by which John Wicke [...] was confined to Ipswick, Randal Holden to Salem, Robert Potter to Rowley, Richard Carder to Rox­bury, Francis Weston to Dorchester, and John War­ner to Boston; all on the fame penalty with Gorton. William Woodale was confined to Watertown during the pleasure of the court, and if he escaped to be punished as they see meet. Further,

"It is ordered, that all such cattle of Samuel Gorton, John Greene ^†, &c. as have been or shall be seized upon, for such satisfaction of charges as the country hath been put unto, by sending and fetching them in, and other charges about the trial in the court, and expence in the prison or otherwise, shall be appraised and fold to the most advantage, and disposed of accordingly, and the overplus to be reserved by the treasurer for their maintenance.—If any of them will not do such work as they may, and as shall be appointed them, they are to be left to shift as they may.

"Richard Waterman is dismissed for the present, so that what is taken of his, is to go toward pay­ment of the charge, and the rest of his estate is bound in 100 l. that the shall appear at the General Court the third month, and not depart without li­cence, and to submit to the order of the court.

"Nicholas Power appearing, and denying that he set his hand to the first book, was dismissed with an admonition.

"For appraising the cattle brought from Provi­dence, the prisoners have liberty to name two, Ro­bert Turner and the soldiers two, and the court one. The prisoners refusing, the court, Robert Turner, and the soldiers, chose Mr. Colbron, John Jephson and William Parks ^‡." The whole of the afore­said charges were adjudged to amount to an hun­dred and sixty pounds. They were detained through the winter under the above sentence; but finding [Page 129]that they could not ‘keep them from seducing “others, not yet bring them to any sight of their folly and wickedness, the General Court (March ”7, 1644) sent them away ^*.’ Ah, sent them away sure enough! it was with the words following, viz.

"It is ordered that Samuel Gorton and the rest of that company, who now stand confined, shall be set at liberty, provided that if they or any of them shall, after fourteen days after such enlargement, come within any part of our jurisdiction, either in the Massachusetts, or in or near Providence, or any of the lands of Pomham and Soconocho, or else­where within our jurisdiction, then such person or persons shall be apprehended, wheresoever they may be taken, and shall suffer death by course of law: Provided also, that during all their continuance in our bounds inhabiting for the said time of fourteen days, they shall be still bound to the rest of the articles of their former confinement, upon the pe­nalty therein expressed ^†."

Such a way of treating our fellow servants as this, will doubtless appear very surprizing to the present generation; and many will be ready to say, how was it possible for any, if they had been endowed with the least spark of Christianity, or even huma­nity, to treat their neighbours as those rulers did? Let Captain Johnson, who was one of the three commissioners that took them, answer the question; says he,

‘“That holy man of God, Mr. John Cotton, among many others, hath diligently searched for the Lord's mind herein, and hath declared some sudden blow to be given to this blood thirsty monster (the man of sin) but the Lord hath in­separably [Page 130]joined the time, means and manner of this work together; and therefore all men that ”expect the day (of his fall) must attend the means.’ And speaking of Gorton and his company, he says, ‘“to be sure there be them in New-England that have Christ Jesus and his blessed ordinances in such esteem, that the Lord assisting, they had rather lose their lives, than suffer them to be thus blasphemed, if they can help it; and whereas some have favoured them, and endeavoured to bring under blame such as have been zealous against their abominable doctrines, the good God be favourable unto them, and prevent them from coming under the like blame with Ahab; yet they remain in their old way, and there is some­what to be considered in it to be sure, that in these days, when all look for the fail of Anti­christ, such detestable doctrines should be upheld, and persons suffered, that exceed the beast him­self for blasphemy, and this to be done by those that would be counted reformers, and such as ”seek the utter subversion of Antichrist ^*.’

This plain account of the reasons and motives they acted upon, takes off the edge in some measure of Gorton's keen satire upon them, which he wrote from Warwick, Sept. 16, 1656, to the first Quakers that were imprisoned in Boston, saying, ‘I marvel “what manner of God your adversaries trust in, who is so fearful of being infected with error, or how they think they shall escape the wiles and power of the devil, when the arm of flesh fails them, whereby they seek to defend themselves for the present; sure they think their God will be grown to more power and care over them, in and after ”death, or else they will be loth to pass through it.’ [Page 131]Which remark is cutting indeed, if we leave out any consideration of duty in the case; but if that be brought in, then it is presumption, and not faith, to expect protection and support from God in a way of disregard of the means of his appointment. Hence, the error of supposing that God has appoint­ed the use of secular force in religious affairs, ought to bear all the blame and scandal of those cruel pro­ceedings; and instead of venting our resentment against our dead fathers, let these things rouse the living to repentance and reformation. Those fathers could find warrant enough in the old testament for the use of force against idolaters and blasphemers; but the use of force to collect the priests support was plainly censured in those time. With what face then can those who profess to be under the law of liberty, forcibly take a farthing from any to maintain professed ministers of HIM who has said, freely ye have received, freely give; and who commanded his disciples to shake off, and therefore not to carry away, so much as the dust of a city or house that would not receive them!

It is likely that the reader would want to know what Gorton's sentiments really were, which were so offensive. To this I answer, that he evidently was a man of smart capacity, and of considerable learning, and when he pleased could express his ideas as plainly as any man; but he used such a mystical method in handling the scriptures, and in speaking about religion, that people are not agreed to this day in what his real sentiments were. It is so common for parties to misrepresent the opinions of their opponents, that little regard is paid by many to what the Massachusetts have said against him. I will therefore give a taste of what he published to the world, not in a way of controversy, but of [Page 132]friendly correspondence with the aforesaid prisoners at Boston. He first wrote a letter to them of the date I have given; to which they returned an an­swer; then he made a reply, October 6, 1656, wherein he gives various remarks upon the senti­ments expressed in their letter, and says,

‘“In us a child is born, in us a son is given ^§, but the government is upon his shoulder, and he is called wonderful Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace: So that wherever this lowly and meek spirit is, there is also the spirit of the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and the Lord thereby shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake, but the Lord is the hope of his people, and the strength of the chil­dren of Israel. True lowliness of spirit, and the loftiest mind that ever was, are never separated; for these twain are made one so as never to be separated, no more than a child (in point of all human abilities) and the Ancient of Days shall; for as we receive the kingdom of heaven as a little child, so we are never otherwise in the same respect, which we know, no wisdom human, serpentine, or upon principles proper to a crea­ture, can ever yield unto, or find out; and there­fore we are fools unto the world, being bereaved of all their principles, in regard of any exercise of them according to their proper intent in any of our designs—And therefore as brute beasts are unto them, so are they to us in the things of ”God.’ Again he says, ‘we conclude that the “wisdom of God, though become foolishness unto the world, yet doth it contain sufficiency of power [Page 133]in argument to over-top any council, synod, sy­nedrim or assembly, composed by human art and learning.—For as it is in that way of the devil, to propose his temptations from the letter of the scriptures, to subdue Christ thereby; so is there sufficiency of spirit and wisdom, in the true inter­pretation thereof, to confound and bring them (in the party proposing them) to nought. A Christian is still saying, let there be light, and it is so; he shall ever divide the light from the darkness, and the waters that are above the firma­ment from the waters that are below the out­spread firmament. In a word, he is for ever to form all things out of that ancient chaos of God and man being made one." Once more he says, if I witness to the Son, word, light, life, law, or peace of God, I must witness unto the being of such a thing, that such a thing is, as also to the manner of its being, how it comes to be such a thing, together with its necessary and proper operations, which must inevitably accompany such a manner of being, with the comprehensions and extensions of such operations and motion, or else I am not that faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God, or that head and ”masterpiece of his work ^†’

These extracts from his own writings, may give the reader some idea of his way of handling the scriptures. Our Saviour vanquished the tempter by appealing to what was written, and shewing thereby that Satan perverted the text he pretended to quote; but the lofty mind of this writer soared so much above that method, as to say of the world of mankind, ‘as brute beasts are unto them, so are [Page 134] “ ”they to us in the things of God.’ Well there­fore might Mr. Williams say, "I am no more of Master Gorton's religion than of Master Cotton's; and yet if Master Cotton complain of their obstinacy in their way, I cannot but impute it to his bloody te­net and practice, which ordinarily gives strength, vigour, spirit and resolution to the most erroneous, when such unrighteous and most unchristian proceed­ings are exercised against them ^†." Besides their dif­ference about gospel doctrines, they evidently differed in the following points of practice.

• 1. Mr. Williams used great plainness of speech, so that his meaning was obvious to common under­standings; but Mr. Gorton's writings are not so.
• 2. Mr. Williams openly stood for what he believed to be the truth, in the face of the greatest danger; but when Mr. Gorton saw himself greatly exposed in Boston, he explained their mystical writings in such a manner, that Governor Winthrop said, "he could agree with him in his answer, though not in their writings ^*."
• 3. Mr. Williams set a no­ble example of overcoming evil with good; but Mr. Gorton was sadly ensnared in rendering evil for evil, and railing for railing. Though after he had been to England, and obtained liberty to return to and enjoy the lands they had purchased, he and sun­dry of his suffering companions became very useful members of civil society. But as corruption is ever the most dangerous when covered with a religious mask, it is of great importance for us all to learn to distinguish between that and true religion. Paul said to the contending Corinthians, are ye not carnal and walk as men? The same query may be made concerning those contentions betwixt Gorton and his opponents.

The Massachusetts professed a high regard to their charter, when they banished Mr. Williams; but that gave them no right to any land or govern­ment, further than three miles south of their bay, and of every part of Charles rives; and that line crosses the great post road near landlord Maxcy's, in Attleborough, from whence to Pawtuxet river is 19 miles, and Shawomet is still further southward; yet we are plainly told that Arnold and his compa­ny were received ‘partly to draw in the rest, either “ ”under themselves or Plymouth.’ Hubbard. And when Gorton and his friends were got out of Arnold's reach, two petty sachems were taken in to found a claim upon, though it was known that Miantinomu was so much above them, that he sold Provi­dence and Pawtuxet over their heads some years before, in which was contained the best title that Arnold's company had to their lands. What work then did they make, in first enticing subjects to re­volt from their prince, and then in killing him be­cause he was uneasy about it! Had they not been blinded with such a zeal as the disciples had, when they were for having fire to come down and con­sume the Samaritans, surely they would not have violated the rules of justice and equity as they did. They tried afterwards to vindicate their conduct by the claim of Plymouth to that land, and upon an act of the commissioners of the united colonies con­cerning it ^* But Plymouth patent extended no father westward than Narraganset river, that is Osa­maquin or Masassoit's territories ^†; and we have be­fore heard how they fell short of the lands in que­stion. Further the commissioners pleaded, that Miantinomu engaged by treaty, not to begin war [Page 136]with Uncas without first appealing to the English, yet had broken that agreement ^§. But a very cre­dible writer of their own informs us, that Mianti­nomu first sent his complaint to Hartford against Uncas; and when they refused to meddle in Sequas­sion's quarrel, he would know whether they would be offended if he should make war upon Uncas? And that they left him to take his course ^† so that their case in truth was, like that of other invaders of their neighbour's rights; they were in danger of being awfully requited, by a man so sensible and powerful as Miantinomu, if he was not taken out of the way. This evil is greatly to be la­mented, and should ever stand as a solemn warn­ing to us all, to beware of taking one step in­to any course of injustice, deceit, or cruelty; for it will surely prove bitterness in the latter end.

Had Gorton been duly aware of this, he would not have armed Miantinomu against Uncas, for no better reason, that we know of, than because he, being a warlike prince, stood in the way of his form­ing an Indian party sufficient to withstand or over­come the Massachusetts; which proceeding, toge­ther with his irritating writings against their rulers and ministers, were the evident cause of things be­ing carried to the dreadful extremity they were. Mr. Williams ever bore as plain and full testimony against their persecuting any man for matters of conscience, as Gorton could; and had a much greater influence over the Indians than he ever had; yet he was so far from trying to raise a heathen par­ty against Christians, to correct them for injuries done to himself, that he exerted himself with great assiduity to prevent any thing of that nature; by [Page 137]which he undoubtedly was the greatest instrument of saving New-England of any one man that lived in that day, and for which his memory is and will be blessed.

Among the reasoners of our world, some will not allow, that men are influenced in all their volun­tary actions by previous causes and motives, while others incline so much to infidelity as to represent, that the very notion of religion, or of persons think­ing that the Deity loves them better than others, tends to make them hate and treat those ill who, as they suppose, are not thus beloved. But as no­thing teaches like experience, lot the light which facts give in the case be regarded, beyond all the supposition or wrangles of disputants. Is is not evident, that those several contending parties were influenced in all their bad actions by the same prin­ciples of ambition, avarice, deceit, and resentment, that other men are? And is it not as evident, that those actions which were good and praise-wor­thy flowed from a hearty belief of revealed religion, especially of free salvation by Christ Jesus? At pre­sent we will take a view of the head men of the three parties of Boson, Warwick and Providence.

Governor Winthrop was in such esteem in his na­tive country, as to be made a justice of peace at the age of eighteen, had an estate of six or seven hun­dred pounds sterling per annum; yet sold it, and spent the main of it in promoting a religious settle­ment in this wilderness; where for all his vast la­bour and pains, in settling and managing the go­vernment, he for some years had no stated salary, and never had more than one hundred pounds a year; was several times very ungratefully treated by his own people; and what could carry him [Page 138]through all this, with chearfulness to the end, but the power of religion ^*?

Gorton, as we have seen, had a notion that the child was born in him and his followers, who had the government upon his shoulders, and he concurred [Page 140]with Wheelwright in treating those who opposed their religious sentiments as enemies to the state; which principle evidently moved him to endea­vour [Page 141]to raise what force he could against them, even from among the barbarians; and also to treat them with such a temper as he did from time to time. Even so late as the year 1676, the very lit­tle of the book he then published shews the spirit of it, which is exactly in these words, viz. ‘A “glass for New-England, in which they may see themselves and spirits, and if not too late, re­pent and turn from their abominable ways and ”cursed contrivances. By S. G.’ And as the Quakers were about that time accused by authority of setting up their post by God's posts, he says, ‘“I hope none will be so blind and ignorant as to set their posts or thresholds to the devil's post, and the professors of New-England's posts, viz. their whipping-post or gallows-posts; no nor yet join their threshold to their gaol-thresholds, nor their bridewell-threshold, over which and in which professors and talkers of God and Christ do and have hauled over lambs and followers of Christ, and in which they crop their ears, and out of which they bring them in their wills and madness, and banish, whip and hang them in their ”blind zeal.’ p. 17, 18. And he annexes to said book a letter to Governor Bellingham, dat­ed from Boston prison June 15, 1667, wrote by John Tyso, a Quaker who speaks of it as a great error in Dr. Increase Mather to say, ‘there was “nothing IN him that he hoped to be saved by, and that there was none cleansed from all sin on [Page 142] ”this side the grave.’ p. 35. Gorton likewise, speaking of Wheelwright's being first called before the General Court for his sermon, at their session in March, 1637, tells us that Mr. Cotton then said, ‘“brother Wheelwright's doctrine was according to God, in the point controverted, and wholly and al­together; and nothing did I hear alledged against the doctrine proved by the word of God.—But, (says G.) that which is most to be lamented, is that those which once had a good testimony in their hearts and mouths for God, and his light and spi­ritual appearance; and they not being faithful and constant to that which is made manifest and committed to them, it has even happened to them according to the saying of the Lord God, by the mouth of his prophet, that in the day in which a righteous man turns from his righteousness, and doth wickedly, all the righteousness that he hath done shall be forgotten, and in the sin which he hath sin­ned ”he shall surely die the death.’ p. 6, 7.

Now is it not evident, that the Massachusetts were moved by the same unreasonable principle of grasp­ing at power and gain, that belonged not to them, in their dealings with Gorton, as operates in other men, though it went under a cloak of religion? And is it not as evident that he was moved with self-conceit, and carnal wit and resentment, in his carriage towards them, notwithstanding all his talk of the child's being born in him, and of a creating power ‘for ever to form all things out of that an­cient “ ” chaos of God and man being made one!’ And neither of these things can hurt the truth and excellency of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, any more than the self confidence, rashness and dissimilation of Peter did on the one hand, or the blasphemy of Hymenus and Alexander on the other. And though [Page 143]some would have it, that Mr. Williams, after his banishment, left revealed religion, and took to the exercise of reason and humanity, in distinction from it, yet his own testimony is exceeding clear to the contrary. In his address to the Quakers 37 years after his banishment he say,

‘“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. 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. My conclusion is, that, be of good cheer, thy sins are forgiven thee, Matt. ix. is one of the joyfulest sounds that ever came to poor sinful ears. How to ob­tain this sound from the mouth of the me­diator that spoke it, is the greatest dispute be­tween the Protestants and the bloody whore of Rome: This is also the great point between the true Protestants and yourselves; as also, in order to this, about what man is now by nature, and ”what the true Lord Jesus is ^*’.

And upon their use of those words spoken to the saints, the manifestation of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal, and other like expressions, which they would apply to mankind in general, he says, ‘the Papists catch hold upon a letter; this is “my body; you as simply as do the Generalists catch hold upon the letter, all, every man, &c. whereas the scope and connexion in all writings, and in all matters in the world, is rationally to be [Page 144]minded. The sense and meaning is, in all speech and writing, the very speech and writing itself. The words all and every one, in our own and other tongues, are often used figuratively. It is so all the scripture over, and thrice in one verse, Col. i. 28, where reason cannot imagine that Paul did literally and individually admonish every man, teach every man, and present every man that comes into the World perfect in Christ Jesus, which could not, cannot possibly be true, without another sense and exposition than the ”words literally hold out ^*’.

And when they demanded the reason why he condemned them for not holding to the external use of baptism and the supper, while he did not live in the practice thereof himself? He answered, ‘that “it was one thing to be in arms against the King of kings, and the visible administration of his kingdom, and to turn off all to notions of an invisible kingdom, officers and worship, as the Quakers did; and another thing, among so many pretenders to be the true church, to be in doubt unto which to associate himself. After all my search and examinations, I said, I do profess to believe, that some come nearer to the first churches and institutions of Christ than others; as in many respects, so in that gallant, heavenly and funda­mental principle, of the true matter of a Christian society, viz. actual believers, true disciples and con­verts, and living stones, such as can give some ac­count how the grace of God hath appeared to them, and wrought that heavenly change in them. I professed that if my soul could find rest in join­ing unto any of the churches professing Christ now extant, I would readily and gladly do it, yea, [Page 145]unto themselves whom I now opposed. But not finding rest, they knew there is a time of [...]rity and primitive sincerity; there is a time of trans­gression and apostacy, and there is a time of the coming out of the Babylonian and wilderness apo­stacy ^* ”’.

These extracts may assist the reader in forming a true judgment of the motives upon which those several noted men acted in those difficult times, which also may be useful now to teach us all, what to avoid and what to pursue; the importance of which I hope will sufficiently apologize for the length of this account, and also make the reader willing to take an article or two more before we conclude this chapter.

The church at Plymouth was so unwilling to part with "a man of such eminence" as Mr. Chauncy, that they conceded, in case he would settle with them, that he should act according to his persuasion, which was that ‘baptism ought only to be by dip­ping “ ”or plunging the whole body under water,’ with such as desired it, either for themselves or infants, provided he could without offence suffer their other minister, Mr. Regner, to practise in the other way, with those who desired it; ‘but he did not see “ ”light to comply ^†.’ From thence he was called to office in the church at Scituate, where we are told that he ‘persevered in his opinion of dipping “in baptism, and practised accordingly, first upon two of his own children, which being in very cold weather, one of them swooned away;—ano­ther, having a child about three years old, fear­ed it would be frighted (as others had been, and one caught hold of Mr. Chauncy, and had near [Page 146]pulled him into the water) she brought her child to Boston (with letters testimonial from Mr. ”Chauncy) and had it baptized here.’ This last action was in July, 1642; and not long after, ‘the lady Moody, a wise and amiable 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) persisting still, and to avoid further trouble, she removed to the Dutch, against the advice of her friends. Many others infested with Anabaptism, &c. re­moved thither also. She was after excommuni­cated. ^* ”’

Here as well as elsewhere appears the honesty and ingenuity of this great man, in stating facts plainly, when they make directly against his own persuasion. Those who deny infant baptism have been reproach­ed from age to age with the name of Anabaptists, under which have been couched such dreadful ideas, that even to this day we see the very name used as an argument in various controversies; so that if a disputant can tell his opponent, he in that point agrees with the Anabaptists, it is thought that there­in he must be in an error; but our honorable author gives, without a covering, the good characters and virtues of that father and that mother in our Isarel, at the same time that he describes plainly what he disliked in them; leaving fair grounds for others to judge upon, without being biassed with any old sto­ries of German madness. By this it appears that the grand difficulty in the way of burying in baptism, is their admitting of subjects to it who have not the faith or discretion which is necessary for such an ac­tion.

Though Mr. Williams had done such great ser­vices for his English neighbours in the late wars, yet he was not permitted to pass throught their coasts, but was forced to repair to the Dutch to get a passage to his native country; yea, it must needs be so, because the blessings of a peace-maker were to come upon him, among the Dutch as well as English ^†.

When Mr. Williams arrived in England, he found the country involved in the dreadful calamities and horrors of a war between the King and Parliament; but the Parliament having the command of the fleet, did by an ordinance of November 2, 1643, ap­point [Page 148]commissioners to manage the affairs of the islands and other plantations; from whom, by the kind assistance of Sir Henry Vane, who was one of them, Mr. Williams obtained a charter, including the lands ‘bordering northward and northeast on “the patent of the Massachusetts, east and southeast on Plymouth patent, south on the ocean, and on the west and northwest by the Indians called Narragansets; the whole tract extending about twenty-five miles, unto the Pequod river and [Page 149]country; to be know by the name of The INCORPORATION of PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS, 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 form of civil goverment, as by voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their estate and condi­tion. —Provided the civil goverment of the said plantations be conformable to the laws of Eng­land, so far as the nature and constitution of the ”place will admit.’

This charter was signed March 14, 1644, by Robert Warwick, Philip Pembroke, Say and Seal, Philip Wharton, Arthur Haslerig, Cornelius Hol­land, Henry Vane, Samuel Vassel, John Rolle, Miles Corbet, and William Spurstow. ^*.

CHAP. III. From 1644 to 1651, containing the first Law that was made in New-England against the Baptists, and a Variety of other Events.

THE first Baptist church in Newport we are told was formed and set in order about this year, under the ministry of Mr. John Clark; which is the first church of any denomination on Rhode-Island that has continued by succession, and the second in the colony ^†. Also in the Massachussetts [Page 150]we are told that ‘Anabaptists increased and spread “ ”in the country ^‡.’ Upon which they framed and passed the following act at their General Court, November 13, 1644.

"Forasmuch as experience hath plentifully and often proved, that since the first rising of the Anabaptists, about 100 years since, they have been the incendiaries of the commonwealths, and the in [...]ctors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been, and that thry who have held the baptizing infants unlawful, have usually held other [...] or heresies together therewith, though the [...] other heretics use to do) concealed the same till they [...]pred 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 [Page 151]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 ^*.

Let it be here noted, that the evident design of this law was to guard against such as refused to countenance infant baptism, and the use of secular force in religious affairs; which the Baptists have ever done from that day to this; but the other articles inserted in this act they have not owned; and the court then had no proof at hand, but were forced to have recourse to surmises, distant times, [Page 152]and foreign countries, for them; and a like method of treating the Baptists, in courts, from pulpits and from the press, has been handed down by tradition ever since. And can we believe that men so know­ing and virtuous in other respects, as many on that side have been, would have introduced and continued in a way of treating their neighbours, which is so unjust and scandalous, if they could have found bet­ter arguments to support that cause upon? I have diligently searched all the books, records and papers I could come at upon all sides, and have found a great number of instances of Baptists suffering for the above points that we own; but not one instance of the conviction of any member of a Baptist church in this country, in any court, of the errors or evils which are inserted in this law to justify their making of it, and to render our denomination odious ^*. Much has been said to exalt the characters of those good fathers: I have no desire of detracting from any of their virtues; but the better the men were, the worse must be the principle that could ensnare them in such bad actions.

The contrast betwixt their treatment of Mr. Wheelwright and Mr. Williams this year desserves [Page 153]notice. Upon a new running of the line, the Mas­sachusetts had taken Exeter into their colony, which caused Mr. Wheelwright to remove to Wells, from whence he wrote to the Governor at Boston for a reconciliation, Dec. 7, 1643, and said, ‘it is the “grief of my soul that I used such vehement censorious speeches. I repent me that I did ad­here to persons of corrupt judgments, to the countenancing and encouraging of them in any of their errors, or evil practices, though I intend­ed ”no such thing.’ The court inclined to bear him, of which the Governor sent him a written account, and received such a reply as would make one think of Bishop Burnet's remark. Said he, there are none of us but what will acknowledge in general terms that our church is imperfect, though when we come to particulars we are always in the right ^†. [Page 154]Yet without waiting for his personal appearance, they at the General Court in Boston, May 29. 1644, passed the following act, viz.

‘“It is ordered that Mr. Wheelwright (upon a particular, solemn, and serious acknowledgment and confession, by letters, of his evil carriages, and of the court's justice upon him for them) hath his banishment taken off, and is received as a ”member of this commonwealth ^*’

Mr. Williams returned with the charter he had procured to Boston, the 17th of September follow­ing ^‡ and brought the ensuing letter with him.

To the right worshipful the Governor and Assistants, and the rest of our worthy friends in the planta­tion of Massachusetts-Bay.

Our much honored friends, "TAKING notice some of us of long time of Mr. Roger Williams's 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 [Page 155]labours 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 endeavours of nearer closing and of ready expressing those good affections (which we perceive you bear each to other) in effectual per­formance of all friendly offices. The rather be­cause of those bad neighbours you are likely to find too 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 [Page 156]peaceable and prosperous plantations may be some refreshings to your true and faithful friends,

• Cor. Holland,
• John Blackistow,
• Isaac Pennington,
• Miles Corbet,
• Oliver St. John,
• Gibert Pickering,
• Robert Harley,
• John Gurdon,
• Northumberland,
• P. Wharton,
• Thomas Barrington
• William Marsham ^*

It is said, "upon the receipt of this letter, the Go­vernor and magistrates of the Massachusetts found, upon examination of their hearts, no reason to con­demn themselves for any former proceedings against Mr. Williams; but for any offices of Christian love, and duries of humanity, they were very willing to maintain a mutual correspondence with him; but a 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 or egress, lest any of their people should be drawn away with his erroneous opinions ^†."

The reader may remember that Wheelwright, in his sentence of banishment, was charged with con­tempt and sedition, which he never confessed; and that Governor Winthrop declared his opinions to be worse than Mr. Williams's ^‡; yet now the one is [Page 157]received to favour and liberty again, while the other is denied it, though he had done the colony such great and essential services as the former never did. How can we account for this? The best an­swer I can give is, that Mr. Wheelwright held to infant baptism, and to the magistrates power to govern in religious affairs, and now yielded to their exercise of it; but Mr. Williams denied both, for which he was excommunicated by the church, after the court had sent him away; Wheelwright was also in such favour with Mr. Cotton, that he was dis­missed from his church in fellowship, after the court had banished him for sedition; and he now appeared very complaisant and submissive to men in power: But Williams was so ‘ self-conceited, turbu­lent, “and uncharitable, as to give public adver­tisements and admonition to all men, whether of meaner or more public note and place, of the corruptions of religion which himself observed, both in their judgments and practices; of which there needs no other evidence, than what is ob­vious to the view of every indifferent reader, in his dealing with that famous and reverend divine Mr. John Cotton, in his book called The bloody ”Tenet.’

These words Mr. Hubbard quotes from another, as the received opinion of that day. But who was this reverend divine, and how was he dealt with? Was not Mr. Williams as truly a minister of Christ as he? Does self-conceit move men to give plain [Page 158]warnings to great men, which have a tendency to expose self to heavy sufferings? And does it move persons to do every kind office they can from year to year, for those who will not hear reproof, but re­quite evil for good? This is a different sort of pride than what most men are acquainted with. Howe­ver that the reader may have a fair opportunity of judging for himself, I shall endeavour plainly to state before him the occasion and nature of this con­troversy between Cotton and Williams.

A prisoner in Newgate wrote some arguments against persecution, which were presented to Mr. Cotton, and he wrote an answer to them in a letter to one Mr. Hall, of Roxbury; who not being satis­fied therewith, sent them to Mr. Williams at Pro­vidence, requesting him to write upon the subject. And as Mr. Cotton closed his letter to Mr. Hall with saying. ‘I forbear adding reasons to justify “the truth, because you may find that done to your hand, in a treatise sent to some of the bre­thren, ”late of Salem, who dubted as you do:’ Mr. Williams wrote to Mr. Sharp, elder of Salem church, for it, and obtained it ^§. He then wrote his sentiments upon the whole, under the title of The bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake; which I suppose he now brought with him from Lon­don, though I have not been able to obtain it. Mr. Cotton wrote an answer to him, which he called The bloody Tenet washed, and made white in the Blood of the Lamb; that was printed in London in 1647. To this Mr. Williams published a reply in 1652, inti­tuled, The bloody Tenet yet more bloody, by Mr. Cot­ton's Endeavour to wash it white. The two last of these performances are now before me, and from thence I shall give the reader their own words upon the most material points of their dispute.

First. Mr. Cotton's memory failed him so much as to represent, that what he wrote in answer to the prisoner's arguments, was in a private letter to Mr. Williams, and upon that said, "I wrote my con­science, and the truth of God according to my con­science; why should he punish me with open pe­nance, and expose me (as much as in him lieth to the world) to open shame, as a man of blood, for the liberty of my conscience? How will it stand with his own principles, to plead for liberty of con­science and yet to punish it? Besides let him re­member, if I did offend him with such an error, it was but a private offence, and the rule of the gos­pel required he should first have convinced and admonished me privately of it, and so have pro­ceeded upon my contumacy, at length to have told the church, before he had published it to the world ^*." C. p. 2.

Mr. Williams in his reply mentions Mr. Cotton's mistake about who he wrote the letter to, and that he supposed his answer to the prisoner's arguments had been as public as his profession and practice was upon that tenet, and then says, "but grant it had been a private letter, and the discourse and the opi­nion private; yet why doth he charge the discusser with breach of rule, in not using orderly ways of admoniton, and telling the church, when master Cotton in this book blames the discusser for disclaim­ing communion with their church, and they also (after he was driven by banishment from civil habi­tation amongst them) had sent forth a bull of ex­communication against him in his absence! Such practice the Lord Jesus and his first apostles or mes­sengers [Page 160]never taught.—I never heard that dis­puting, discoursing and examining men's tenets or doctrines by the word of God, was, in proper Eng­lish, persecution for conscience: Well had it been for New-England, that no servant of God, nor wit­ness of Christ, could justly take up complaint for other kinds of persecution." W. p. 4, 5.

The main point of all Mr. Cotton's washings is a denial of the charge of persecuting any for cause of conscience, and he says, "I expresly profess, 1, that no man is to be persecuted at all, much less for conscience sake. 2, I profess further, that none is to be punished for conscience sake, though erro­neous, unless his errors be fundamental, or seditious­ly and turbulently promoted, and that after due conviction of conscience; that it may appear, he is not punished for his conscience, but for sinning against his conscience.—If this tenet have any ap­pearance of blood in it, it is because it is washed in the blood of the Lamb, and sealed with his blood. And then though it may seem bloody to men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth (as Paul seemed to such to be a pestilent fellow) yet to faith­ful and upright souls, such things as are washed in the blood of the Lamb, are wont to come forth white." C. p. 3.

In reply to this Mr. Williams says, "is not this the guise and profession of all that ever persecuted or hunted men for their religion and conscience? Are not all histories and experiences full of the pa­thetical speeches of persecutors to this purpose? You will say you are persecuted for your conscience, you plead conscience, thou art a heretic, the devil hath deceived thee, thy conscience is deluded, &c. —Time hath and will discover that such a blacka­more cannot be washed in the blood of Christ him­self, [Page 161]without repentance." And he goes on to ob­serve, that the setting up of state religions has been the grand source of persecution in every age. W. p. 6, 7. Against which he brought our Lord's para­ble of the tares of the field. Upon which Mr. Cot­ton said, "it is true, Christ expoundeth the field to be the world, but he meant not the world, but (by an usual trope) the church scattered throughout the world." C. p. 41.

Mr. Williams says, "it is no wonder to find master Cotton so entangled, both in his answers and replies touching this parable; for men of all sorts in former ages have been so entangled before him. To which purpose I will relate a notable passage re­corded by that excellent witness of God, master Fox, in his book of Acts and Monuments; it is this: In the story of Mr. George Wisehart, in the days of King Henry the eighth, there preached at the ar­raigament of said Wisehart one John Winryme, sub-prior of the abbey of St. Andrews; he discours­ed on the parable of the tares; he interpreted the tares to be heretics; and yet contrary to this very scripture (as Mr. Fox observeth, though elsewhere himself maintains it the duty of the civil magistrate to suppress heretics) I say the said Winryme con­cludeth that heretics ought not to be let alone un­til the harvest, but to be suppressed by the power of the civil magistrate. So that both the Popish prior and the truly Christian Fox were entangled in con­tradictions to their own writings about this heavenly scripture." W. p. 46.

To support the notion of calling the church the world, Mr. Cotton quoted some texts wherein the redeemed are so called. C. p. 43. In reply Mr. Williams says, "grant that it hath pleased the Lord in his infinite wisdom to cause the term world to be [Page 162]used in various significations; yet let any instance be given of any scripture, wherein the Lord oppos­ing the church and world, wheat and tares doth not distinguish between the church redeemed out of the world, and the world itself, which is said to lie in wickedness, and to be such as for which Jesus would not pray, John xvii." W. p. 56. He fur­ther argued that sowing of the seed in four sorts of ground by Christ's messengers, he called the king­dom of heaven, which four sorts cannot be supposed to be of the church. Mr. Cotton answers, 1, that Christ preached himself to those four sorts of hear­ers, yet he was the minister of circumcision, and seldom preached to any but members of the church of Israel. C. p. 44. Reply, "when they grew incurable, and received not the admonitions of the Lord, by the Lord Jesus and his servants preach­ing unto them, the Lord cast them out of his sight, destroyed that national church, and established the Christian church." W. p. 57.

But Cotton says, "2, it is an error to say, the church consisteth of no more sorts of hearers but one, the honest and good ground; for if the chil­dren of church-members be in the church, and of the church, till they give occasion of rejection, then they growing up to years, become some of them like the highway-side, others like the stony, others like the thorny, as well as others like the honest and good ground. C. p. 44." Mr. Williams re­plies.

"Admit the Christian church were constituted of the natural seed and offspring (which yet Mr. Cotton knows will never be granted to him, and I believe will never be proved by him) yet he knows, that upon the discovery of any such portion of ground in the church, the church is bound to admonish, [Page 163]and upon impenitency after admonition, to cast them into the world, the proper place of such kinds of hearers and professors." W. p. 57.

Mr. Cotton adds, "is it not a main branch of their covenant with God, that as God giveth him­self to be a God to them, and to their seed, so they should give up themselves and their seed to be his people? Besides hath not God given pastors and teachers, as well for the gathering together of the saints, as for the edification of the body of Christ? And hath he not given the church, and the gospel preached in the church, to lie like leaven in three pecks of meal till all be leavened?" C. p. 44. Mr. Williams says, "I answer, the proper work of pastors and teachers is to feed the sheep in the flock, and not the herds of wild beasts in the world. And although it is the duty of parents to bring up their children in the nurture and fear of the Lord; yet what if those children refuse to frequent the as­semblies of the church, and what if those three sorts of ground or hearers will not come within the bounds of the pastors and teachers feeding; hath not the Lord Jesus appointed other officers in Eph. iv. for the gathering of the saints, that is, sending out of the church of Christ apostles or messengers, to preach Christ to the three sorts of bad ground, to labour to turn them into good ground? But alas! to salve up this, the civil sword is commonly run for, to force all sorts of ground to come to church, instead of sending forth the heavenly sowers accord­ing to the ordinance of Christ." W. p. 38.

Another argument Mr. Cotton draws from the servants wondering to see the tares, which would not have been strange in the highway. C. p. 45. In reply to which Mr. Williams says, "let the highway, stony and thorny ground, be considered [Page 164]in their several qualities of prophaneness, stoutness, and worldliness, and all the sons of men throughout the world naturally are such; and it is no wonder, nor would the servants of Christ be so troubled, as to desire their plucking up out of the world. But again consider all these sorts of men as professing the name and anointing of Christ Jesus, in a false, counterfeit antichristian way, and then it may well be wonder­ed whence such monstrous Christians or anointed ones arose; and God's people may easily be tempt­ed rather to desire their rooting out of the world, than the rooting out of any such sorts of ground or men, professing any other religion, Jewish, Maho­metan or Pagan.—A traitor is worse than a profes­sed fox." W. p. 58, 59.

Again, while Mr. Cotton pleaded for the exer­tions of the civil power against heretics and anti­christians, he says, "no ordinance or law of God, nor just law of man, commandeth the rooting out of hypocrites, either by civil or church censure, though the church be bound to endeavour as much as in them lieth to heal their hypocrisy." C. p. 47. To this Mr. Williams answers, "hypocrisy discovered in the fruit of it, is not to be let alone in the church or state; for neither the church of Christ nor civil state can long continue safe, if hypocrites or trai­tors (under what pretence soever) be permitted to break forth in them, without due punishment and rooting out; this hypocrisy being especially the great sin against which Christ so frequently and so vehemently inveighed, and against which he de­nounced the sorest plagues and judgments." W. p. 62. He then proceeded to plead, that the civil state should only punish civil offences. Upon which Mr. Cotton asks, "what if their worship and con­sciences incite them to civil offences?" C. p. 50. [Page 165]Mr. Williams says, "I answer, the conscience of the civil magistrate must incite him to civil punish­ment; as a Lord Mayor of London once answered that he was born to be a judge, to a thief that pleaded he was born to be a thief. If the con­science of the worshippers of the beast incite them to prejudice prince or state, although these consciences be not as the conscience of the thief, commonly con­vinced of the evil of his fact, but persuaded of the lawfulness of their actions; yet so far as the civil state is endamaged or endangered, I say the sword of God in the hand of civil authority is strong enough to defend itself, either by imprisoning or disarming, or other wholesome means, while yet their con­sciences ought to be permitted in what is merely point of worship, as prayer and other services and administrations. Against any civil mischief the ci­vil state is strongly guarded. Against the spiritual mischief, the church or city of Christ is guarded with heavenly armies, wherein there hang a thou­sand bucklers, and most mighty weapons. Cant. iv. 2 Cor. x." W. p. 66, 67. But as he still plead­ed that the civil sword was never appointed by Christ for an antidote or remedy in spiritual evils and dangers; Mr. Cotton denies it, and says, "it is evident the civil sword was appointed for remedy in this case, Deut. xiii. and appointed it was by that angel of God's presence, whom God promised to send with his people. Exod. xxxiii. 2, 3. And that angel was Christ, whom they tempted in the wilderness. 1 Cor. x. 9. Therefore it cannot tru­ly be said, that the Lord Jesus never appointed the civil sword for a remedy in such a case: For he did expresly appoint it in the old testament; nor did he ever abrogate it in the new. The reason of the law (which is the life of the law) is of eternal force [Page 166]and equity in all ages. Thou shalt surely kill him, because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God; this reason is moral, that is, of uni­versal and perpetual equity to put to death any apostate seducing idolator, or heretic ^§" C. p. 66, 67.

In reply Mr. Williams says, "how grievous is this language of m [...]st, Co [...]! Moses in the old testament was Christ's servant, yet being but a ser­vant, dispensed his power by carnal rites and cere­monies, laws, rewards and punishments, in that holy nation, and that one land of Canaan. But when Je­sus the Son and Lord himself was come, to bring the truth, life and substance, of all those shadows; to break down the partition-wall between Jew and Gentile, and establish the Christian worship and kingdom in all nations of the world, master Cotton will never prove, from any of the books and insti­tutions of the new testament, that unto those spiri­tual remedies appointed by Christ against spiritual maladies, he added the help of the carnal sword. If it appear, as evidently it doth, that Jesus, the antitype of the kings of Israel, wears his sword in his mouth, being a sharp and two-edged sword, then the answer is a clear as the sun, that scatters the clouds and darkness of the night. Besides, master Cotton needs not fly to the pope's argument for chil­dren baptism, to wit, to say Christ never abrogated Deut. xiii. therefore, &c for Mr. Cotton knows the profession of the Lord Jesus, John xviii. that his kingdom was not earthly, and therefore his sword cannot be earthly. Mr. Cotton knows that Jesus commanded a sword to be put up, when it was drawn in the cause of Christ, and added a dreadful [Page 167]threatning, that all that take the sword (that is, the carnal sword in his cause) shall perish by it" W. p. 95, 96.

The reader may remember, that Mr. Williams was often blamed for holding that the civil magi­strate's work was confined to the precepts of the second table; his main argument therefor was, that [...] the most sully of that subject of any place in the [...], and there the dis­course is confined to the du [...] included in love to our neighbour. Mr Cotton grants his premises, but not his conclusion, and says, "though subjection to magistrates, and love to all men, be duties which concern the second table, yet the inference will not follow, that therefore magistrates have no [...]ing to do to punish any violation, no not the weightiest duties of the first table. It is a clear case, among the duties of the second table, people may be ex­horted to honor their ministers, and children may be exhorted to honor their parents; but will it hence follow, that therefore ministers have nothing to do with matters of religion in the church, or parents in the family?" C. p. 96.

Mr. Williams answers, "if people are bound to yield obedience in civil things to civil officers of the state, Christians are much more bound to yield obe­dience to the spiritual officers of Christ's kingdom; but how weak is this argument to prove, that there­fore civil officers of the state are constituted rulers, preservers and reformers of the Christian and spiri­tual state, which differs as much from the civil, as the heavens are out of the reach of the earthly globe?" W. p. 147, 148.

Mr. Cotton often recurs, through his book, to his notion of not punishing men for any matter of con­science, but only for sinning against their own con­sciences [Page 168] after conviction. One great article of Mr. Williams's sentence of banishment was, his writing letters against the rulers and churches before any conviction. And Mr. Cotton says of ministers and churches, "none of us had any further influence, than by private and public conviction of himself, and of the demerit of his way." C. 2d part, p. 12. And when one of the magistrates was going to the court that banished Mr. Williams, and asked Mr. Cotton what he thought of it? his answer was, "I pity the man, and have interceded for him, whilst there was any hope of doing good; but now he having refused to hear both his own church and us, and having rejected us all, as no churches of Christ, before any conviction, we have now no more to say in his behalf, nor hope to pre­vail for him." C. p. 39.

This notion of not punishing any in matters of religion, till they had first convinced their con­sciences, runs through Mr. Cotton's whole book, as those who have it may see in the quotations below ^‖; and he tries to support it by Tit. iii, 11, which re­fers entirely to ecclesiastical, and not to civil govern­ment; and there not to every error, but only to gross heresy, which was to be judged of by those who were well acquainted with spiritual things. But, said Mr. Williams,

"Every lawful magistrate, whether succeeding or elected, is not only the minister of God, but the minister or servant of the people also (what people or nation soever they be, all the world over) and that minister or magistrate goes beyond his commission, who intermeddles with that which cannot be given him in commission from the people, unless master [Page 169]Cotton can prove that all the people and inhabitants of all nations in the world have spiritual power, Christ's power, naturally, fundamentally and ori­ginally residing in them, to rule Christ's spouse the church, and to give spiritual laws and commands ^†; otherwise it is but profaning the holy name of the Most High. It is but sta [...]tering of magistrates, it is but the accursed trusting to an arm of flesh, to per­suade rulers of the earth that they are Kings of the Israel or church of God, who were in their institu­tions and government immediately from God, the rulers of his holy chuch and people. Not a few of his opposites will say, and that aloud, that he and they were or might have been convinced, whatever he or they themselves thought. The truth is, the carnal sword is commonly the judge of the conviction or obstinacy of all supposed heresies ^*. Hence the faithful witnesses of Christ, Cranmer, Ridley, Lati­mer, had not a word to say in the disputations at Oxford: Hence the Nonconformists were cried out as obstinate men, abundantly convinced by the writ­ings of Whitgift and others; and so in the confer­ence before King James at Hampton Court." W. p. 96, 192.

Mr. Williams in discussing his opponent's argu­ments observed, that his opponent had taken many charges and exhortations which Christ gave to his ministers, and directed them to the civil magistrate. But Mr. Cotton says, "the falshood of the discus­sor in this charge is palpable and notorious." Yet fifty pages forward in the same discourse Mr. Cot­ton says, "the good that is brought to Princes and subject by the due punishment of apostate seducers, idolaters and blasphemers, is manifold. First, it putteth away evil from the people, and cutteth off a gangrene, which would spread to further ungod­liness. Deut, xiii. 5, 2 Tim. ii. 16, 17, 18. Secondly, it driveth away wolves from worrying and scattering the sheep or Christ. False teachers be wolves. Matt. vi. 15, Act. xx. 29." C. p. 88, 138. This is a clear proof that great men can­not go strait in a crooked path.

Mr. Williams had argued that Mr. Cotton's doc­trine tended to the setting up of a Spanish inquisi­tion in all parts of the world, and to frustrate the great design of our Saviour's coming. He denies it, and accuses Mr. Williams of rather promoting [Page 171]the principal end of the Spanish inquisition, "by proclaiming impunity to all their whorish and wolvish emissaries. Nor is it, says he, a frustrating of the sweet end of Christ's coming, which was to save souls, but rather a direct advancing of it, to destroy, if need be, the bodies of those wolves, who seek to destroy the souls of theose for whom Christ died." C. p. 93.

Mr. Williams replies, "I cannot without great horror observe, what is this but to give a woful occasion, at least to all civil powers in the world, to persecute Christ in his poor saints and servants? Yea, if master Cotton and his friends of his con­science should be cast by God's providence (whose wheels turn about in the depth of his councils won­derfully) I say should they be cast under the reach of opposite swords, will they not produce master Cotton's own bloody tenet and doctrine to warrant them (according to their consciences) to deal with him as a wolf, an idolater, an heretic, and as dan­gerous an emissary and seducer as any whom master Cotton so accuseth? Master Cotton hath no reason to charge the discusser with indulgence or partiality toward Romish and wolvish emissaries; his judg­ment and practice is known so far different, that for departing too far from them (as is pretended) he suffers the brands and bears the marks of one of Christ's poor persecuted heretics to this day ^†. All that he pleaded for, is an impartial liberty to their consciences in worshipping God, as well as con­sciences and worships of other their fellow sub­jects." W. p. 141, 142.

This book Mr. Williams dedicated to the rulers of New-England, wherein, after several useful re­marks, he says, "there is one commodity for the sake of which most of God's children in New-Eng­land have run mighty hazards; a commodity mar­velously scarce in former times, in our native coun­try: It is the liberty of searching after God's most holy mind and pleasure. Of this most precious and inva­luable jewel if you suffer Satan to bereave you, and that it shall be a crime humbly and passibly to question even laws and statutes, or whatever is even publicly taught and delivered, you will find your­selves after all your long run (like that little French­man who killed the Duke of Guise, and was taken next morning near the place from whence he had fled upon a swift horse all night) I say you will most cer­tainly find yourselves but where you were, enslaved and captivated in the chains of those popish dark­nesses, viz. ignorance is the mother of devotion, and we must believe as the church believes, &c.— O remember that your gifts are rare, your profes­sions of religion rare, your persecutions and hidings from the storms abroad rare and wonderful ^*! So in proportion your transgressions and public sins cannot but be of a rare and extraordinary guilt.— Amongst the crying sins of our own or other sinful nations, those two are ever among the loudest, viz, invented devotions to the God of heaven. 2dly, Violence and oppression on the sons of men, especially of his sons, for dissenting. That the impartial and dread­ful hand of the most holy and jealous God, a consum­ing fire, tear and burn not up at last the roots of those plantations, but graciously discerning the [Page 173]plants which are not his, he may graciously sanctify and cause to flourish what his right hand will own, this is the humble and unfeigned desire and cry at the throne of grace, of your so long despised out­cast, ROGER WILLIAMS." W. dedication, p. 26, 27.

Thus I have laid before the reader some of the most material points of that controversy in their own words, that he may see what those principles were which New-England writers have often reproached, under the name of rigid separation and Anabaptism; and also how the ruling party, with all their boast of orthodoxy, could confound Jewish types with Christ's institutions, in order to keep up Paedobaptism, and the use of secular force in religious affairs; and could separate from the common rights of humani­ty good Christians, and some of their own best friends, only for testifying against such confusion!

"At a General Court, March, 1645, two peti­tions were preferred, one for suspending (if not abolishing) a law made against Anabaptists the for­mer year; the other was for easing a law of like na­ture made in Mrs. Hutchinson's time, forbidding the entertaining of any strangers, without licence of two magistrates; which was not easily obtained in those days. Some at this time were much afraid of the increase of Anabaptism. This was the reason why the greater part prevailed for the strict obser­vation of the aforesaid laws, although paradventure a little moderation as to some cases might have done very well, if not beter. Many books coming out of England in the year 1645, some in defence of Anabaptism and other errors, and for liberty of con­science, as a shelter for a general toleration of all opinions, &c. others in maintenance of Presbyte­rian government (agreed upon by the assembly of divines at Westminster) against the Congregational [Page 174]way which was practised in New England; the mi­nisters of the churches through all the United Colo­nies agreed upon a meeting at Cambridge, where they conferred their councils, and examined the writ­ings which some of them had prepared, in answer to the said books; which being agreed upon and per­fected, were sent over into England to be printed, viz. Mr. Hooker's Survey, in answer to Mr. Rutherford; Mr. Mather, Mr. Allen and Mr. Shepard, about the same subject ^*," &c

Our friend, in London, hearing of the law made at Boston last year to banish Baptists, and the learn­ed Mr. John Tombes having written an examina­tion of Mr. Stephen Marshal's sermon upon infant baptism, dedicated to the Westminster assembly, Mr. Tombes was moved to send a copy of his exa­mination to the ministers of New-England, and wrote an epistle with it to them, dated from the temple in London, May 25, 1645; hoping there­by to put them upon a more exact study of that controversy, and to allay their vehemency against the Baptists ^§. But the Westminster assembly were more ready to learn severity from this country, than these were to learn lenity from any; for the Inde­pendents on December 4, 1645, presented a request to that Presbyterian assembly, ‘that they might not “be forced to communicate as members in those parishes where they dwell; but may have liberty to have congregations of such persons who give good testimonies of their godliness, and yet uot of tenderness of conscience cannot communicate ”in their parishes;’ but the assembly returned a flat denial, and said, ‘this opened a gap for all sects [Page 175] “to chanllenge such a liberty as their due; and that this liberty was denied by the churches of New-England, and we have as just ground to deny it as ”they ^‖.’

Sir Henry Vane also, when his interest in Parlia­ment was very great, wrote go Governor Winthrop in the following terms.

Had not the notion of securing religion to their posterity, by infant baptism and the magistrates power, strongly prepossessed their minds, how could they have resisted all these motives to lenity as they did? That they were under a very strong bias may be seen in three pieces which were wrote this year against the Baptists. One of them was by Mr. Cot­ton, who was so much afraid of having both sides of the argument examined, that he gives us neither the names of the authors he wrote against [Page 176]nor the titles of their works; only he owns them to be such as did not ‘deny magistrates, nor predesti­nation, “nor original sin; nor maintain free will in conversion, nor apostacy from grace; but only deny the lawful use of baptism of children, because it wanteth a word of commandment and example from the scripture." And he says, "I am bound in Christian love to believe, that they who yield so far, do it out of conscience, as fol­lowing herein the example of the apostle, who professed himself, and his followers, we can do no­thing against the truth, but for the truth. But yet I believe withal, that it is not out of love to the truth that Satan yielded so much to the truth, but rather out of another ground, and for a worse end. He knoweth the times that how, by the good and strong hand of God, they are set upon puri­ty and reformation. And now to plead against the baptism of children upon any of those Armi­nian and popish grounds, which be so grosly un­gracious as those above named, Satan knoweth and seeth they would utterly be rejected ^‡. He chooseth therefore rather to play small game, as they say, than to lose all. He now pleadeth no other argument in these stirring times of reformation than may be urged from a main principle of pu­rity and reformation, viz. that no duty of God's worship, nor any ordinance of religion, is to be admi­nistered in the church, but such as hath just warrant from the word of God. And by urging this argu­ment against the baptism of children, Satan trans­formeth himself into an angle of light; and the spirit of error and profaneness into a minister of truth and righteousness. And so he hopeth to [Page 177]prevail, either with those men who do believe the lawful and holy use of children's baptism to renounce that principle, and so to renounce also all reformation brought in by it: Or else, if they stick to that principle, then to renounce the bap­tism of children; and so the reformation [...]g [...]n will neither spread far, [...]or continue long For if godly parents do withdraw their children from the covenant, and from the seal of the conven [...]t they do make void (as much as in them [...]e [...]h the covenant both to themselves, and to their children; and then will the Lord cut off such s [...] from his people, Gen. xvii. 14. And so the reformation, begun with a blessing, will end in a curse, and in a cutting separation either of parents or of chil­dren, ”or both, from the Lord and his people ^§.’

About the same time a minister at Lynn wrote a volume against various Baptist authors; but before he came to any of their arguments he said, ‘ever “since that word of old, I will put enmity betwixt thee and the woman, and betwixt thy seed and her seed, Satan hath had a special spite at the seed of the church: Witness that act of Cain, who was therein of that evil one, in killing his brother Abel: Whence also that project of Satan, all the ways that may be, to lay foundations of corrupt­ing, and in time ruining the seed of the church by unequal marriages, &c. Gen. vi. 1, 2, Neh. xiii. 23, 24. Whence also that act of his, in stirring up his instruments to deride little Isaac. Whence also that satanical practice of seeking to cut them off by Pharoah, Exod. i. by Edomires, Psalm cxxxii. by Babylonians, Jer. ix. Syri­ans, Dan. viii. Herod, Matt. ii. &c. or if they [Page 178]be not cut off in such sort, yet to stir up persons under pretence of religion, to devote them unto the very devil, Jer. vii. 31, &c. Ezek. xvi, 20, &c. or if they live, yet to persuade to their detainment under an Egyptian estate, and exclusion from any church care or privilege.— Who seeth not how Satan doth seek by such suggestions to undermine the succession of the true religion, and of true visible churches, which have used to be continued in and by the church seed? And what is Satan's fetch, to bring this about, but the old trick, to create (as I may say) scruples in the hearts of God's people, knowing well that it is a taking wile first to be­mist through such legerdemain the eyes of the mind, and then to spoil them of truth. it took with our grandmother Eve, and was the inlet of all error and evil. Hath God said it? was the old serpentine insinuation to blind and buzzle, and so corrupt first the judgment in point of war­rant of this or that practice.—How many pre­cious professors, to outward view at least, did at first entertain some scruples about the external interest of church members children in the co­venant, and initiatory seal of it, which now pe­remptorily censure the same as antichristian and human inventions? Let my advice be grateful to thee thus far, Christian reader, to take heed of unnecessary discourses and disputes with satanical suggestions, under what promising and plausible pretences soever they come.—It is not the first age or time, that satanical suggestions, thus it is writ­ten, and thus saith the Lord, hath been pro­pounded ^‖.”’

The question has often been asked in our day what do you think of our good fathers who held to infant baptism? How did they get along? Here you have an answer in their own words; and the famous Dr. Thomas Goodwin ushered these per­formances into the world with a recommendatory preface to each of them; and the sentiments and temper of them have evidently been handed down by tradition ever since. But I appeal to the con­science of every reader, whether he can find three worse things on earth, in the management of contro­versy, than first to secretly take the point disputed for truth without any proof: then secondly blend­ing that error with known truths, to make artful addresses to the affections of passions of the audi­ence, to prejudice their minds, before they hear a word that the respondent has to say. And thirdly, if the respondent refuses to yield to such manage­ment, then to call in the secular arm to compleat the argument. And were not these the methods that were then taken to support Paedobaptism? The Protestants way of defending their cause against the Papists was, ‘if that ye will prove that your ce­remonies “proceed from faith, and do please God, ye must prove that God in express words hath commanded them, or else shall you never prove that they proceed from faith, nor yet that they ”please God ^*.’ But when this argument was urged against infant baptism, Cotton without any proof asserts that ‘Satan transformeth himself into “ ”an angel of light.’ And the whole of the above recited addresses to men and women's passions, are evidently founded upon the supposition, that infant [Page 180]baptism is as infallibly required by God, as ab­staining from the forbidden fruit was, or Abraham circumcising his children; and having taken the very point which is dispured for truth, without any evidence, they blended that with many known facts recorded in scripture, and thereupon rank the op­polers of that point with the old serpent the devil and Satan, and with his instruments Cam, Pharoah, Herod, and other murderers; yea with such as sacri­ficed their children to devils! And this history con­tains abundant evidence of their adding the ma­gistrate's sword to all these hard words, which were [...]ied in their prefaces before they came to any of the Baptist's arguments. When Mr. Cotton came to them, the first of them is, that in Christ's commission to his ministers, he ordered them first to teach or make disciples, and then to baptize them; and he says two arguments offer themselves for his way from hence.

‘“1. Such as be disciples, they are to baptized; but the children of the faithful, they are disci­ples; therfore children of the faithful, they are to be baptized." And to support this assertion he turns to Isaiah liv. 13, all thy children shall be taught of God; and says he, "if they be taught of God, then are they disciples; for that is the meaning of the word. Disciples are taught or ” learnt of God ^*’. This is true, and our Lord quotes this text to shew how the father draws souls to himself, and says upon it, ‘every man ^§ there­fore “that hath heard, and hath learned of the fa­ther, ” cometh unto me,’ John vi. 45. Can we desire a more exact and certain definition of the [Page 181]word disciple than we have here? And let con­science speak before him who will judged us all; do you who practise in this disputed way, believe when you bring your infants to be sprinkled that they have heard and learned of the father, so as to come unto Christ? And do you bring them because they be taught of God? It they are not, they are not disciples according to the known meaning of the word.

Mr. Cotton frames his second argument from Exod. xii. 48, where God required every proselyte to have all his males circumcised, before he could come to the passover; upon which Cotton says, ‘if “then our Lord's supper come in the room of the passover, and our baptism in the room of circum­cision, like as he that had not circumcised his males, was accounted as one uncircumcised him­self, and so to be debarred from the passover, so he who hath not baptised his children, is account­ed of God as not baptized himself, and so to be debarred from the Lord's supper. If therefore you forbid baptism to children, you evacuate the baptism of their parents, and so make the com­mandment of God, and the commission to the apostles, and the baptism of believers, of none ”effect ^†’

These are the two main arguments for infant bap­tism to this day; and they both hang upon the lit­tle word IF, which I think is a very small pin to rest the weight of whole provinces and kingdoms upon: If infants are disciples by virtue of their parents profession, then are they to be baptized; and if our baptism comes in the place of the circumcision of Jewish proselytes, then we cannot lawfully omit bringing our infants thereto. But what if this sup­position [Page 182]should prove to be as contrary to truth as darkness is to light, will men persist in that way still? Abraham had no warrant to circumcise any but such as were either born in his house or bought with his money. The first order that was given for bringing in others by housholds was in the day that Israel came out of Egypt. Now as we make no pretence of being Abraham's natural posterity, nor of being bought with Jewish money, the argument all turns upon a supposal that Gentile believers ought to bring their housholds with them to baptism, as the said proselytes did theirs to circumcision. But I know not how words can express the contrary more plainly than God himself has done in this case; for he says, his new convenant is not according to that he made with Israel on said day, Heb. viii. 8 —11. Upon this men often assert that the ordi­nances differ, while the subject, are the same: But the text assures us expresly, that the main difference is in the subjects; that the subjects of the new cove­nant all know God from the least to the greatest When this is mentioned, they would then turn it to the difference betwixt the covenant; but that cannot be here intended, because that distinction was as real in Abraham's time as it is now, as the apostle shews in Rom. iv. 1 [...], which text is often brought for a proof that the covenant is the same now as with Abraham. It does prove that the internal efficacy of divine institutions was the same upon believers then as now; only their faith was fixed on a future Messiah, ours on one already come. The difference then betwixt the two covenants we are speaking of, is not internal, but external. By divine institution a whole family and a whole nation were then taken into covenant; now none are added to the church [Page 183] by the Lord but believers who shall be saved, Acts ii. 41, 47. Professors who had not this character were false brethren unawares brought in, Gal. I [...]. 4. Their being in was owing to mens imperfection, and not to God's institution; yet because the Baptists refused to yield to a practice they viewed to be not only without, but directly against divine institution, they were abused in the manner above described; and Mr. Cobbet concludes his discourse with a few inferences, in which he says, ‘see the “danger and detestableness of Anabaptistical te­nets, giving God and Christ (in part) the lie, vailing the glory of his preventing grace of cove­nant, Numb. xi. 18.—Condemning the judge­ment and practice of former churches, Je [...]s and Gentiles—Whence that prophone trick of some to turn their back upon the churches [when they sprinkled infants] as if all their persons, and prayers, and fellowship, were unclean: Whence the [...]aling of it antichristian, &c. What is this but to blaspheme the name and tabernacle and saints of ”God? Rev. xiii.’ Thus the Baptists were ac­cused by those noted authors of prophaneness and blasphemy, only for their manifesting by word and gesture their dissent from infant sprinkling.

Mr. Nathaniel Ward, of Ipswich (the Indian name of which was Agawam) who, with Mr. Cot­ton, had often been improved by the Court in com­posing their law-book, published a tract this year under a fanciful title, which contains the following addresses to the Anabaptists. ‘1. To entreat them “to consider, what an high pitch of boldness it is, for a man to cut a principal ordinance out of the kingdom of God; if it be but to make a disloca­tion, which so far disgoods the ordinance, I fear it altogether unhallows it. To transplace or [Page 184]transtime a stated institution of Jesus Christ, with­out his direction, I think is to destroy it ^‖. 2. What a cruelty it is, to divest children of that only external privilege which their heavenly father hath bequeathed them, to interest them visibly in himself, his son, his spirit, his covenant of peace, and the tender bosom of their careful mother the church. 3. What an inhumanity it is, to deprive parents of that comfort they may take from the baptism of their infants dying in their childhood. 4. How unseasonably and un­kindly it is, to interturbe the state and church with their Amalakitish onsets, when their lives? 5. To take a thorough view of those who have perambled this by-path; being sometimes in the crowds of foreign wederdropers, i. e. Anabaptists, and prying into their inward frames with the best eyes I had, I could but observe those disguised guises in the generality of them. 1. A flat for­mality of spirit, without salt or savour in the spi­ritualities of Christ; as if their religion had be­gun and ended in their opinion. 2. A shallow slighting of such as dissent from them, appear­ing too often in their faces, speeches and car­riages. 3. A feeble yet peremptory obstinacy: ”Seldom are any of them reclaimed ^*.’

By these extracts the reader may see the temper and language of Paedobaptists in that day; and how much [Page 185]much of the same has there been in later times? Of charging us with cruelty, because we hold that no acts of men can interest children in the grace of God, before they are taught and believe his truth; and because we dare not place our hopes of infants salvation upon the doings of ministers and churches, instead of the sovereign mercy of God in Jesus Christ, unto whom we would commit them by be­lieving prayer, and if they live, would use all gos­pel methods for their conversion, and obedience to all his commands? How much also have we seen of their assuming God's prerogative, in judging the hearts of such as yield not to their arguments?

As all the foregoing means were ineffectual, some of the ministers presented a bill to the General Court this year, for the calling a synod to settle these and other ecclesiastical affairs. "The magi­strates passed the bill, but some of the deputies questioned the power of the Court, to require their churches to send their messengers to such a conven­tion, as not being satisfied that any such power was given by Christ to the civil magistrates over the churches in such cases." This caused a debate, the conclusion of which was, that the ensuing synod should be convened by way of motion only to the churches, and not in words of command ^§. The order of it began thus:

"Boston, 15th 3d Month, 1646.

"The right form of church government and dis­cipline being agreed, part of the kingdom of Christ upon earth, therefore the establishing and settling thereof by the joint and public agreement and con­sent of churches, and by the sanction of civil autho­rity, must needs greatly conduce to the honor and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the settling [Page 186]and safety of church and commonwealth, where such a duty is diligently attended and performed." Upon which they sent out their motion for said sy­nod; to enforce which they say, "that for want of the thing here spoken of, some differences of opi­nion and practice of one church from another do already appear amongst us; and others (if not timely prevented) are like speedily to ensue, and this not only in lesser things, but even in points of no small consequence and very material; to in­stance in no more but those about baptism, and the persons to be received thereto, in which one parti­cular the apprehensions of many persons in the country are known not a little to differ; for where­as in most churches the ministers do baptize the children if the grandfather or grandmother be set members, though the immediate parents be not, and others, though for avoiding of difference of neighbour churches they do not yet actually so practise, yet they do much incline thereto. And many persons living in this country who have been members of the congregations in England, but are no found fit to be received at the Lord's table here, there be notwithstanding considerable persons in these churches who do think that children of these also, upon some conditions and terms, may and ought to be baptized: Likewise on the other side, there be some among us who do think that whate­ver be the state of the parents, baptism ought not to be dispensed to any infants whatsoever; which various apprehensions being seconded with practices according thereto, as in part they already are, and are like to be more, must needs, if not timely re­medied, beget such differences as will be displeasing to the Lord, and offensive to others, and danger­ous to ourselves." These were their resons for [Page 187]calling the synod, and the work assigned for them was to "discuss, dispute, and clear up by the word of God, such questions of church government, and discipline, in the things aforementioned, or any other as they shall think needful and meet, and to continue so doing, till they or the major part of them shall have agreed upon one form of government and discipline, for the main and substantial parts thereof, as that which they judge agreeable to the holy scriptures; which when it was finished was to be presented to the General Court, "to the end that the same being found agreeable to the word of God, it may receive from the said General Court such approbation as is meet, that the Lord being thus acknowledged by church and state, to be our judge, our lawgiver and King, he may be gracious­ly pleased still to save us, as hitherto he hath done ^*."

Here we may plainly see wherein their great mi­stake lay. They confounded the judgment that they formed upon the scripture with the rule itself. Also the majority assumed the power of judging for the whole, and of punishing dissenters from their judgments, as breakers of God's law; a delusion that the world is not clear of to this day, though light and truth have gained much since that time.

We are told that opposition was made in some of the churches against sending to that synod, notwith­standing the moderate expressions in the Court's or­der for it, and Mr. Hubbard says the principal men who raised it were "some who lately came from England, where such a vast liberty was plead­ed for, by all that rabble of men that went under the name of Independents, whether Anabaptists, [Page 188]Antinomians, Familists and Seekers, far beyond the moderate limits pleaded for by Congregational divines in the assembly at Westminster, such as Dr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Burroughs, &c. who yet tacked about further than they need to have done. A great part of the Parliament also, then in being, inclined much that ways, and had by their commis­sioners sent word to all the English plantations in the West-Indies, and Summer Islands, that all men should enjoy their liberty of conscience; and had by their letters also intimated the same to those of New-England. Some few of the church at Boston ad­hered to these principles, which made them stickle so much against the calling of the synod at that time; against which they raised a threefold objec­tion.

• 1. That by a liberty already established among the laws of New-England, the elders or ministers of the churches have liberty to assemble upon all occasions, without the compliance of the civil authority.
• 2. It was observed that this motion came originally from some of the ministers, and not from the Court.
• 3. In the order was expressed, that what the major part of the assembly should agree upon should be presented to the Court for their confirmation.

"To the first it was answered, that said liberty was granted only for help in case of extremity, if in time to come either the civil authority should grow opposire to the churches, or neglect the care of them, and not with any intent to practise the same while the civil rulers were nursing fathers to the church ^†. To the second it was answered, it was [Page 189]not for the churches to enquire what or who gave the occasion; but if they thought fit to disire the churches to afford them help of council in any mat­ter which concerned religion and conscience, it was the churches duty to yield it to them; for as far as it concerns their command or request, it is an ordi­nance of man, which all are to submit unto for the Lord's sake, without troubling themselves about the occasion or success. For the third, where the order speaks of the major part, it speaks in its own lan­guage, [Page 190]but it never intended thereby to restrain the synod in the manner of their proceeding; nor to hinder them, but that they might first acquaint the churches with their conclusions, and have their as­sent to them before they did present them to the Court.

"This matter was two Lord's-days in agitation with the church in Boston, before they could be brought to any comfortable conclusion; but on a lecture day intervening, Mr. Norton, teacher of the church at Ipswich, was procured to supply the place at Boston, where was a great audience; and the subject then handled was, Moses and Aaron kissing each other in the mount of God.—On the next Lord's-day, after much debate in Boston church, it was agreed by the vote of the major part, that the elders and three of the brethren should be sent to the synod ^†."

This account from one of their noted ministers, may give us considerable light about the actings of that day. He informs us that the synod did not meet till near winter, when after a session of fourteen days, they adjourned to June 18, 1647; and that summer proving sickly ^§, they were forced to ad­journ again. But on August 16, 1648, they met, and compleated the Cambridge platform; the last article of which says, "if any church, one or more, shall grow schismatical, rending itself from the communion of other churches, or shall walk incorrigibly or 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." Which principle the Baptists and others [Page]felt the cruel effects of for many years af [...] [...] clause was also inserted at the end of their tenth chapter, that no church act can be consummated without the consent of both elders and brethren; which implicitly gives ministers a power to negative the churches acts, and which many in later times have contended for; though that would give them such a lordly power over the church, as chief judges in the state are not allowed to have in the executive courts of our nation. But as to baptism, though the order for calling the synod asserted that most ministers DO baptize the grandchildren of church members, yet that assertion was so far from truth, that those who ‘laboured much to have this prin­ciple “ ”declared and asserted in the platform,’ could not effect it because of "many worthy men ^§." Mr. Hooker had published his testimony, wherein as he asserted, "that children as children have no right to baptism, so that it belongs not to any predecessors either nearer or farther off removed from the next parents to give right of this privilege to their chil­dren ^†:" Mr. Thomas Shepard, pastor of the church where this synod met, had also publicly ask­ed what members every particular visible church ought to consist of? and answered, that ‘Christ be­ing “the head of every particular church, and it his body, hence none are to be members of the church but such as are members of Christ by ”faith.’ And though he observes that hypocrites do sometimes creep in, yet he says, ‘if they could “have been known to be such, they ought to be kept out; and when they are known they are or­derly ”to be cast out ^*.’ And there was still more re­gard paid to this first principle of the New-England [Page 192]churches, than could consist with the admission of persons to bring their children to baptism, who were "not found fit" for the other ordinance.

It may be proper now to take a further view of the affairs of Mr. Gorton and his company. Upon their being released and banished, as I have related, they went to Rhode-Island, and from thence over to Narraganset, where, on April 19, 1644, they procured a deed from the sachems, whereby they re­signed themselves, people, lands, rights, inheri­tances and possessions, over unto the protection and government of King Charles; and appointed Sa­muel Gorton, and others their agents, to carry the same to him. This was signed by Passicus, Canau­nicus and Maxan, and witnessed by two Indians and three English. The loss of their great sachem Mi­antinomu lay very heavy upon their spirits. Hub­bard says he ‘was a very goodly personage, of tall “stature, subtile and cunning in his contrive­ments.”’ In May came a letter to the rulers at Boston, signed by Canaunicus, "though written by some of Gorton's company, to this effect, that they purposed to make war upon Uncas, in revenge of the death of Miantinomu and others of their peo­ple, and marvelled that the English should be against it; and that they had put themselves under the government and protection of the King of Eng­land, and so were become their fellow subjects, and therefore if any difference should fall between them; it ought to be referred to him; professing withal their willingness to continue all friendly correspon­dence with them. The General Court received another letter from Gorton and his company, to the like effect. "June 23, news came that the Nar­ragansets had killed six of Uncas's men and five women, and had sent two hands and a foot to Pum­ham, [Page 193]to engage him to join with them, but he chose to keep to the Massachusetts ^*. Contentions increased so much the next year that an extraordinary meeting of the Commissioners of the United Colonies was cal­led at Boston, on July 28, 1645, when they sent three messengers to the Narragansets, who on their return brought a letter from Mr. Williams to the Commis­sioners, assuring them that "war would presently break forth, and that the Narraganset sachems had lately concluded a neutrality with Providence, and the towns on Aquedneck island." Upon which they determined to raise an army of 300 men, in the following proportion, viz. 190 out of the Massa­chusetts, 40 out of Plymouth, 40 out of Connecti­cut, and 30 out of New Haven colonies. For­ty were raised immediately, and sent away under the command of Lieutenant Humphry Atherton, to protect Uncas, till Capt. Mason should meet him there with the western forces, who were then to pro­ceed to meet the remainder of the forces from the eastward, in Narraganset, under the command of Edward Gibbons, Major General. After which Go­vernor Winthrop informed the Commissioners, "that since Miantinomu's death the Narraganset sa­chems by messengers sent him a present, expressing their desire to keep peace with the English, but de­siring to make war with Uncas for their sachem's d [...]ath." The present was about the value of 15 pounds in wampum, but he refused to receive it upon those terms. The Commissioners concluded to take the present into their hands, and thereupon sent Cap­tain Harding and Mr. Wilbore to those sachems, who were to take Benedict Arnold with them, and inform them that their present was returned and not accepted, unless they would be at peace with Uncas [Page 194]as well as the English; but if said sachems would come with them to Boston, they should have liberty safely to come and return without molestation, to treat of peace, though deputies in their stead would not now do. The messengers returning brought back the present, and informed the Commissioners that ‘“they found not Benedict Arnold at Providence, and heard that he durst not adventure himself again amongst the Narraganset Indians without a sufficient guard. They also understood that Mr. Williams, sent for by the Narraganset sachems, was going thither, wherefore they acquainted him with their message, shewed him their instructions, ”and made use of him as an interpreter.’ He prevailed with Passicus and others to go to Boston, and moved the messengers to write and acquaint Captain Mason of the prospect there was of peace; which last article the Commissioners censured them for, as going beyond their instructions. The Eng­lish demanded 2000 fathoms of wampum to pay the costs of this expedition, and for other damages; which the Indians were compelled to yield to, and to give hostages till it was paid; and so articles of peace were drawn up and signed between them. After which the Commissioners drew up a for­mal declaration, to justify their proceedings in said war ^†.

The Indians were far from being easy under these things; and in August, 1648, about 1000 Indians from various parts were collected in Connecticut, with 300 guns among them; and it was reported that they were hired by the Narragansets to fight with Uncas. The magistrates of Hartford sent three [Page 195]horsemen to enquire 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 Plimouth 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: Passicus sled to Rhode-Island; but soon af­ter they were, by Mr. Williams's 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 ^§.

Gorton, Holden and Greene, went to England to carry the Narraganset's surrendry of themselves and lands, as well as their own complaints, to the King; but found him not able to help either him­self or them. However, they published their case and a narrative of their sufferings, in 1645, under the title of Simplicity's Defence against seven-headed Policy. They also applied themselves to the Com­missioners that the Parliament had appointed over the affairs of the plantations, and at length obtained from them the following letter to the authority in the Massachusetts colony, viz.

"We being especially intrusted, by both houses of Parliament, with ordering the affairs and govern­ment of the English plantations in America, have [Page 196]some months since received a complaint from Mr. Gorton and Mr. Holden, in the name of themselves and divers other English, who have transported themselves into New-England, and now are or late­ly were inhabitants of a tract of land called the Narraganset Bay (a copy of which complaint the inclosed petition and narrative will represent unto your knowledge) we could not proceed forthwith to a full hearing and determining of the matter, it not appearing unto us that you were acquainted with the particular charge, or that you had furnish­ed any persons with power to make defence in your behalf; nor could we conveniently respite some kind of resolution, without a great prejudice to the petitioners, who would have lain under much in­conveniency if we had detained them from their families, till all the formalities and circumstances of proceeding (necessary at this distance) had regular­ly prepared the cause for a hearing. We shall there­fore let you know in the first place, that our pre­sent resolution is not grounded upon an admittance of the truth of what is charged; we knowing well how much God hath honored your government, and believing that your spirit and affairs are acted by principles of justice, prudence and zeal to God; and therefore cannot easily receive any evil impres­sions concerning your proceedings. In the next place you may take notice that we found the peti­tioners aim and desire, in the result of it, was not so much a reparation of what was passed, as a settling their habitations for the future, under that govern­ment, by a charter of civil incorporation, which was heretofore granted them by ourselves. We find withal that the tract of land called the Narraganset Bay, concerning which the question is arisen, was divers years since inhabited by those of Providence, [Page 197]Portsmouth and Newport, who are interested in the complaint; and that the same is wholly without the bounds of the Massachusetts patent granted by his Majesty. We have considered that they be English, that the forcing of them to find out new places of residence will be very chargeable, difficult and un­certain, and therefore, upon the whole matter, do pray and require you to permit and suffer the peti­tioners, and all the late inhabitants of Narraganset Bay, with their families, and such as shall hereaf­ter join with them, freely and quietly to live and plant upon the Shawomet, and such other part of the said tract of land, within the bounds mentioned in our said charter, on which they have formerly planted and lived, without extending your jurisdic­tion to any part thereof, or otherwise disquieting them in their consciences or civil peace, or inter­rupting them in their possessions, until such time as we shall have received your answer to their claim in point of title, and you shall thereupon have received our further order therein. And in case any others, since the petitioners address to England, have taken possession of any part of the lands heretofore enjoyed by the petitioners, or any their associates, you are to cause them that are newly possessed as aforesaid to be removed, that this order may be fully performed. And, till our further order, neither the petitioners are to enlarge their plantations, nor are any others to be suffered to intrude upon any part of the Narra­ganset Bay; and if they shall be found hereafter to abuse this favour, by any act tending to disturb your rights, we shall express a due sense thereof, so as to testify our care of your honorable protection and encouragement. In order to the effecting of this resolution we do also require, that you suffer the said Mr. Gorton, Mr. Holden, Mr. Greene, and [Page 198]their company, with their goods and necessaries, to pass through any part of that territory which is under your jurisdiction, toward the said tract of land, with­out molestation, they demeaning themselves civilly, any former sentence of expulsion otherwise notwith­standing. We shall only add, that to these orders of ours we shall expect a conformity, not only from yourselves, but from all other governments and plantations in New-England whom it may concern. And so commending you to God's gracious protec­tion, we rest your loving friends.

"From the Governor in Chief, loving Admiral, and Commissioners for foreign plantations, sitting at Westminster, 15 May, 1646.

"To our loving friends the Governor, Deputy-Governor and Assistants of the Massachusetts plan­tations, in New England.

• Warwick, Governor and Admiral,
• Northumberland,
• Nottingham,
• John Holland,
• H. Vane ^*," &c.

With this order and resolution Mr. Gorton and his friends returned to Boston, where they were in motion to apprehend them, till upon shewing the state's order they were permitted to return to Shawo­met, which, in honor to their friend the Admiral, they called Warwick. Sundry of them lived there to old age, and were considerably improved in the government of the colony.

As there was no particular form of government, nor appointment of officers in their charter, it took a length of time to settle upon a method that was agreeable to the majority of the inhabitants. Their first General Assembly met at Portsmouth on May 19, 1647, when Mr. John Coggshall was ch [...]sen President, Mr. Roger Williams Assistant for Provi­dence, Mr. John Sanford for Portsmouth, Mr. [Page 199]William Coddingdon for Newport, and Mr. Randal Holden for Warwick. Mr. William Dyre 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. They also ordered, ‘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 endea­vours, 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 out of Ports­mouth, twenty pounds out of Providence; which rate is to be levied and paid in by the last of No­vember.”’

The form of government which they came into was thus to elect 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 general recorder and general serjeant; 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 [Page 200]Court of Probate, of granting licences to inn-keep­ers and retailers, and the care of the poor.

Persons of almost all sentiments and tempers had resorted to this new colony, and various conten­tions and parties had appeared, which were not easi­ly composed and reconciled; but toward the ob­taining of such a desirable end, the following cove­nant was drawn and signed at Providence, viz. "considering the great mercy afforded unto us, is 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 favours 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 endeavours 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 favours; 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 [Page 201]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 misbehaviour, 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 causless fears and jealousies of one another; self-seeking and striving one against 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, [Page 202]then to take into our consideration a speech of a be­loved friend, "better to suffer an inconvenience than a mischief," better to suspend with a loss which 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 behaviour, so moderately and orderly as the cause shall permit, and if any of us shall fly out in provoking, scurrilous, exorbitant speeches, and un­suitable behaviour, 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."

THIS preferring of the public good to private inte­rest or inclination, Mr. Williams discovered as much of, through his life, as perhaps any man has done in latter ages; but alas! he had to do with many who were not of this disposition.

IN their General Assembly at Providence, May 16, 1648, Mr. Coddington was elected President, and Jeremiah Clarke, Roger Williams, William Baulston, and John Smith, Assistants; Philip Sher­man, recorder, and Alexander Partridge, general serjeant; but Mr. Coddington absented himself, Mr. Dyre, the late recorder, having exhibited divers bills of complaint against him, and he did ‘not at­tend “this Court for the clearing of the accusations ”charged upon him;’ upon which the Assembly [Page 203]passed an act that in such a case the Assistant of the town where the President lived should supply his place ^*.

MR. Coddington wrote to Gevernor Winthrop the 25th of the same month, that ‘Mr. Baulstone, “and some others of this island, are in disgrace with the people in Providence, Warwick, and Gor­ton's adherents on the island, for that we will not interpose or meddle at all in their quarrels with the Massachusetts, and the rest of the colonies; and do much fear that Gorton will be a thorn in ”their sides, if the Lord prevent not.’ And when the Commissioners of the United Colonies met in September this year, he and Captain Partridge went to them and said, ‘our request and motion is "in “the behalf of our island, that we the islanders of Rhode-Island may be received into a combina­tion with all the United Colonies of New Eng­land, into a firm and perpetual league of friend­ship and amity, for offence and defence, mutual advice and succour, upon all just occasions, for our mutual safety and welfare, and for preserv­ing of peace amongst ourselves, and preventing, as much as may be, all occasions of war or dif­ferences, and to this our motion we have the ”consent of the major part of our island.’

• WILLIAM CODDINGTON,
• ALEXANDER PARTRIDGE.

THUS, under a pretence of promoting peace, they would have separated the island from the rest of that little colony. However the Commissioners were not willing to own them as a distinct colony, [Page 204]but would have the island to be included in Plymouth patent, and if the majority of its inhabitants would acknowledge themselves to be under that jurisdiction, they were willing then to afford them the same advice and help as they did to others ^* Mr. Edward Win­slow had been sent over to England their agent, to answer the complaints of Gorton's company, and to support their claims against that little colony; but he wrote from London to the Commissioners of the United Colonies, April 17, 1651, and said, ‘since “I perceived by letters from Plymouth, that after another year's warning nothing is likely to be done, in reference to the old order of Lords and Commons sent over; I looked upon it as a vain thing to strive against the stream; whereas indeed that was the main material objection above a twelve­month since, which I could not answer that we had such an order, but never looked after the per­formance ”thereof, nor made any return upon it ^§.’

WHILE various parties were exerting themselves in different ways, Mr. Williams on August 31, 1648, made the following motion to the town of Provi­dence, viz.

"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 too powerful to kindle such a fire as [Page 205]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 I humbly and earnestly beseech you to be willing to be pacifiable, willing to be reconcileable, 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 neighbours 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 obstuction 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 [Page 206]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 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 had such effect, that Mr. Wil­liams was received to act as President of the colony, till their election at Warwick, May 22, 1649, when Mr. John Smith was chosen President, and Thomas Olney, John Sanford, John Clarke, and Samuel Gorton, Assistants; Philip Sherman, recorder; Richard Knight, serjeant, and John Clarke, treasurer. Mr. Williams was chosen ‘to take “a view of the records delivered into the Court by ”Mr. William Dyre.’ And they made a law that if a President should be elected, and should refuse to serve, he should be fined ten pounds; and if an [Page 207]Assistant refused, five pounds. Also "ordered that a messenger be sent to Pumham 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." Mr. Dyre again presented his com­plaints against Mr. Coddington, but they were de­ferred.

AT the Assembly at Newport, May 23, 1650, a fresh order was sent to the towns, to collect and pay what they owed to Mr. Williams for the char­ter, within twenty days. William Arnold and William Carpenter, instead of submitting to the government of their own colony, went again and entered complaints against some of their neighbours to the Massachusetts rulers, and they sent a citation to them to come and answer the same in their courts, dated from Boston, June 20, 1650, signed by Ed­ward Rawson, secretary ^†. Such obstructors of good government were they who have made a great noise in the world about the disorders of Rhode-Island colony! In 1651, Mr. Coddington caused a terrible difficulty among them, as will be seen in its place, though another affair must be attended to first.

CHAP. IV. An Account of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Holmes, and of their Sufferings at Boston in 1651.

IT has already been seen that Mr. John Clarke was a principal instrument in procuring Rhode-Island for a people who were persecuted elsewhere, and that [Page 208]he was the first religious minister on the island, and serviceable also in their civil government; yet all this did not prevent his being most abusively treated this year in Boston, with two other members of his church.

THE best account of Mr. Obadiah Holmes that I have seen, is in a manuscript which he left to his children, that a gentleman of his posterity has fa­voured me with; an extract of which I will give in his own words. Says he,

"FIRST, I must remember my honored parents, who were faithful in their generation, and of good report among men, and brought up their children tenderly and honorably. Three sons they brought up at the university in Oxford; but the most of their care was to inform and instruct them in the fear of the Lord; and to that end gave them much good counsel, carrying them often before the Lord by earnest prayer; but I, the most rebellious of all, did neither hearken to counsel nor any instruction, for from a child I minded nothing but folly and va­nity, and as years did grow on, and wisdom should have taken place, then the wisdom I had was wise to do evil, but to do well had no knowledge.—As days and strength increased, even so did my transgres­sions, so that I became hardened in sin, not only to be drawn into it by others, but was as forward to draw others into evil as my fellows—being come to that height of wickedness that I did think it best when I could do the most wickedness, and began to think that it was but a foolish thing to talk of God, that should bring man to judgment—Continu­ing in such a course for four or five years, and then began to bethink what counsel my dear parents had given me, many a time with tears and prayers; my rebellion to my honored parents then looked me in [Page 209]open face, and my dear mother being sick, it struck to me my disobedient acts, which forced me to con­fess the same to her. After this I began to go to hear the word preached, but every word was against me, and left me without hope of mercy; and some­times passing over a field called the Twenty Acres, stood still and said, oh! that I might lie in hell but so many years as here are grass! It would have an end.—That word was ever before me, the wicked shall be turned to hell—where the worm dieth not, &c. And yet at this time Satan tells me, it is best to put such thoughts out of mind, and take pleasure while thou art here, and return to thy former merry companions and friends; which I did for a time; but the worm in the conscience did still gnaw. I went to hear the most noted men I could, but found it still against me; yet often heard them say, I must repent and be humbled, and must pray: and then should find mercy; but must confess sins and forsake them; which brought me to a resolution, in the most public way or company I could find, ever so to do; and had done it through ignorance, had not a friend advised me to the contrary, and that upon good grounds. But he also put me upon prayer and hearing. I then fell to prayer and duties, but found no rest or quiet in my soul; for then Satan let fly at me, and told me, it was too late to return, for there was no hope for me. I answered him, and did instance several of my wicked companions God had shown mercy unto a little before. He an­swered, remember thou scorned, mocked and derided them; yea saying the devil was in them, they were all mad, and become fools; and withal he told me I had read and heard that there was a sin that never could be forgiven, the which sin I had committed. With this assault he fooled me a long time; even [Page 210]my life was a burden to me. Oh! the knives, ropes, trees, coal-pits, can witness the many escapes of them, as one in a most undone, desperate condi­tion, as one appointed to eternal destruction. The perplexity of mind brought me to great weakness in body, and yet for ease and comfort I turned over every stone, hearkened to all my acquaintance and friends, as to leave off my old ways, and all my old companions, which I had done before; but all this while I never considered sin according to the true nature of it, as being loathsome to the Lord, but as it brought judgment upon me; yet was I fearful to sin, and began to love to read the scrip­tures, and frequent prayer and other duties, and took delight among professors that were of the strictest sort, easily seeing the gross evil and danger of the formal ministers and professors, and so that conformity was only superstition and a name: Yet for all that I had no rest in my soul, though I was in a manner as strict as any. As I was enlarged in sorrow for sin, deep in humiliation, enlarged in prayer, or filled with tears, my comfort came in and encreased; but as I failed in them, so my sor­rows renewed; and when I looked over my best performances found them full of sin. Oh! then the fears, doubts and questioning of my own estate! I judged it was all done in hypocrisy, which sin my soul did then abhor. In this sad and doubtful state I continued very long, yea many years. And al­though I could speak comfortably to others, yet had often much disquiet within my soul; my comforts were according to my enlargements. Not long af­ter this there was in me a great love to the Lord; but alas! I was deceived by my own heart, and the ministers who told me there must be such and such a love to him, as to keep to him in duty, and to [Page 211]part with all for him, but they left me short of un­derstanding him as I should, and my selfish heart was willing to love him or part with all for him, yea my dear honored father, brethren and friends, house and lands, and my own native country, for time, and to avoid those popish relics of the bishops, and that filthy rabble, and to separate from them, and all those that mention them; and was fully known in my own country, and adventur­ed the danger of the seas to come to New-England, where I tried all things in several churches, and for a time thought I had made a good choice or change: But in truth it little differed from former times, and my spirit was like a wave tossed up and down, as not yet come to dig so deep as I should, or to consi­der the only ground of a well-grounded hope, which God at last brought me to consider, which is, his own love to poor lost man, which first was in his own secret council and purpose before man was, and revealed to man in his time; and that there is no pre­parative necessary to obtain Christ, nor any thing to deserve that love, or to merit the same. And no­thing could stay or satisfy my soul till I came to con­sider why, when and upon whom he laid sin and transgression, namely, on the Lord, and on him alone. And looking at me when a rebel, an enemy, yea dead in sin and trespasses, yea in my blood, he then said, live, through the blood of Christ be cleansed, and in him be loved, for his own love to poor man, and that the election may obtain it, for he knows who are his; but his good will is manifested before they have done either good or evil, so that neither good foreseen shall prevail, nor evil original or actual shall hinder, but that free grace may have its free course; but manifested when he giveth faith to believe the promise of the Father in giving a full [Page 212]discharge to the soul, by taking full satisfaction from his only Son, who became sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God through him; and so remission and free par­don is granted forth, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life; and all those that so come to him he will no ways cast away. And when God had given me to see in any measure this love of his, then and not till then could I give over working for life, and to live in working. But at last he caused me to say, that from life I must work, and then all my former turnings and returnings must come to nought, yea all my righteousness as filthy rags, and to account all as dung, so I might obtain Christ; or rather that I might be accepted by him, and so removed me from the covenant of works to the covenant of grace, even that new covenant of life alone by him­self, who paid so dear a price, as to lay down his own blood to wash, cleanse and purify the soul, and to redeem both soul and body to serve the Lord; and that is now the life I live by faith in the Son of God; and this faith causes works of faith, or ra­ther fruits that flow from that root, so that now love hath constrained me to yield myself to live to him, as to a king to rule me by his holy laws and com­mandments, and as to an only prophet to teach and instruct me, both to know and to do his holy will, and as my only chief priest to offer a sacrifice for me, which he did even for all, whereby my poor imperfect prayers and all other services became ac­cepted of the Father; and this love, shed abroad in my heart, wrought in me a restless desire to know his will, that I might shew forth the praises and glory of him, that had called me by his grace."

As the sentiments of the ancient Baptists in this country have been grosly misrepresented, and as Mr. Holmes was no small sufferer in that cause, I thought it expedient to let the reader thus far hear him speak for himself, or tell his own ex­perience and ideas about the nature of true reli­gion. When he first came to this land he joined with the chuch in Salem, with whom he walked six or seven years, and then about the year 1645 was dismissed to the Congregational church in Seaconck (Rehoboth) newly settled there, under the ministry of Mr. Samuel Newman; and he continued in that relation about four years, till an unrighteous act, as he judged, of the minister and part of the church, for which they would not give satisfaction, caused Mr. Holmes and several more to withdraw, and set up a meeting by themselves, and being con­vinced that the Baptist's way was right, a number of them were baptised, I suppose by the aforesaid Mr. Clarke, for they joined to his church. After this Mr. Newman pronounced a sentence of ex­communication against Mr. Holmes, upon which he and two more were presented to the General Court at Plymouth, June 4, 1650, where they met with four petitions against them, one from their own town with thirty-five hands to it, one from the church at Taunton, one from all the ministers but two in Plymouth colony, and a fourth from the Court at Boston, under their secretaries hand, urg­ing Plymouth rulers to suppress them speedily ^†

HERE we may observe the great difference be­tween our Plymouth fathers, and the Massachusetts. With all these stimulations to severity, the Court of Plymouth only charged them to desist from their [Page 214]practice, which others had taken such offence at, and one of them yielding thereto, the others, viz. Obadiah Holmes and Joseph Tory, were bound over to the next October Court, but were not so much as bound to their good behaviour, nor any other sureties required, only they were bound ‘one “ ”for another in the sum of ten pounds a piece,’ for their appearance at said Court.

"AT a General Court holden at New-Plymouth the second of October, 1650, before William Brad­ford, gentleman, Governor, Thomas Prince, Wil­liam Collyare, Capt. Miles Standish, Timothy He­the [...]ly, William Thomas, John Allen, gentlemen, Assistants, [and a House of Deputies.]

Presentment by the Grand Inquest.

October 2 cond, 1650.

"WEE whose names are heer underwritten, being the grand inquest, doe present to this Court John Hazell, Mr. Edward Smith and his wife, Obadiah Holmes, Joseph Tory and his wife, and the wife of James Man, William Deuell and his wife, of the towne of Rehoboth, for the continuing of a meet­ing uppon the Lord's day from house to house, con­trary to the order of this Court, enacted June 12, 1650. THOMAS ROBINSON,

HENRY TOMSON," &c. to the number of 14 ^†.

THIS is an exact copy of their presentment, but no sentence appears upon record against them. How different is this from the actings of Boston Court the next year ^*! For on July 19, 1651, Mes­sieurs [Page 215]Clarke, Holmes and Crandal, "being the representatives of the church in Newport, upon the request of William Witter, of Lynn, arrived there, he being a brother in the church, who, by reason of his advanced age, could not undertake so great a journey as to visit the church ^§." He lived about two miles out of town, and the next being the Lord's-day, they concluded to spend it in religious worship at his house; and Mr. Clarke says, "finding by sad experience, that the hour of temptation spoken of was coming upon all the world (in a more eminent way) to try them that are upon the earth, I fell upon the consideration of that promise, made to those that keep the word of his patience, which present thoughts, while in conscience toward God, and good will unto his faints, 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 that keep the word of his patience from the hour of temptation: While I say I was yet speaking, there comes 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 [Page 216]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:

"WHEN he had read the warrant, I told them, friends, there shall not be, I trust, the least appear­ance of a resisting of that authority by which you come unto us; yet I tell you, that by virtue hereof you are not so strictly tyed, but if you please you may suffer us to make an end of what we have be­gun, so may you be witnesses either to or against the faith and order which we hold. To which they an­swered they [...]ould not; then said we, notwithstand­ing the warrant, or any thing therein contained, you may.—They apprehended us, and carried us away to the ale-house ordinary, where at dinner one of them said unto us, gentlemen, if you be free I will carry you to the meeting; to whom it was re­plied, friend, had we been free thereunto we had prevented all this, nevertheless we are in thy hand, and if thou wilt carry us to the meeting, thither will we go; to which he answered, then will I carry you to the meeting; to this we replied, if thou forcest us unto your assembly, then shall we be constrained to declare ourselves, that we cannot hold commu­nion with them. The constable answered, that is nothing to me; I have not power to command you [Page 217]to speak when you come there, or to be silent. To this I again replied, since we have heard the word of salvation by Jesus Christ, we have been taught, as those that first trusted in Christ, to be obedient unto him both by word and deed; wherefore if we be forced to your meeting, we shall declare our dissent from you both by word and gesture. After all this, when he had consulted with the man of the house, he told us he would carry us to the meeting; so to their meeting we were brought, while they were at their prayers, and uncovered; and at my first step­ing over the threshold I unveiled myself, civily sa­luted them, and turned into the seat I was appoint­ed to, put on my hat again, and sat down, opened my book, and fell to reading. Mr. Bridges being troubled, commanded the constable to pluck off our hats, which he did, and where he laid mine there I let it lie, until their prayers, singing and preaching was over; after this I stood up, and ut­tered myself in these words following: I desire as a stranger to propose a few things to this congrega­tion, hoping in the proposal thereof I shall com­mend myself to your consciences, to be guided by that wisdom that is from above, which being pure is also peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated; and therewith made a stop, expecting if the Prince of peace had been among them, I should have had a suitable answer of peace from them.—Their pastor answered, we will have no objections against what is delivered. To which I answered, I am not about at present to make objections against what is deli­vered, but as by my gesture at my coming into your assembly, I declared my dissent from you, so least that should prove offensive unto some whom I would not offend, I would now by word of mouth declare the grounds, which are these: First, from [Page 218]the consideration we are strangers each to other, and so strangers to each other's inward standing with re­spect to God, and so cannot conjoin and act in faith, and what is not of faith is sin. And in the second place, I could not judge that you are gather­ed together, and walk according to the visible or­der of our Lord; which when I had declared, Mr. Bridges told me, I had done, and spoke that for which I must answer, and so commanded silence. When their meeting was done, the officers carried us again to the ordinary, where being watched over that night, as thieves and robbers, we were the next morning carried before Mr. Bridges, who made our mittimus, and sent us to the prison at Boston ^†; the words of the mittimus are these:

To the Keeper of the Prison at Boston.

"BY virtue hereof you are required to take in­to your custody from the constable of Lynn, or his Deputy, the bodies of John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes and John Crandal, and them to keep un­til the next county Court to be held at Boston, that they may then and there answer to such complaints as may be alledged against them; for being taken by a constable at a private meeting at Lynn, upon the Lord's-day, exercising among themselves, to whom divers of the [...] repaired, and joined with them, and that in the [...] of the public exercise of the worship of God; as also for offensively disturbing the peace of the congregation, at their coming into the public meeting in the time of prayer in the af­ternoon, and for saying and manifesting that the church in Lynn was not constituted according to the order of our Lord, and for such other things as shall be alledged against them, concerning their seduc­ing [Page 219]and drawing others after their erroneous judg­ments and practices, and for suspicion of having their hands in re-baptizing of one or more among us, as also for neglecting or refusing to put in sufficient security for their appearance at the said Court. Hereof fail not at your peril.

22, 5, 51. ROBERT BRIDGES ^§.

ON July 31, Mr. Clarke was brought before the Court, and fined twenty pounds, or to be well whipt; and the crimes he was charged with, beside what is above mentioned, were, that he met again the next day after his contempt, as they call it, of their pub­lic worship, ‘at the house of Witters, and in con­tempt “of authority; being then in the custody of the law, did there administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper to one excommunicated per­son, to another under admonition, and to a third that was an inhabitant of Lynn, and not in fel­lowship with any church, and yet upon answer in open Court did affirm, that he never re-baptized ”any,’ &c. ^* And, says Mr. Clarke, "none were able to turn to the law of God or man by which we were condemned. At length the Governor stepped up, and told us we had denied infants 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 gaoler to take us away. So the next morning, having so fair an opportunity, I made a motion to the Court in these words following:

To the honorable Court assembled at Boston.

"WHEREAS it pleased this honored Court yester­day to condemn the faith and order which I hold and practise; and after you had passed your sen­tence upon me for it, were pleased to express, I could not maintain the same against your ministers, and thereupon publicly proffered me a dispute with them: Be pleased by these few lines to under­stand, I readily accept it, and therefore desire you would appoint the time when, and the person with whom, in that public place where I was condemned, I might with freedom, and without molestation of the civil power, dispute that point publicly, where I doubt not by the strength of Christ to make it good out of his last will and testament, unto which no­thing is to be added, nor from which nothing is to be diminished. Thus desiring the Father of lights to shine forth, and by his power to expel the dark­ness, I remain your well-wisher, From the prison, this 1, 6, 52. JOHN CLARKE.

"THIS motion, if granted, I desire might be subscribed by their Secretary's hand, as an act of the same Court by which we were condemned ^§."

THIS was presented, and after much ado, one of the magistrates informed Mr. Clarke, that a dispu­tation was granted to be the next week, but on Monday their ministers came together and made no small stir about the matter, and near the close of the day the magistrates sent for Mr. Clarke into their chamber, and queried with him about this mat­ter, and demanded of him whether he would dispute upon the things contained in his sen­tence, and maintain his practice, ‘for said they, “the Court sentenced you not for your judg­ment and conscience, but for matter of fact [Page 221] ”and practice.’ To which, says Mr. Clarke, I replied, "you say the Court condemned me for matter of fact and practice; be it so; I say that matter of fact and practice was but the manifesta­tion of my judgment and conscience; and I make account, that man is void of judgment and con­science, with respect unto God, that hath not a fact and practice suitable thereunto.—If the faith and order which I profess do stand by the word of God, then the faith and order which you profess must needs fail to the ground; and if the way you walk in remain, then the way that I walk in must vanish away; they cannot both stand together; to which they seemed to assent; therefore I told them, that if they please to grant the motion under the Secre­tary's hand, I would draw up the faith and order which I hold, as the sum of that I did deliver in open Court, in three or four conclusions, which conclusions I will stand by and defend, until he whom you shall appoint shall by the word of God remove me from them; in case he shall remove me from them, then the disputation is at an end: But if not, then I desire like liberty by the word of God to oppose the faith and order which he and you profess, thereby to try whether I may be an instrument in the hand of God to remove you from the same. They told me the motion was very fair, and the way like unto a disputant, saying, because the mat­ter is weighty, and we desire that what can, may be spoken, when the disputation shall be, therefore would we take a longer time—So I returned with my keeper to prison again, drew up the conclusions, which I was resolved through the strength of Christ to stand in defence of, and through the importunity of one of the magistrates, the next morning very early I shewed them to him, having a promise I should [Page 222]have my motion for a dispute granted, under the Se­cretary's hand. The conclusions were as followeth.

"THE testimony of John Clarke, a prisoner of Jesus Christ at Boston, in behalf of my Lord, and of his people, is as followeth.

"1. I TESTIFY that Jesus of Nazareth, whom God hath raised from the dead, is made both Lord and Christ; this Jesus I say is the Christ, in English, the anointed one, hath a name above every name; he is the anointed priest, none to or with him in point of atonement; the anointed prophet, none to him in point of instruction; the anointed King, who is gone unto his Father for his glorious kingdom, and shall ere long return again; and that this Jesus Christ is also the Lord; none to or with him by way of commanding and ordering, with respect to the worship of God, the houshold of faith, which be­ing purchased with his blood as priest, instructed and nourished by his spirit as prophet, do wait in HIS appointments as THE LORD, in hope of that glorious kingdom which shall ere long appear ^§.

2. "I TESTIFY that baptism, or dipping in water, is one of the commandments of this Lord Jesus Christ, and that a visible believer or disciple of Christ Jesus (that is one that manifesteth repentance towards God, and faith in Jesus Christ) is the only person that is to be baptised, or dipped with that visible baptism, or dipping of Jesus Christ in water, and also that visible person that is to walk in that visible order of his house, and so to wait for his coming the second time, in the form of a Lord and King, with his glorious kingdom according to promise, and for his sending down in the time of his ab­sence the Holy Ghost, or holy Spirit of promise, and all this according to the last will and testament of that living Lord, whose will is not to be added to or taken from ^*.

3. "I TESTIFY or witness, that every such believer in Christ Jesus, that waiteth for his appearing, may in point of liberty, yea ought in point of duty, to im­prove that talent his Lord hath given unto him, and in the congregation may either ask for information to himself; or if he can, may speak by way of prophesy for the edification, exhortation and comfort of the [Page 224]whole; and out of the congregation at all times, upon all occasions, and in all places, as far as the jurisdiction of his Lord extends, may, yea ought to walk as a child of light, justifying wisdom with his ways, and reproving folly, whith the unfruitful works thereof, provided all this be shown out of a good conversation, as James speaks with meekness of wis­dom.

4. "I TESTIFY that no such believer or servant of Christ Jesus hath liberty, much less authority, from his Lord, to smite his fellow servant, nor yet with outward force, or arm of sl [...]sh, to constrain, or restrain his conscience, no nor yet his outward man for conscience sake, or worship of his God, where injury is not offered to the person, name or estate of others, every man being such as shall appear before the judgment seat of Christ, and must give an ac­count of himself to God, and therefore ought to be fully persuaded in his own mind for what he undertakes, because he that doubteth is damned if he eat, and so also if he act, because he doth not eat or act in faith, and what is not of faith is sin ^*.

WHEN Mr. Clarke had thus freely given them his testimony, instead of openly and fairly meeting him as they had talked of, to vindicate their proceedings, the next news that he hears from them is this:

To the Keeper of the Prison.

"BY virtue hereof you are to release and set at li­berty the body of Mr. John Clarke, and this shall be your discharge for so doing. Given under my hand the 11th of the 6th month, 1651.

WILLIAM HIBBINS ^§.

GREAT expectations had been raised in the coun­try of hearing these points disputed, and Mr. Clarke [Page 225]knowing well how they would try to turn all the blame upon him, immediately drew up the follow­ing address.

"WHEREAS through the indulgency of tender hearted friends, without my consent, and contrary to my judgment, the sentence and condemnation of the Court at Boston (as is reported) have been ful­ly satisfied on my behalf, and thereupon a warrant hath been procured, by which I am secluded the place of my imprisonment, by reason whereof I see no other call for present but to my habitation, and to those near relations which God hath given me there; yet lest the cause should hereby suffer, which I profess is Christ's, I would hereby signify, that if yet it shall please the honored magistrates, or Gene­ral Court of this colony, to grant my former request under their Secretary's hand, I shall chearfully em­brace it, and upon your motion shall, through the help of God, come from the island to attend it, and hereunto I have subscribed my name, 11th 6, 51. JOHN CLARKE."

THIS was the next morning sent to the magistrates, who were met at the commencement at Cambridge, upon which it was noised abroad that the motion was granted, and that Mr. Cotton was to be the man, and says Mr. Clarke, ‘best of all approved “of by myself for that same purpose, he being the inventor and supporter of that way in these parts ”wherein they walk.’ But a little before their lecture the next Thursday he received the follow­ing paper:

"MY answer followeth superscribed. To the honored Governor of the Massachusetts, and the rest of that honorable Society, these pre­sent.

I HAVE transcribed the whole of these letters with great care, to give the reader a fair opportunity to judge for himself, whether those rulers and mi­nisters were not afraid of the light, though they pretended the contrary; for they knew that they had then laws in force to punish any man who should dispute against infant baptism, as well as other of their ways, and what they now sent was no act of Court, but only a writing from some of their rulers met at commencement; and Mr. Clarke says, it was in Mr. Cotton's hand writing, by which they would fain have stopped Mr. Clarke's mouth, or else have drawn him again under the lash of their laws. This he says gave ground for others to conclude, ‘that “the utmost they can say for themselves, and to stop the mouth of him that is contrary minded, [Page 228]lies in the sword and power of the magistrate, which, although it be a good ordinance of God in this present evil world to restrain the oppres­sor, and to let the oppressed go free, and so ap­proved and owned by Christ and all true Chri­stians, in case of wrong and wicked lewdness—yet was it never appointed by Christ (to whom all power, not only in earth, but also in heaven, is committed, and by whom all earthly powers are to be judged; I say it was never appointed by Christ) to inform and rectify the minds and con­sciences of men in the worship of God, in that great mystery of godliness, and in those mystical matters concerning the kingdom of Christ, that being a matter that only belongs to the holy spirit of promise, and to the sword of that spirit, which is the word (not of man, but) of God, to effect, much less to conform their outward man contrary to their minds and consciences in the worship of God; and therefore that sword and power ought to take heed how they med­dle herein, lest they attempt to take the place and enter upon the THRONE and KINGDOM OF ”CHRIST ^§’

MR. Crandal, who was fined five pounds, only for being with the others, was released upon promise of appearing at their next Court (though they did not let him know when it was, till it was over, and they exacted the fine of the keeper) and he with Mr. Clarke returned home. Mr. Holmes was kept in prison till their Court met in the beginning of September, and then, after their public lecture in Boston, the sentence of Court was executed upon him; a particular account of which we have written with his own hand, as follows:

"UNTO the well beloved brethren, John Spils­bury, William Kiffen, and the rest that in London stand fast in the faith, and continue to walk sted­fastly in that order of the gospel which was once delivered unto the saints by Jesus Christ: Obadiah Holmes, an unworthy witness that Jesus is the Lord, and of late a prisoner for Jesus sake at Boston, sendeth greeting.

THUS I have given the reader his own testimony without adding or diminishing a single word, that all who understand my judge; for the scriptures assure us, that the ear trieth words, as the mouth tasteth meat. You have heard from Mr. Holmes, that two men were put to trouble for the respect they shewed to him after his sufferings. Mr. Clarke says, it was re­ported that warrants were sent forth to the number of 13, but that ‘some through fear were fain to hide [Page 239] “themselves, and being strangers, to hasten away, or ”to change their habit.’ John Spur, one of their church members, and who was taken, gives us the following testimony. Saith he,

"Mr. Cotton in his sermon immediately before the Court gave their sentence against Mr. Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, and John Crandal, affirmed, that denying infant baptism would overthrow all, and this was a capital offence; and therefore they were soul-mur­therers. When therefore the governor, Mr. John Endicot, came into the Court to pass sentence against them, he said thus, you deserve to die, but this we agreed upon, that Mr. Clarke shall pay £. 20 fine, and Obadiah Holmes £. 30 fine, and John Crandal £. 5 and to remain in prison until their fines be either paid or security given for them, or else they are all of them to be well whipped. When Obadiah Holmes was brought forth to receive his sentence, he desired of the magistrates, that he might hold forth the ground of his practice; but they refused to let him speak, and commanded the whipper to do his office; then the whipper began to pull off his cloaths, upon which Obadiah Holmes said, Lord lay not this sin unto their charge; and so the whipper began to lay on with his whip; upon which Obadiah Holmes said, O Lord, I beseech thee to manifest thy power in the weakness of thy creature. He neither moving nor stirring at all for their strokes, brakes out in these expressions, blessed and praised be the Lord, and thus he carried it to the end, and went away rejoicingly; I John Spur being present, it did take such an impression in my spirit to trust in God, and to walk according to the light that God had communicated to me, and not to fear what man could do unto me, that I went to the man (being inwardly affected with what I saw and heard) and with a joyful countenance took him by the [Page 240]hand when he was from the post and said praised be the Lord; and so I went along with him to the prison; and presently that day there was information given to the Court what I had said and done; and also a warrant ^* granted out that day to arrest both myself and John Haze [...], which was executed on the morrow morning upon us, and so we were brought to the Court and examined. The governor asked me con­cerning Obadiah Holmes, according as he was inform­ed by old Mr. Cole, and Thomas Buttolph, of my taking of him by the hand, and smiling, and I did then freely declare what I did, and what I said, which was this: Obadiah Holmes, said I, I do look upon as a godly man; and do affirm that he carried himself as did become a Christian, under so sad an affliction; and his affliction did so affect my soul, that I went to him being from the post, and said, blessed be the Lord.— But said the governor, what do you apprehend con­cerning the cause for which he suffered? my answer was, that I am not able to judge of it; then said the governor, we will deal with you as we have dealt with him. I said unto him again, I am in the hands of God. Then Mr. Symonds a magistrate said, you shall know that you are in the hands of men. The go­vernor then said, keeper, take him, and so I was pre­sently carried away to prison.

"THE next day about one of the clock I was sent for again into the Court; the governor (being then about to go out of the Court when I came in) deliver­ed his speech to me; said he, you must pay 40 shill­ings [Page 241]or be whipped. I said then to those of the Court that remained, that if any man suffer as a Christian, let him glorify God in this behalf. Then I desired to know what law I had broken, and what evil I had done? but they produced no law, only they produced what the two witnesses had sworn against me. ^* My speech thereto was this; My practice and carriage is allowed by the word of God, for it is written in Rom. 12. Be like affectioned one towards another, rejoice with them that rejoice; and it is contrary to my judgment and conscience to pay a penny. Then said Mr. Bendal, I will pay it for him, and there presented himself. I answered then and said, I thanked him for his love, but did believe it was no acceptable ser­vice for any man to pay a penny for me in this case; yet notwithstanding the Court accepted of his profer, and bid me be gone, then came John Hazel to be examined. JOHN SPUR." ^†

MR. Hazel was one of Mr. Holmes brethren of Rehoboth, who, though above threescore years old, [Page 242]and infirm in body had trevelled near fifty miles, partly indeed on other business, but chiefly to visit his be­loved brother in prison; and how he was treated there he has given us an account, written and subscribed with his own hand as follows.

"A relation of my being brought before the ma­gistrates the 6th of the 7th month, 1651.

I going from place to place, to buy and take up commodities for my use, was attached or arrested by the marshal, by virtue of a warrant from the Court, to appear in the Court, and there to answer for a high misdemeanor committed by me, and coming into the Court (which was then privately kept in the chamber) they asked me d [...]vers questions, among which this was one, Whether I did think that Obadiah Holmes did well or not, in coming among them to baptize, and administer the sacrament? laying this to my charge, that I was one with him, and of the same judgment, and, Whether I did think he did well or no, in his so carrying himself? To which I answered, I had here nothing to do with that which another man did, but I was here to answer for what I myself had committed against their law. Then said they, you have offended our law, and have contemned authority, for you took him by the hand, and did countenance him in his sin, so soon as he was gone from the post. To which I said, If I have broken any law of the place, by what I then did, I am willing to submit unto punishment. Yea, said the governor, you took him by the hand, did you not? and spake to him, what said you? did you not say so and so? blessed be God, &c. To which I said, I shall refer myself unto the testimonies that may or can be brought against me. Well, said the governor, we shall find testimony enough against you; take him to you, keeper, and we will call you sorth in publick, for what we do with you we will [Page 243]proceed in publick with you, and so I went to prison. This was the sum and substance of the first time I was called before them. The next day being the last day of the week, and the last day of their Court, I was in expectation all the forenoon to be called forth, but was not; so after dinner, when (as appeareth) the Court was risen, and some of the magistrates de­parted, I was sent for again into the chamber, where was the governor with three others, setl. Mr. Bei­lingham, Mr. Hibbens, and Mr. Encrease Nowel. As soon as I was come into the room, the governor read my sentence, which was, that I must pay 40 s or be well whipt, and so immediately he departed, and when he was gone (for I could not have time before) I answered, that I desired the privilege of an English subject, which was to be tried by the country, to wit, a jury, and to be made to appear (if they can) to be a transgressor by a law. To which they said, I had contemned authority, and they had a law to punish such, and said they, you did shew your contempt of authority in that you did take such a person by the hand, as soon as he was from the post. To which I answered, I could not do that which I did in con­tempt to authority, seeing he has satisfied the law to the full, and was departed from the place suffering; and in the next place, what I did, I did unto him as my friend; and further I said, if I had taken him by the hand so soon as he was loosed from the post, and had led him out of the town, I should not have broken any law eiher of God or man. To this they said, that there was a law in all Courts of justice, both in Old-England and other countries, to punish contempt of authority, and so had they such a law among themselves. To which I said, that in Old-England, and in other places, they had such a law I denied not, but that law also was both enacted and published, [Page 244]but what law have I broken in taking my friend by the hand, when he was free, and satisfied the law? To this they replied, that he had not satisfied the keeper. To this I answered, that he had talked with the keeper, and there was some agreement between them, and so in that sense also not under the law, but free. Then said they, If you would have shewed kindness unto your friend, you might have forborn in that place, and done it more privately. To which I answered, I knew not but that place was as free as another, he having satisfied the law. The testimony that was given by Mr. Cole was this, "I saw John Hazel take Obadiah Holmes by the hand, but what he said I cannot tell." This is the substance of all the proceedings until the last day at night, and then they said I should be whipt, but said some of their officers, the whipper cannot be found. Then they commanded that they should be ready by the second day morning, and then I did expect to be called forth: but neither that day, nor the third, nor fourth, was I called, but am as I understand reserved unto the fifth day, to be more publick in the view of the world; and when the fifth day came, as I had many before, so also then, that would have paid the fine, If I would give my consent, which I denied to do, and so see myself by the power of Christ to suffer what should be inflicted upon me; but when noon came I was told I should not suffer whipping, yet not having a discharge, I did not look to be freed until the keeper told me, I might go about my business. Then I de­manded a discharge (meaning under the magistrates hands) so he had me go, he would discharge me.

"The strokes I was enjoined by the Court to have, were ten with a three-corded whip; the very same number I understand, that the worst malefactors that were there punished had, of which some were guilty [Page 245]of common whoredom, other of forcing a little child, and one Indian for coining of money. Thus far have you a relation according to my best remembrance from the first to the last of all the passages concerning this matter; by me John Hazel, written with mine own hand in Boston prison, the 13th day of the 7th month, 1651.

" A postscrip. SINCE I wrote, I understand there is report that I was willing to pay my fine, and that the magistrates would not accept of it without I were willing. Gentle reader, be pleased to understand that this is false, for it was without my consent or ap­probation; and further understand, that the fine was taken by them, upon the profer of Mr. Bendal for John Spur, it was willingly accepted by the magistrates. and approved of, although John Spur did to their faces contradict it, and oppose it; therefore, good reader, believe not such reports.

By me, JOHN HAZEL." ^*

THUS far we have attended to those sufferers own testimony, the last of whom wrote the postcript of his relation on his death-bed, and how much the abusive treatment he met with was the cause of his death, God only knows. Let us now hear what others had to say about them. Mr. Clarke went to England in No­vember 1651, and the next year printed the narrative from whence we have taken those accounts; upon which Sir Richard Saltonstall, one of the Massachu­setts first magistrates, then in our mother country, wrote to Mr. Cotton and Wilson, of Boston, in this manner.

"REVEREND and dear freinds, 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 shew 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 and 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, hoped 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 practice those courses in a wilderness, which you went so far to pre­vent. These rigged ways have laid you very low in the hearts of the saints. I do assure you I have heard them pray in the publick assemblies that the Lord would give you meek and humble spirits, not to strive so much for uniformity as to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace." ^*

Mr. Cotton's answer.

"Honoured and dear Sir,

"My brother Wilson and self do both of us ac­knowledge your love, as otherwise formerly, so now in the late lines we received from you, that you g [...]ieve in spirit to hear daily complaints against us.— Be pleased to understand we look at such complaints [...]is altogether injurious in respect of ourselves, who [...]d no hand or tongue at all to promote either the coming [Page 247]of the persons you aim at into our assemblies, or their punishment for their carriage there. Righteous judg­ment will not take up reports, much less reproaches against the innocent. The cry of the sinners of Sodom was great and loud, and reached up to heaven; yet the righteous God (giving us an example what to do in the like case) he would first go down to see whe­ther their crime were altogether according to the cry, before he proceed to judgment. And when he did find the truth of the cry, he did not wrap up all alike promiscuously in the judgment, but spared such as he found innocent. ^* We are amongst those whom (if you knew us better) you would account, peacea­ble in Israel. Yet neither are we so vast in our in­dulgence or toleration, as to think the men you speak of, suffered an unjust censure. For one of them (Obadiah Holmes) being an excommunicate person himself, out of a church in Plymouth patent, came into this jurisdiction, and took upon him to baptize, which I think himself will not say he was compelled here to perform. ^† And he was not ignorant that the rebaptizing of an elder person, and that by a private person out of office and under excommunication, are all [Page 248]of them manifest contestations against the order and government of our churches, established (we know) by God's law, and (he knoweth) by the laws of the country. As for his whipping, it was more volun­tarily chosen by him than inflicted on him. His cen­sure by the Court was to have paid (as I know) 30 pounds, or else be whipt; his fine was offered to be paid by friends for him freely, but he chose rather to be whipt; in which case, if his suffering of stripes was any worship of God at all, surely it could be ac­counted no better than will-worship ^* The other (Mr. Clarke) was wiser in that point and his offence was less, so was his fine less, and himself (as I hear) was contented to have it paid for him, whereupon he was released. ^† The imprisonment of either of them was no detriment. I believe they fared neither of them better at home, and I am sure Holmes had not been so well clad of many years before.

"BUT be pleased to consider this point a little further. You think to compel men in matter 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 due, the outward man, but the pro­phane [Page 249]person giveth God neither outward nor in­ward man. You know not, if you think we came into this wilderness to practice 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. It 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 stile them) we do not believe it is any part of their saint­ship. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth, we have tolerated in our church 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." ^*

HERE I would remark,

1. THAT they were not infalliable, can easily be believed, by all who see what great absurdities and self-contradictions they were driven to, in trying to support that way. Mr. Cotton here asserts, that they were far from arrogating infallibility to themselves, and yet in the same letter had said, our churches are established, "WE KNOW by God's law," and that in the points Mr. Holmes contested; and the use of force in religious matters naturally carries men into this absurdity; for it would sound very odd in any men, to compel others to their way by the magistrates sword, and yet own at the same time that they [...] not know but they were compelling them into erro [...]. When I first came into the parish where I now dw [...], as they were without a minister, their committed [...] [...]quested me to preach to them for some time, w [...] I did. But in the year following, they got a [...] [Page 250]vote to hire other sort of preaching, and taxed me with our society thereto. This caused our so­ciety to present an address to that party, dated No­vember 21, 1748, wherein they say, "Pray consider, would you like it if we were a few more in number than you, to be forced to help us build a meeting-house, and maintain our minister! We doubt it much." To this the other party, by the help of a neighbour­ing minister, returned a long answer, the turning point of which was in these words, viz. "What we demand of you is equal and right; what you demand of us is evil and sinful; and hence we have the golden rule upon our side, while you are receeding and de­parting from it; for if we were in an error and out of the right way, as we see and know that you are in se­veral respects, and you see and knew it of us, as we do of you, we think the golden rule would oblige you to tell us of our error, and not let us alone to go on peacibly in it, that is without using proper means to recover and reclaim us; whether by the laws of God, or the good and wholesome laws of the land, as we now treat you."

Now only allow it to be right to join the laws of the land with the laws of God, in supporting what the majority calls the right way of worship, and then how can any one fairly withstand this reasoning? for we are required not to suffer sin upon our neighbour; and if seculiar force be a means that christians ought to use, to bring their neighbours from error to attend and support the truth, how can Mr. Cotton's party be condemned for seizing and punishing Mr. Clarke and his brethren for worshiping in a private house, when they had an orthodox meeting in the town, established by public authority? And how can the major party in any parish be blamed for imprisoning men for their ministers rates (as my neighbours did me) though they [Page 251]never heard him, or received the least benefit from him? If any think these two are not parallel cases, I ask what is the difference? Mr. Clarke and Holmes might have gone to the established worship, if they would; and Mr. Holmes might have had his fine paid it seems if he would, and so all his devotion under the whip is declared to be "no better than will worship." According to Mr. Cotton's own words, men might then be anabaptists, antinomians and what not, if they would but come to hear the right minister, and join with the right churches; and is not the greatest complaint they have at this day against the baptists, because they refuse to commune with pedo­baptist churches? They professed to grant liberty of conscience then, as well as now. Captain Johnson who wrote in the time we are upon, says of erronious persons, "They report in all places where they come, that New-England government doth persecute the people and churches of Christ; which to speak truth, they have hitherto been so far from, that they have endeavoured to expel all such beasts of prey (who will not be reclaimed) that here might be none left to hurt or destroy in all God's holy mountain.—Neither do they exercise civil power to bring all men under their obedience, to a uniformity in every point of re­ligion, but to keep them in the unity of the spirit, and the bond of peace; nor yet have they ever mixed their civil powers with the authority peculiarly given by Christ to his churches and officers of them, but from time to time have laboured to uphold their privileges, and only communion one with another." ^*

It is readily granted that the sentiments of Mr. Williams and Mr. Clark, about religous liberty, have had a great spead since that day, so that men of a contrary mind cannot carry their oppressive schemes so [Page 252]far now as they did then: yet, as to such as still hold that they have a right to use secular force to support worship, I think the chief difference between them and their fathers in 1651, lies in these two points: Then they gave the church the whole power of elect­ing and settling ministers; now the world is empower­ed to controul the church in her choice; then they obliged men to hear, as well as support their good ministers; now men may hear whom they please, if they will but let the parish minister have their money; but if that is refused, men are as liable to imprisonment or confiscation of goods now as then; and whether the compelling of a man to pay for that which is no benefit to him, be not an action more void of the very appearance of justice, than the compelling of men to hear what the compellers esteemed good preaching was, is freely refered to every reader's conscience: as it also is, whether the real error in both cases does not lie in blending divine and human laws together, rather than in any mistake about applying of them then, more than now.

2. We have abundant reason to think that Mr. Clarke's narrative of their sentiments and sufferings, is a true and just one; for he published it in 1652, and it greatly concerned the Massachusetts colony to con­fute the same if they could, and they did not want for men of ability and inclination to vindicate them­selves in that respect, if they had found matter to work upon. But Captain Johnson who published his history of that colony in 1654, is silent about this re­markable affair. Mr John Leverett their agent at the British Court, wrote to governor Endicot about it; but he in a letter of June 29 1657, says, "I cannot for the present answer your expectation touching Rhode-Island, and Clarke and Holmes." ^* Mr. [Page 253]Morton printed his New-England memorial in 1669, in which he endeavours to vindicate the country against many other compaints, but leaves this narrative un­touched. Mr. Hubbard wrote a large history of the country in 1680, yet touches not this affair unless in an obscure hint which confutes nothing. Dr. Cotton Mather published his folio history of New-England in 1702, but passes over these sufferings in silence; yea, and so does governor Hutchinson, though his history is the most impartial upon religious disputes of any that has been written in this country, yet he says, "The first prosecution I find upon record of any of the people called anabaptists was in the year 1665." ^* Indeed in his third volume, which is a collection of ancient papers, are a few references to these sufferers, which I have now made use of, but instead of con­futing, they confirm Mr. Clarke's narrative. Mr. Neal who wrote in London 1720, has from that nar­rative given a brief account of their sufferings, and has done them the most honour of any pedobaptist author I ever saw; though he has made several mis­takes about them. ^†

3. BY all that appears, those baptist fathers were sound in the faith and much acquainted with experi­mental and practical religion. All that was proved against them may be summed up in their noble testi­mony, that there is, "None to or with Christ the Lord, by way of commanding and ordering with respect to the worship of God: that baptism or dipping in water is one of his commandments, and that a visible believer of disciple of Christ is the only person that is to be baptized; that every such believer, may in point of liberty, yea, ought in point of duty to improve that talent his Lord hath given him with meekness of wis­dom; and that no such believer hath any liberty, much less authority from his Lord, to smite his fel­low-servant, nor yet with outward force to restrain his conscience, nor outward man for conscience sake, where injury is not offered to the person, name or estate of others." This is the sum of all the prin­ciples for which they suffered such cruel things, tho' their opposites have constantly accused them of others. The assembly of the Massachusetts begin their law against the baptists in 1644, with saying, "That since the first arising of the anabaptists about 100 years since, they have been the incendiaries of the common­wealths, [Page 255]and the infectors of persons in main matters of religion, and the troublers of churches in all places where they have been;" and great pains have been taken by teachers and writers from that day to this, to connect these odious ideas with the very name of anabaptists. But let the reader judge whether it be possible with ministers of any denomination, to visit and worship with any of their brethren, more peacibly than these ministers did to their brother at Lynn; and whether he can find one of their martyrs who shewed less of a disposition for denying the lawful authority of magistrates, or more of a christian temper in suffering, under their unlawful usurpations, than these baptists did. And whether they were hetrodox or not in main matters of religion, may be partly gathered from the foregoing account, and still further by the confession of their faith inserted below. ^*

I SHALL close this chapter with an address of Mr. Roger Williams to governor Endicot, concerning [Page 257]these affairs. The governor having occasion (as they often had) to write to Mr. Williams about the "peace [Page 258]of the English and Indians," and having at the en­trance of his letter said "We I as free in my spirit [Page 259]as formerly I have been to write unto you, you should have received another manner of sa [...]utation [Page 260]than now, with a good conscience I can express; however God knoweth who are his, and what he [Page 261]is pleased to hide from sinful man in this life, shall in that great day be manifested to all."—Mr. Wil­liams refering to the sufferings of Mr. Clarke and Mr. Holmes says, "Sir, at the reading of this line, the speech of that wise woman of Tekoa unto David come fiesh unto my thoughts; Speaks not the King this thing as one that is guilty? for will my honored and beloved friend not know me for fear of being disowned by his conscience? Shall the goodness and integrity of hi [...] conscience to God cause him to for­get me? Doth he quiet his mind with this (God knoweth who are his? God hides from sinful man; God will reveal before all?) Oh how comes it then that I have heard so often, heard so lately, and heard so much, that he that speaks so tenderly for his own, hath yet so little respect, mercy or pity to the like con­sciencious persuasions of other men! are all the thou­sands of millions of millions of consciences at home and abroad, fuel only for a prison, for a whip, for a stake, for a gallows! are no consciences to breath the air, but such as suit and sample his! may not the [...]ost High be pleased to hide from his is well as from the eyes of his fellow-servants, fel­low-mankind, fellow-English? Who can shut when he will open? and who can open, when he that hath the key of David will shut?—

"OBJECTION. But what makes this to here­tics, blasphemers, seducers, to them that sin against their conscience (as Mr. Cotton saith) after convic­tion? First, I answer, he was a tyrant that put an innocent man into a bear's-skin, and so caused him as [Page 262]a wild beast to be baited to death. Secondly, This is the common cry of haunters or persecutors. heretics, blasphemers. &c. and why, but for crossing the per­secutors consciences (it may be but their superstitions) whether Turkish, popish, protestant, &c. This is the outcry of the pope and prelates, and of the Scotch presbyterians, who would fire all the world, to be avenged on the sectarian heretics, the blas­phemous heretics, the suducing heretics, &c. had it not pleased the God of heaven who bounds the insolent rage of the surious ocean to raise up a second Cromwel, to stay the fury of the oppressor, whether English, Scottish, popish, presbyterian, independant, &c.—

"LET it not be offensive in your eyes, that I sin­gle out a point, a cause of [...]y banishment, wherein I greatly fear one or two sad evils have befallen your soul and conscience. The point is that of the civil magistrates dealing in matters of conscien [...], and re­ligion, as also of persecuting any for any matter mere­ly spiritual and religious. The two evils intimated are these: First, I fear you cannot after so much light, and so much profession to the contrary (not only to myself often in private, ^* but) before many witnesses; I say, I fear you cannot say and act so much, against so many several consciences, former and latter, but wit great checks, great threatnings and inward throws of conscience. Secondly, If you shall thank God, that it is not so with you, but that you do what conscience bids you in God's presence, upon God's warrant, I must then be humbly faithful to tell you, that I fear your underprizing of holy light, hath put out the candle, and the eye of con­science in these particulars, and that delusions, strong [Page 263]dul [...]sions, and that from God (by satan's subtilty) hath seized upon your very soul's belief, because you prized not, loved not the persecuted Son of God in his despised truths and servants—I desire to say it tremblingly and mournfully, I know not which way he will please to raise his glory, only I know my duty my conscience and my [...]ove, all which inforce me to knock, to call, to cry at the gate of heaven, and at your's, and to present you with this loving, though loud and faithful noise, and sound of a few grounds of deeper examination of both our souls and consciences, uprightly and impartially at the holy and dreadful tribunal of him that is appointed the judge of all the living and the dead.

"BE pleased then (honoured sir) to remember that the thing which we call conscience is of such a na­ture, especially in Englishmen, as once a pope of Rome at the suffering of an Englishman in Rome himself observed that although it be groundless, false and deluded, yet it is not by any arguments of torments easily removed. I speak not of the stream of the multitude of all nations, which have their ebbings and flowings in religion (as the longest sword, and strongest arm of flesh carries it ^*) but I speak of conscience, a persuasion fixed in the mind and heart of a man, which inforceth him to judge (as Paul said [Page 264]of himself a persecutor) and to do so and so with respect to God, his worship, &c. This conscience is found in all mankind, more or less.—To this purpose let me freely without offence remember you (as I did Mr. Clarke, newly come up from his sufferings amongst you) I say, remember you of the story I did him, of William Hartly in queen Elizabeth her days, who receiving the sentence of hanging—spake con­fidently (as afterward he suffered) what tell you me of hanging, if I had ten thousand millions of lives, I would spend them all for the faith of Rome. Sir, I am far from glancing the least countenance on the consciences of papists—all that I observe is, that bold­ness and confidence, zeal and resolution, as it is com­mendable in a kind when it seriously respects a deity. so also, the greatest confidence hath sometimes need of the greatest search and examination.—Wise men use to enquire, what motives, what occasions, what snares, what temprations were there which moved, al­lured, &c.—Surely sir, the baits, the temptations, the snares laid to catch you were not few nor common.—It is no small offer, the choice and applause and rule over so many towns, so many holy, so many wise, in such a holy way as you believe you are in—I cannot but fear and lament, that some of these and others have been too strong and potent with you.—Sir, I must be humbly bold to say, it is impossible for any man or men to maintain their Christ by the sword, and to worship a true Christ! to fight against all consciences opposite to theirs, and not to fight against God in some of them, and to hunt after the precious life of the true Lord Jesus Christ. Oh remember whether your principles and consciences, must in time and opportunity force you!—yourself and others have said it, by your principles such whom you count here­tics, blasphemers, seducers, ought to be put to death, [Page 265]You cannot be faithful to your principles and con­sciences, if you satisfy them with but imprisoning, fining, whipping and banishing the heretics, and by saying that banishing is a kind of death, as some chief with you formerly said in my case.—I end with an humble cry to the father of mercies, that you may take David's counsel, and silently commune with your own heart upon your bed, reflect upon your own spirit, and believe him that said to his over-zealous disciples, you know not what spirit you are of. That no sleep may seize your eyes, nor slumber upon your eye-lids, until your serious thoughts have calmly, and unchangably, through help from Christ, fixed, first on a moderation towards the spirit and consciences of all mankind, merely differing from, or opposing yours with only religious and spiritual opposition.— Secondly, a deep and cordial resolution to search, to listen, to pray, to fast, and more fearfully, more tremblingly to enquire what the holy pleasure, and the holy mysteries of the MOST HOLY are; it whom I humbly desire to be, your poor fellow servant, unfeignedly, respective, and faithful.

ROGER WILLIAMS." ^*

How happy had it been for New-England, and for governor Endicot in particular, if they had then regarded this faithful admonition of their old friend! but disregarding of it, Mr. Williams's words a few years after were fully verified, when, under gover­nor Endicot's administration, the blood of the quakers was shed, which has left an indellible stain upon their characters, and "sullied the glory of their former sufferings from the bishops; for now it appeared that the New-England puritans were no better friend, to [Page 266]liberty of conscience than their adversaries, and that the question between them was not, whether one party of christians should have power to oppress ano­ther, but who should have that power?" ^*

CHAP. V. A variety of events, from 1651 to 1664.

A RIVIEW of 1651, presents before us such a dark cloud and threatning gloom, upon the cause of believers baptism, and true liberty of con­science, as must affect every heart that is not extreamly obdurate. The friends of that cause had been so cruelly treated in Europe, that a number of them, [...]ed into America, where a persecuting temper followed them, and expelled them out of the Massachusetts colony; but God gave them favor in the eyes of the heathen, from whom they obtained a grant of lands, to begin the first civil government upon that ever allowed equally liberty of conscience since our Saviour died for us. With great hazard and expence M [...]. Williams had procured a charter for that purpose, which they had enjoyed about seven years, when alas! Mr. Coddington, who had the deeds and records of the Islands in his own hands, went to England, and procured from the council of state a commission, dated April 3. 1651, signed by J. Bradshaw, conste­tuting him governor of the islands, to rule them with a council of six men, nominated by the people and approved by himself; which split this little colony into two parts, and Mr. Clarke and his brethren were to submit to a governor that they had no hand in [Page 267]chusing, and their estates lay at his mercy. This melancholy news arrived just about the time that he and his brethren had been so cruelly handled in the Massachusetts, only for visiting and worshiping with an aged brother there. At the same time, a party both of English and savages were supported in the heart of Mr. Williams's part of the colony, in opposition to all the good orders that he endeavored to establish among them. And what could they now do! where could they go for relief! banished from their mother kingdom, and from neighbouring colonies, who were exerting all their power to divide and conquer them; and a man of the greatest worldly note among them, seemed as if he was like to do it effectually. ^*

CAPT. Johnson at that time said, "familists, seek­ers, antinomians, and anabaptists, are so ill armed, that they think it best sleeping in a whole skin, fear­ing that if the day of battle once go on, they shall [Page 268]fall among antichrists armies; therefore they cry out like cowards, if you will let me alone, I will let you alone; but assuredly the Lord Christ hath said, he that is not with us, is against us; there is no room in his army for toleratorists." ^† Had this been true, how could Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke have perse­vered like heroes, in the cause of equity and liberty as they did? for being requested by their injured neigh­bours, they again crossed the boisterous ocean, and ap­peared as advocates for them at the British court; and also published to the world their pleas for equal li­berty of conscience; and where can any writers be found of so early date, who defended that important right of mankind, so well as they did? Mr. Locke's excellent letters upon that subject were written near forty years afterward.

A LITTLE look back will give a more clear and just view of the important concerns of Mr. Williams's agency at this time. When the commissioners of the united colonies met at Plymouth September 7, 1648, Mr. Coddington and Capt. Partridge tried for a con­federacy with them, but were denied it, unless they would come in as part of Plymouth colony. Mr. Henry Bull then complained to them, that some Narraganset Indians had beat him, and done him other injuries; and Mr. John Smith assistant for War­wick, sent a writing by Mr. Holden and Warner, in the behalf of the whole town, "wherein they com­plain, among other things, of divers injuries, insolences and affronts offered them by the Indians that are about them, and near inhabitants to them, as namely. killing their cattle, about a hundred hogs, abusing their servants when they take them alone, sometimes making violent entrance into their houses, and strik­ing the masters thereof, stealing and purloining their goods; and hereupon do earnestly desire to know the [Page 269]minds of the commissioners herein, and to receive advice from them." Upon which the commissioners gave them a writing to the sachems and others to warn them "to prevent and abstain from all such miscarriges for the future, and if any of them re­ceive any injury from the English, upon complaint in due place and order, satisfaction shall be endea­vored them according to justice, as the like will be expected from them." When the commission­ers met at Boston, July 23, 1649: Warwick wrote again to them; but they refused to do any thing for their defence, till they could find under what colony their plantation fell, and it was then disput­ed whether it belonged to the Massachusetts, or Plymouth, and they advised the latter to take it, When the commissioners met again at Hartford, September 5th, 1650, they received a letter from Mr. Easton president, in the name of the council of that colony, in which he declared, that "Rhode-Island and Warwick were combined and bound mutually to support one another." Upon this the commissioners mention a former article of advice which they had received from the honorable com­mittee of parliament, "that in this and like cases the bounds of patents should be first set out by a jury, of uninterested persons, and that all inhabit­ing within the limits so set forth, should fall under the government established by patent." But in­stead of following this direction, after mentioning that the inhabitants of Warwick claimed an interest in Mr. Williams's patent, and refused to be brought under the Massachusetts government, they advised the authority of Plymouth "forthwith to resume the right they formerly had by patent to the place." And that if the inhabitants refused to submit to them then the advice of said committee should be [Page 270]taken, and if the same was not complied with, "that real damages duly proved, be levied by le­gal force, though with as much moderation and tenderness as the case will permit." ^* This was the treatment that was shewn to Warwick; and hear­ing of what Mr Coddington had done, they join­ed with Providence in sending Mr. Williams to England. William Arnold hired a messenger se­cretly to carry a letter to Boston, to apprize their rulers of it, ^† but they were notified of it in a bet­ter way: For at a meeting of the commissioners of the united colonies at New-Haven, September 4, 1651, they received the following letter, viz.

"MAY it please this honored committee to take knowledge, that we the inhabitants of Shawomet alias Warwick, having undergone divers oppressi­ons and wrongs, amounting to great damage since we first possessed this place; being forced thereby to seek to that honorable state of Old-England for relief, which did inevitably draw great charge up­on us, to the further impairing of ou [...] estates; and finding favor for redress, were willing to wave for that time (in regard to the great troubles and employment that then lay on that state) all other lesser wrongs we then underwent, so that we might be replaced in and upon this our purchased posses­sion, and enjoy it peaceably for time to come, with­out disturbance or molestation by those from whom we had formerly suffered. But since our gracious grant from the honorable parliament, in re-place­ing of us in this place, we have been and daily are pressed with intolerable grivences, to the eating up of our labours, and waisting of our estates mak­ing our lives, together with our wives and chil­dren, [Page 271]bitter and uncomfortable; insomuch, that groaning under our burthens, we are constrained to make our address to the honorable parliament and state, once again, to make our just complaint against our causless molestors, who by themselves and their agents, are the only cause of this our re­uttering of our distressed condition. May it please therefore this honored assembly, to take notice of this our solemn intelligence (given unto you as the most public authorised society appertain­ing unto, and instituted in the united colonies, whom our complaints do concern) that we are now preparing ourselves with all convenient speed for Old-England, to make our grievances known again to the state, which fall upon us by reason that the order of parliament concerning us hath not been observed, nor the enjoyment of our grant­ed privileges permitted to us, that we are as it were bought and sold from one patent and jurisdiction to another. In that we have been prohibited and charged to acquit this place since the order of par­liament given out and known to the contrary. In that we have had warrants sent us, to summon us to the Massachusetts court, and officers employed amongst us for that purpose. In that these bar­berous Indians abouts us, with evil minded English mixed among us, under pretence of some former personal subjection to the government of the Mas­sachusetts countenacing of them, cease not to kill our cattle, offer violence to our familes, vilefy au­thority of parliament vouchsafed to us, justifying their practices with many menaces and threatn­ings, as being under the protection of the Massa­chusetts. In that we have been restrained this seven or eight years past of common commerce in the country, and that only for matters of consci­ence. [Page 272]In that our estates formerly taken from us remain yet unrestored, with these additions there­unto. These and the like are the grounds of our complaints, with our serious desire that you would be pleased to take notice of them, as our solemn intelligence given hereof, that as yourselves shall think meet, you may give further seasonable intel­ligence to your several colonies whom it may con­cern, so that their agent or agents may have sea­sonable instructions to make answer, and we here­by shall acquit ourselves, that we offer not to pro­ceed in thse our complaints, without giving due and seasonable notice thereof.

By me JOHN GREENE, jun. Clerk.

In behalf of the town of Warwick.

Warwick, the first of September 1651.

THIS brought matters to a close trial among them and the commissioners for the Massachusetts (who were Mr. Simon Bradstreet, and Mr. William Hathorne, Esq'rs,) made a long declaration, how Plymouth gave up their right in that land to them in 1643; which was approved of by all the com­missioners, who advised them to proceed against Gorton and his company; and had silently ass [...]nt­ed to what they had done from time to time since; and that when in 1649 they were advised to return those lands back to Plymouth their court sent two deputies to the assembly at Plymouth, with orders to offer, to "resign and submit the said lands, and persons residing thereon to the government of Ply­mouth; they only promising to do equal justice both to English and Indians there, according to our engagements; but the government of Ply­month chose rather to ratify the asoresaid resign­ment of their commissioners." After which they had "out of their own treasury allowed a large [Page 273]gratuity of corn to the Indians under their govern­ment their, to keep them alive, the cattle of Gor­ton's company having destroyed most of their, rather than force to compel them, till all other means and ways of prudence for issuing these and the like differences were used." And closed with asking what aid the other jurisdictions would afford them, for the righting their injured and oppressed people, and bringing delinquents to condign punish­ment? The Connecticut and New-Haven commission­ers answered, by owning that they had their advice in 1643, to proceed against Gorton's company, and that when Plymouth commissioners yielded up their right to the Massachusetts, the others, being neither concerned, nor understanding where the right lay, saw no cause to dessent, &c. The commissioners for Plymouth (who were Mr. John Brown, and Mr. Timothy Hatherley) declared that what was done by the commissioners for their colony in 1643, in resigning of said lands to the Massachusetts, was not at all in their power, neither could the Massa­chusetts receive any such resignation without injur­ing the third and sixth articles of their confedera­tion; what right the authority of the Massachu­setts had to send for Samuel Gorton and company, "inhabiting so far out of their jurisdiction they understand not." And as to what the governor of Plymouth and some others did in 1650, about ratifying that former resignation of Warwick to the Massachusetts, they said they had "protested against it in the court of Plymouth, as being directly contrary to the order of the honorable com­mittee of the parliament of England, and contrary to the articles of confederations with the rest of the colonies, And whereas we are informed, that the court of the Massachusetts have lately sent out [Page 274]several warrants to several persons inhabiting War­wick and Pawtuxet, and have made seizure upon some or their estates, we do hereby protest against such proceedings if any there be" ^* The Massa­chusetts were so unwilling to have these things laid before the parliament, that they put Mr. Williams to great distresses only for attempting to take his passage through their colony.

THE town of Newport signed an engagement and request to Mr. Clarke in these words, "We whose names are here under written, ^† being resolv­ed to make our address unto the parliament of England, in point of our lands and liberties, do earnestly desire those six men that were last chosen, the council of the town of Newport, and such as they shall consult with, to improve their best abili­ties for the managing thereof: We also do earnest­ly request Mr. John Clarke to do his utmost endea­vors in solliciting our cause in England: And we do hereby engage ourselves to the utmost of our estates to assist them, being resolved in the mean time peaceably to yield all due subjection unto the present power set over us. Witness our hands the 15th of October, in the year of our Lord God, 1651.— He sailed for England the next month.

MR. CODDINGTON having gotten the command of the islands, Providence and Warwick, each chose six deputies, who met at Providence Nov. 4. and unanimously concluded to stand embodied and incorporated as before, by virtue of their charter, and as president Faston had given place to Mr. Coddington; they chose another in his room, and made several laws, one of which was to prohibit any from purchasing lands of the Indians, without the assemblies approbation, on penalty of forfeit­ing the same to the colony. When those two a­gents arrived in England, they united in a petition to the council of state, who on April 8th, 1652, refered the same to the committee for foreign af­fairs. The court of election at Warwick, May 18, made a law to orbid the Dutch who were not in­habitants among them, fr [...] trading with the In­dians in this colony, upon penalty of forfeiting both goods and vessel to the colony if they did: and the president was ordered to give the govern­or of Manhato's notice of it. When their assem­bly met again in the fall at Providence, they wrote the following letter to Mr. Williams, viz.

A COPY of this he sent to each town, and many of the freemen met on the said March 1st, but in­stead of throwing all up, they ordered, "That all officers who were in place when Mr. Coddington's commission obstructed, should stand in their places, to act according to their former commissions, upon the island; and the rest in the colony according as they had been annually chosen, until a new elec­tion according to former order." The commissi­oners met again at Pawtuxet on March 9th, to re­ceive the answer of their messengers from the island, who reported what was done, but that they could not obtain so much as a copy of those letters from England. Upon which they sent again therefor, and also a proposal of joining with the towns on the island in the next election, if they would agree to it in their former method, and give them ten days notice. By some means such notice was not given, therefore the two towns on the main met at Providence, May 17th, 1653, and elected their of­ficers. And assembly met at the same time on the island, and chose Mr. Sanford their president, and some 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! lull, to act against the Dutch in America; and some cannon with twenty men were sent to the English on the [Page 280]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 13th, 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 blood shed 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. ^*

BEFORE we proceed further upon their affairs, some transactions in the Massachusetts call for our [Page 281]attention. Their ministers have often tried to per­suade people, that ignorance of the original lan­guages that our bible was wrote in, is the cause why any embrace with their fear of a fair dispute with the learned Mr. Clarke the reader will judge, and what follows may afford further light.

CAPT. Johnson, speaking of the first president of Harvard College, says, "He was fitted from the Lord for the work, and, by those who have skill that way, reported to be an able proficient both in the Hebrew, Greek and Latin languages, and or­thodox preacher of the truths of Christ, and very powerful thro' his blessing to move the affections." ^* Mr. Hubbard speaking of Mr. Dunstar's being made president in 1640 says, "Under whom, that which was before but at best schola illustra, grew to the stature and perfection of a college and flourish­ed in the profession of all liberal sciences for many years." And Mr. Prince, upon the New-England psalm-book says, "for a further improvement it was committed to the Rev. Mr. Henry Dunstar, pre­sident of Harvard College; one of the greatest mas­ters of the oriental languages, that hath been known in these ends of the earth." ^†

THIS eminent man was brought so far this year that, "he not only forebore to present an infant of his own unto baptism, but also thought him­self under some obligation to bear his testimony in some sermons, against the administration of baptism to any infant whatsoever." His therefor, as to de­sire him to cease preaching there, and procured his removal both from his office and from his living in the town; ‡ and Mr. Jonathan Mitchel, their mi­nister at Cambridge, wrote December 24th, 1653, "That after I came from him, I had a strange ex­perience; I found hurrying and pressing sugges­tions ^§ [Page 283]against peedo-baptism, and injected scruples and tho'ts whither the other way might not be right, and infant baptism and invention of men, and whether I might with good conscience baptize children, and the like. And these thoughts were darted in with some impression, and left a strange confusion and sickliness upon my spirit. Yet methought, it was not hard to discern that they were from the EVIL ONE. First, because they were rather injected, hurrying suggestions, than any deliberate tho'ts, or bringing nay light with them. Secondly, be­cause they were unreasonable; interrupting me in my study for the sabbath, and putting my spirit into confusion, so as I had much ado, to do ought in my sermon. It was not now a time to study that matter; but when in the former part of the week, I had given myself to that study, the more I studied it, the more clear and rational light I saw for peedo-baptism, but now these suggestions hur­ried me into scruples.—It was a check to my former self-confidence, and it made me fearful to go needlessly to Mr. D. for methought I found a ve­num and poison, in his insinuations and discourses against peedo-baptism. I resolved also on Mr. Hooker's principle, that I would have an argument, able to remove a mountain, before I would recede from, or appear against a truth or practice received a­mong the faithful." ^*

Query, How did he know but that his hurry and darkness was caused by the opposition of his heart, and the injections of the devil against the truth? Can any thing be more unreasonable than his conclusion drawn form the time of his scruples? The fact was just this; in his own study he tho't he saw a light for infant baptism, but when he [Page 284]came to converse with a gentleman who knew more than he did, it raised scruples in his mind a­bout that practice. But where was the modesty of a youth not thirty years old, when he accused one of the most venerable fathers of that age, of having venum and poison in his discourses, only be­cause his own self-confidence was shocked thereby! Sure I am that if any baptist minister had told such a story, and that it made him fearful of going near a learned gentleman, whose arguments had bro't him to scruple whether he had not been educated in a wrong way, but that he was resolved to have an argument able to work miracles before he would leave, it, the other party would then have had such grounds, to charge the baptist with wilfulness and obstinacy upon, as they never yet had.

RIGEDNESS is a word that both episcopalians and presbyterians have often cast upon our Ply­mouth fathers. Yet the Masschusetts now dis­covered so much more of that temper than they, that Mr. Dunstar on October 24, 1654, resigned his office among them, and removed and spent his remaining days at Scituate, in Plymouth colony. And it seems remarkable that Mr. Charles Chauncy, who, though he allowed believers to bring their in­fants, yet held that baptism was dipping; was on the 27th of November following, made president of Harvard College in Mr. Dunstar's room. ^* Mr. Chauncy was born in Hartfordshire in 1589; wa [...] educated in the oriental, and eminently in the He­brew; in obtaining whereof, his conversation with [...] Jew for the space of a year, was no little advan­tage." He was successful in the ministry and Wa [...] [Page 285]in England, till being persecuted, and having suf­fered much from Laud's party, he came to our Plymouth, in 1638; in which place he preached about two years, and then, as he has been noted, he removed and settled at Scituate, where, upon his taking the charge of that flock, he preached from that text, Wisdom hath sent forth her maidens! but reflecting in his discourse upon some compli­ences with the High commission court that he had been guilty in his own country, he with tears said, "Alas, christians I am no maiden! my soul hath been defiled with false worship! how wonder­ous is the free grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, that I should still be employed among the maidens of wisdom!" upon an invitation from his old peo­ple at Ware, he now came to Boston, with a de­sign of returning to them, when the overseers of the college, "by their vehement importunity pre­vailed with him to accept the government of that society." ^* Where we will leave him, til we shall have further occasion to mention his testimony a­gainst degeneracy in our land.

MR. Williams had many enemies and difficul­ties to encounter with, in pleading for the rights of his colony, but was wonderfully supported and car­ried through them all; of which some account is given in the following letter.

As men of all tempers and sentiments had re­sorted to that colony, and there had been from various quarters such interruptions of a regular ad­ministration of government as have been mention­ed, it is not to be wondered at if many disorders appeared among them, of which enemies to their liberties did not fail to make all the advantage they could. Mr. Williams attended upon the difficult and important affairs of his agency another year, and then leaving the cause there with Mr. Clarke and other friends, he came over to take care of things here; and brought with him the follow­ing epistle, viz.

WITH this Mr. Williams returned to Providence; but at first met with such treatment as caused him to address the town in the following manner.

THIS address had the desired effect; and when the town came together, and Mr Williams had a full hearing of the case, he, in the name of the town, drew an answer to Sir Henry Vane's letter, on Au­gust 27th, 16, 4, which now remains on record in his own hand writing as follows:

THEY chose commissioners, who met with those from the other towns on Agust 31: when they agreed that the affairs that had been transacted by authority in each town should remain till further orders; and that for the future their government should be managed acccording to their charter; and that an assembly of six commissioners from each town, should transact the business of making laws, and trying their general affairs, and they ordered, "That Mr. Ezekiel Holiman, and Mr. John Greene, jun'r, are to view the general laws of the colony, and to represent them to the next court of commissioners." And they appointed a general election at Warwick on Sept. 12. ^* At that election Mr. Williams was chosen president of the colony; and the assembly ordered, "That Mr. Roger Williams, and Mr. Gregory Dexter draw forth and send letters of humble thanksgiving, to his Highness the Lord Pro [...]tor, 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." Thus far things appeared encouraging; but as tyranny and licentiousness are equally enemies, both to [Page 297]government and liberty, Mr. Williams often had both of them to conflict with. Soon after this set­tlement a person sent a paper to the town of Pro­vidence, That it was blood guiltness, and against the rule of the gospel, to execute judgment upon transgressors, against the private or public weal. But said Mr. Williams, "That ever I should speak or write a tiltle 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 common-wealth, or an human combination, or society. It hath fallen out some times that both Papists and Protestants, Jews and Turks may be embarked into 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 practice 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 to be kept and practised, both among the seamen and all the passengers. If any of the seamen refuse to perform their service, or passenger 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 commong peace or preservation; if any shall mutiny and rise up against their commanders and officers; if any should preach or write, that [Page 298]there ought to be no commanders nor officers, be­cause all are equal in Christ, therefore no masters nor officers, no 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 [...] to such as willingly shut not their eyes. I remain studious of your common peace and liberty.

ROGER WILLIAMS." ^*

THIS clear description of the difference between civil and ecclesiastical affairs, and of the [...]derence betwixt good government on the one ha [...]d, and tyranny or licentiousness on the other, confirmed by a correspondant practice through fi [...]y years of incessant labors, are more than a sufficient ballance to all the slanders that various parties have cast up­on this ancient witness and advocate for the rights and liberties of men, against the superstitions and enthuseasms of his day. Having settled things as well as he could among his own people, he as pre­sdent of his colony, addressed the general assem­bly at Boston, in the following words, directed to their governor.

HE then requested them to record an order which the lords of the council gave him upon his last return from England, for his free taking of ship or landing at their ports, least, says he, "for­getfulness hereafter again put me upon such dis­tresses [Page 302]as, God knows, I suffered when I last passed through your colony to our native country." ^*

THE above were not all the trying things that he met with this year. No, Mr. William Harris, to whom he generously gave a share in Providence lands, and who had professed himself a baptist, " 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!" This was done at the election at Newport, May 22d, 1655. Upon which the as­sembly appointed Messrs. Olney, Baulston and Roome, to deal with him; and Mr Williams soon after received the following letter from the lord protector, viz.

To our trusty and well-beloved, the president, assis­tant, and inhabitant of Rhode-Island, together with Narraganset-Bay, in New-England.

HEREUPON the assembly met again, June 28th, and enacted that, "Whereas we have been rent and torn with divisions, and his highness hath sent unto us an express command, under his hand and seal, to provide against intestine commotions, by which his highness noteth, that not only ourselves are dishonored and endangered, but also dishonor and detriment redounds to the common-wealth of England: It is ordered, 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." These means had such effect, that at their assembly at Warwick, in March following I find it thus recorded.

"I WILLIAM CODDINGTON do freely submit to the authority of his highness in the colony as it is now united, and that with all my heart.

"WHEREAS there have been differences depend­ing between William Coddington, Esq; and Mr. William Dyre, both of Newport, we declare joy­fully for ourselves and heirs by this present record, [Page 304]that a full agreeement and conclusion is made be­tween us, by our worthy friends, Mr. Baulston, Mr. Gorton, Mr. John Smith of Warwick, Mr. John Greene, jun. of Warwick, and Mr. John Easton; and in witness whereof we subscribe our hands, and desire this to be recorded, this pre­sent 14th of March, 1655, 1656.

In the presence of

• Roger Williams, president,
• John Roome,
• Benedict Arnold,
• John Greene, jun.
• William Coddington.
• William Dyre."

AND Harris now turned, and cried up govern­ment and magistrates as much as he had cried them down before. ^* And being desirous to make tho­rough work of it, Mr. Williams wrote again to the Massachusetts governor, and was encouraged by him to come to their assembly at Boston, which he did, with an address, dated May 12th, wherein he says, "Honored Sirs, our first request 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 sires, 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 spareing of your name as the patron of all their wickedness against our Englishmen, women and children, and cattle, to the yearly damage of 60, 80 and 100 l. The re­medy, [Page 305]under God is 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 wisdoms 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 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 socie­ties, in this wild condition wherein they are. Please you not to be insensable of the slipery and danger­ous condition of this their intermingled co-habita­tion. 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.—Be pleased to re­view this copy from the lord admiral [See p. 197.] that this English town of Warwick should proceed, and that if any of yours were there planted, they should by your authority be removed, And if the English, whose removes are difficuit and charge­able, how much more these wild ones, who remove with little more trouble and damage than the wild beasts of the wilderness?—This small neck, where, on they keep and mingle fields with the English, is a very den of wickedness, where they not only practice the horrid barbarisms of all kinds of whore, [Page 306]doms, idolatries and conjurations, but living with­out all exercise of actual authority, and ge [...]ng [...]ore of liquors (to our grief) there is a con [...]uence and rendezvous of all the wildest and most licentious natives and practices of the whole country." He then proceeded to inculcate his other former re­quests, which now had their effect. ^*

THE journal of governor Winthrop shews, that before they received Pumham and his fellows u [...]der their protection, the court made them promise to [...]p the sabbath, and to observe othe religious ru [...]; but this account manifest the pernic [...] us evil or in­vading others rights under the mask of religion; and they were awfully requited therefor. Beside the manifold troubles that it cost the Massachusetts before, in Philip's war; they not only "lost more of their substance as well as inhabitants than both Plymouth and Connecticut colonies together." ^† But Pumham and his family had so great a hand therein, that the dispatching of a gran [...]ion of his is mentioned among the her [...]ic exploit of Captain De [...]i on, nine months after that war began; and Pumham himself was "accounted the most war­like and best soldier of all the Narragans [...]t sachems;" and he was so bloody and barbar [...]s through the war, that when he was killed a f [...] days before I Philip, within about fifteen or twenty miles of Boston, he, after he could not [...]d "catching hold of an Englishman, that by accident came near him, had done him a mischief, if he had not been presently rescued." ^‡

No sooner had Mr. Williams obtained such a set­tlement of old controversies in the country but [Page 307]new ones arose in the following manner. George Fox a very zealous teacher, had raised a new sect in England, who from his, and his friends com­panions quaking and trembling when they were brought before Gervase Bennet, a justice in Derby, in 1650, were called QUAKERS; though Fox says it was because, "we bid him and his company tremble at the word of God." ^* In July (this year) a number of his followers arrived at Boston, but were soon imprisoned. Mr. Gorton wrote to them as I have related page 130, to which they gave an answer Sept. 28th, wherein they say, "Friend, in that measure which we have received, which is eternal, we see thee, and behold thee, and have access with thee, in that which is meek and low, and is not of this world—and in that meek and low spirit we salute thee, and own that of God in thee which is waiting for, and expecting the rising of that which is under the earth—the ransomed of the Lord shall come to Zion with joy and gladness, be­ing redeemed from kindreds, nations, tongues and people, by the blood of Jesus, which is spirit and life to all those that obey the light, which from the life doth come, for the life is the light of men, and whosoever believes in the light which they are en­lightened with, shall not abide in darkness, which light we have obeyed in coming into these parts. The Lord is come and coming, to level the moun­tains, and to rend the rocks of wisdom and know­ledge, and to exalt that which is low and foolish to the wisdom of the world, and blessed shall thou, and all those be, who meets him in this his work. From the servants and messengers of the Lord whom he hath sent and brought by the arm of his power into these parts of the world, for which [Page 308]we suffer bonds and close imprisonment.—Known in the world by these names.

• Christopher Holden,
• William Brend,
• John Copeland,
• Thomas Thurston,"

To this Gorton wrote a reply recited in page 132, 133, and thereby as well as by what is in page 141, 142, we may learn that he held with them about inward power, perfection in this life, and falling from grace received; but when he came to be acquainted with them, he did not concur with them about thee and thou, and the names of months and days, nor in the more important arti­cles of refusing the oath of alliegance to civil go­vernment, and a defensive war. After his return from England, his character as a member of civil society, and as a ruler, stands unimpeached in their records. And as Fox in his book in folio had said, "The scriptures are the words of God, but Christ is the word of God in whom they end. And it is not blasphemy [as an author said it was] to say the soul is part of God, for it comes out of him, and re­joiceth in him:" which John Stubs tried to defend against Mr. Williams, from those words, God breath­ed into man the breath of lif [...]; Gorton, desiring li­berty to speak, said, "If it be affirmed that God can be divided, and that man was a part of God the Godhead was destroyed, and the soul of man.—It is in the margin, the breath of lives, which Stubs acknowledged." ^*

ON September 2d, 1656, the assembly at Boston, wrote to the commissioners of the united colonies, and said, "Having heard sometime since, that our neighbor colony of Plymouth, our beloved bre­thren in a great part seem to be wanting to them­selves, in a due acknowledgment and encourage­ment [Page 309]to the ministry of the gospel, so as many pi­ous ministers (how justly we know not) have de­serted their stations, callings and relations; our desire is, that some such course may be taken, as that a pious orthodox ministry may be restated a­mong them, that so the flood of errors and princi­ples of anarchy, may be prevented. Here have arrived amongst us several presons, professing them­selves Quakers, fit instruments to propagate the kingdom of Satan: for the securing of ourselves and our neighbors from such pests we have im­prisoned them till they be dispatched away to the place from whence they came—we hope that some general rules may be commended to each general court, to prevent the coming amongst us, from foreign places such notorious heretics as quakers, ranters, &c.

THE commissioners having considered the pre­mises, cannot but acknowledge the godly care and zeal of the gentlemen of the Massachusetts, to up­hold and maintain those professed ends of coming into these parts, and of combination of the united colonies, which if not attended in particulars afore­said will be rendered wholly frustrate, our pro­fession miserably scandelized, ourselves become a reproach in the eyes of those that cannot without admiration behold our sudden defection from our first principles." From whence they went on to inculcate what the Massachusetts had proposed. ^*

THOUGH the Massachusett rulers knew not whe­ther those ministers had deserted their stations just­ly or not, yet they had approved of the settlement of Mr. John Mayo in Boston, Mr. Edward Bulk­ley at Concord, Mr. John Reyner at Dover (who [Page 310]preached in Boston, the winter after he left Ply­mouth) Mr. Richard Blinman, at Cape-Ann, &c. all of whom were ministers in Plymouth colony, when the colonies confederated together in 1643. We learn also that Mr. John Norton arrived at Ply­mouth in 1635, where he preached the following winter, and Mr. Smith their pastor resigned his place to him, "and the church used him with all respect, and large offers, yet he left them—alledg­ing that his spirit could not unite with him." ^* He went and settled at Ipswich, but after Mr. Cotton's death removed and took his place in Boston, where he with his colleague had not a little hand in spirit­ing up others to the above described meannes. Another vigorous hand in the same work was Mr. Cobbet, who arrived at Boston in 1637, wrote against the baptists in 1645, was minister at Lynn, when they suffered there in 1651, but upon the death of Mr. Nathaniel Rogers took his place at [...]pswich. where the town on Feb. 25, this year voted to give him an 100 l. to buy or build him a house, and taxed all the inhabitants to pay it. This being a new thing with them, several persons would not comply with the scheme: Therefore desiress was made upon them in 1657. Samuel Symonds. Esq; descended from an ancient and honorable family in [...]ssex in England, was then one of the Massachusetts magistrates, and at last died their deputy governor. Before him George Giddings prosecuted Edward Brown, for seizing his pewter for said tax: The justice gave the plantif damage and costs, for which judgment he rendered these reasons; "I understand this to be about a fundamental law:—Such a law as that God and nature has given to a people; so that it is in the [Page 311]trust of their governors in highest place and others, to preserve, but not in their power to take away from them. Of this sort are these, viz. 1. Election of the supreme governors. 2. That every subject shall and may enjoy what he hath a civil right unto, so as it cannot be taken from him, by way of gift or loan, to the use or to be made the right or property of another man, without his own free consent. 3. That such laws, (though called liberties) yet more properly may be called rights, and in this sense this may be added, as a third funda­mental law, viz. That no custom or precedent ought to prevail in any moral case, that may ap­pear to be sinful in respect of the breach of any­law of piety against the first table, or of righteous­ness against the second.—I shall add—that it is against a fundamental law in nature, to be com­p [...]led to pay that which others do give; for then no man hath any certainty, or right to what he hath; if it be in the power of others by pretence of authority or without, to give it away (when in their prudence they conceive it to be for the benefit of the owner) without his own consent.— The parliament may tax, and that justly, the whole country to give a reward to one man for some service, for they are betrusted so to do. The reason is, it is levied upon the whole country, with their consent, and for the immediate benefit of the whole. But if they should do it between persons (though they should do it by power, and the person arranged hath no remedy in this world) yet it would be accounted TYRANNY. Is it not to take from Peter and give unto Paul?" Then after mentioning the law for ministers saleries in page 98, he says, "yet the law was framed so, as such churches as chose to go in a voluntary way of weekly contribution, [Page 312]might so continue, as some churches in the country do to this day." After an appeal to the county court the question, with the reasons each party had for and against it, was put to the general court, whether the town vote for giving the said 100 l. bo [...] the inhabitants, so that any of them who were unwilling, might be compelled to pay it, or not? On October 20th, 1657, the deputies resolv­ed it in the negative, which was non-concurred by the council; and influence enough was made the next day to bring a majority of the house round to the compelling side. ^*

N [...]THER could they be content with using com­pulsion themselves, but the commissioners of the u­nited colonies, wrote to that of Providence, Sept. 25, 1656, to try draw them into their measures to­wards the Quakers. To this the assembly at Ports­mouth gave an answer, on March 13th, 1657, wherein they say, "Whereas freedom of different consciences to be protected from inforcements 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 [Page 313]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," &c. They close with thankful acknow­ledgements of the commissioners care they had expressed for the peace and welfare of the whole country, and saying, "we rest yours, most affec­tionately, desirous of your honorable welfare.

JOHN SANFORD, Clerk of Assembly."

THIS did not content those commissioners; but they wrote again the next fall, to which governor Arnold, and his court returned an answer, October 13th, which has been published. ^* And the con­tention growing more terrible the year after, the assembly at Warwick, Nov. 5th, 1658, appointed Mr. Olney, Mr. Gorton and Mr. Crandal, who had suffered from them at Boston, with Mr. Trip, to draw a letter to their agent in England, which is as follows:

THE commissioners of the colonies who met at Boston, September 2, 1658, and continued their meeting to the 23d, closed their acts with saying, "Whereas there is an accursed and pernicious sect of heretics, lately risen up in the world, who are commonly called Quakers, who take upon them to be immediately sent of God, and infalliably assisted, who do speak and write blasphemous things, dispising government, and the order of God in church and common-wealth; speaking evil of dignities, reproaching and reviling magistrates, and the ministers of the gospel, seeking to turn the people from the faith, and to gain proselytes to their pernicious ways: And whereas the several jurisdictions have made divers laws to prohibit their coming amongst them; [but they refusing to obey them, and still making disturbance] it is therefore propounded, and seriously commended to the several general courts—to make a law, that all Quakers formerly convicted and punished as such, shall (if they return again) be imprisoned, and forthwith banished or expelled out of the said jurisdiction, under pain of death." All the eight commissioners signed this advice, only the governor of Connecticut said, "Looking at the last as a query and not an act, I subscribe, John Winthrop." ^* Such a law was made at Boston the next month, but the like was not done in any of the other co­lonies. At Plymouth they had prevailed for two [Page 318]years past, with the majority of the court, to im­prison, fine and whip the Quakers, and to send some of them out of the colony; and the manner of their proceedings take follows:

MR. John Brown, who had long been one of their magistrates, and often a commissioner for his colony, took a voyage to England. Capt. James Cudworth of Scituate, was a magistrate these two years; and near the beginning of this year he en­tertained Copeland and Brend, two of the Quakers, at his house a night or two, and says, "I thought it better so to do, than with the blind world, to censure, condemn and rail at them, when they nei­ther saw their persons, nor knew any of their prin­ciples; but the Quakers and myself cannot close in divers things; and so I signified to the court, I was no Quaker, but must bear my testimony against sundry things that they held, as I had occasion and opportunity. But withal I told them, that as I was no Quaker, so I would be no persecutor. This spirit worked in those two years that I was of the magistracy; during which time, I was on sundry occasions forced to declare my dissent, in sundry actings of that nature; which although I did with all moderation of expression, together with respect unto the rest, yet it wrought great disaffection and prejudice against me." A person took pains to go to Marshfield to procure a warrant to apprehend the Quakers he had entertained, which Mr. Hatherly understanding said. Mr. Envy hath procured this; and in lieu of it, gave them a pass under his hand, with which they travelled to Plymouth; but were there seized and whipt, by order of three other magistrates. And says, Captain Cudworth, "Truly the whipping of them with that cruelty as some have been, and their patience under it, hath [Page 319]sometimes been the occasion of gaining more ad­herence to them, than if they had suffered them openly to have preached a sermon.—The Massa­chusetts, after they have whipped them, and cut their ears, they have now gone the farthest step they can, they banish them upon pain of death, if ever they come there again. We expect we must do the like; we must dance after their pipe; now Plymouth saddle is on the bay-horse, we shall fol­low them on the career.—All these carnal and antichristian ways being not of God's appointment, effect nothing as to hindering of them in their way or course. It is only the word and spirit of the Lord, that is able to convince gainsayers. They are the mighty weapons of the christian warfare, by which great and mighty things are done and accomplished.—Our civil powers are so exercis­ed in things appertaining to the kingdom of Christ, in matters of religion and conscience, that we can have no time to effect any thing that tends to the promotion of the civil weal, or prosperity of the place; but now we must have a state-religion, such as the powers of the world will allow, and no other; a state-ministry, and a state-way of mainteinance; and we must worship and serve the Lord Jesus, as the world shall appoint us. We must all go to the pub­lic place of meeting, in the parish where we dwell, or be presented. I am informed of three or four­score last court, presented for not coming to public meetings; and let me tell you how they brought this about. You may remember a law once made, called Thomas Hinckley's law, That if any neglected the worship of God, in the place where he lives, and set up a worship contrary to God, and the allowance of this government, to the public prophanation of God's holy day and ordinance, shall pay ten shillings. This [Page 320]law would not reach what then was aimed at; be­cause he must do so and so; that is, all things there­in expressed, or else break not the law. In March last, a court of deputies was called, and some acts touching Quakers were made; and then they con­trived to make this law serviceable to them; and that was by putting out the word and, and putting in the w [...]d or, which is a disjunctive, and makes every branch become a law. So now, if any neglect, or will not come to the public meet­ings ten shillings for every defect.—And these men altering this law last March, yet left it dated, June 6th, 1681, [See page 214] and so it stands as the act of a general court; they to be the authors of it seven years before it was in being; and so yourselves have your part and share in it, it the records lie not. But what may be the reason that they should not by another law, made and dated by that court, as well effect what was intended, as by altering a word, and so the whole sense of the law; and leave this their act, by the date of it, charged on another courts account? Surely, the chief instruments in the business, being privy to an act of parliament for liberty, should too openly have acted repugnant to a law of England; but if they can do the thing, and leave it on a court, as mak­ing it six years before the act of parliament, there can be no danger in this.—If we can but keep the people ignorant of their liberties and privileges, then we have liberty to act in our own wills what we please.—Through mercy we have yet among us worthy Mr. DUNSTAR, whom the Lord hath made boldly to bear testimony against the spirit of persecution." ^*

For the above things those two magistrates Hatherly and Cudworth were left out of all their offices, in June, this year. At the same time it is meet that posterity should know how those Qua­kers behaved under their sufferings. Humphery Norton, one of their teachers and authors, was sent out of Plymouth colony in 1657, for being an ex­travagrant person; which charge, says Bishop, could not be proved. On election day June 1st, 1658, he and John Rouse came again to Plymouth, and were taken up and whipt, Norton twenty-three lashes, and Rouse fifteen, which Bishop says, "They re­ceived for no other thing but for coming into that colony in the will of God." ^* Though the records inform us, that when they were brought before the assembly June 3d, Norton "said unto the go­vernor sundry times, Thou liest! and said unto him, Thomas, thou art a malicious man, &c. And that for these things, and for refusing the oath of allegiance to any civil government, they were then whipt, and for officers fees were imprisoned till the tenth, when they were released, and went to Rhode-Island, where on the 16th, Norton wrote a letter to Mr. Alden, one of their magistrates, and another to the governor, with and answer to Christopher Winter's deposition against them, all which the court or­dered to be recorded. The beginning and end of that to the governor, I took from thence with my own hand, which is in the words and letters following:

"THOMAS PRINCE, thow who hast bent thy hart to worke wickednes, and with thy tongue hast thou set forth deceite; thou imaginest mis­chief upon thy bed, and hatchest thy hatred in thy cecrett chamber; the strength of darknes is over thee, and a malliciouse mouth hast thow opened against god and his anointed, and with thy tongue and lipps hast thow uttered perverse things; thow hast slaundered the innocent by railing, lying and false accusations, and with thy barborouse hart hast thow caused theire bloud to bee shed. Thow hast through all these things broke and transgresed the laws and waies of God, and equitie is not be­fore thy eyes. The curse causles cannot come upon thee, nor the vengance of God unjustly can­not fetch thee up; thow makest thyself merry with thy cecrett mallice.—The day of thy wailing will bee like unto that of a woman that murthers the fruite of her wombe; the anguish and paine that will enter upon thy reignes will be like knaw­ing worms lodging betwixt thy hart and liver: When these things come upon thee, and thy backe bowed downe with pain, in that day and houre thow shalt know to thy griefe, that prophetts of the Lord God wee are, and the God of vengance is our God. HUMPHERY NORTON.

"I HAVE sent thee heer inclosed a reply to C. Winter's deposition, alsoe i have sent already a true relation of parte of thy proceedings towards London, with a coppy of the fines laid on, and levied of the people of God, with a coppy of thy late laws.

Superscribed, For the governer of Plymouth pattent, this with care and speed."

AFTER this prophecy Mr. Prince continued go­vernor of that colony near fourteen years, and then died in peace (for ought we know.) His son was [Page 323]a justice of peace in his day, and his grandson was a learned and pious minister at Boston, whose writ­ings have furnished many valuable materials for our history. It ought also to be known, that in reading the works of wisdom and knowledge, and ex­alting that which is low—the Quakers meant to have civil as well as ecclesiastical government managed by the above described power. For in those times George Fox published a large book in folio, in the 170th page of which he said, "The magistrate of Christ, the help government for him, he is in the light and power of Christ; and he is to subject all un­der the power of Chirst, into his light, else he is not a faithful magistrate: and his laws here are not agre­able, and answerable according to that of God in every man; when men act contrary to it, they do evil: so he is a terror to evil-doers, discerneth the precious and the just from the vile; and this is a praise to them that do well." And when Mr. Wil­liams mentioned this passage, as one proof, that their spirit tended to arbitrary government, and fiery persecution, they said upon it, "Is there one word of persecution here? Or can Roger Williams think himself a christian, and look upon it to be persecution, for Christ's magistrates by Christ's light and power, to subject all under the power of Christ, and to bring all into this light of Christ! Or can he think such an one an unfaithful magistrate? Or are those laws, and the execution of them persecu­tion, that are agreable and answerable to that of God in every man? These are George Fox's words. Such magistrates, such laws, such power, and light, and subjection, is G. F. for, and NO OTHER." ^* This opens the plain cause why they militated so [Page 324]hard against other magistrates and government, [...] in the lamentable instances following:

OUR Lord directed his disciples to depart from any house or city, that they should travel into, when they refused to receive them; and when the Gadarenes besought him to depart out of their coasts, he did so; and we have no account of his forceing himself upon them again; but the Quakers took another course. Three of them who were banished, on pain of death, yet returned again to Boston, and were condemned to die; and William Robinson gave in a paper to the court, which contains the following reason for his conduct therein, viz. "On the 8th day of the 8th month, 1659, in the after part of the day, in tra­velling betwixt Newport in Rhode-Island, and Daniel Gould's house, with my dear brother Chris­topher Holder, the word of the Lord came express­ly to me, which did fill me immediately with life and power, and heavenly love, by which he con­strained me, and commanded me to pass to the town of Boston, my life to lay down in his will, for the accomplishing of his service, that he had there to perform at the day appointed. To which heavenly voice I presently yielded obedience, not questioning the Lord how he would bring the thing to pass.—For the Lord had said unto me, My soul shall rest in everlasting peace, and my life shall enter into rest, FOR BEING OBEDIENT to the God of my life." Marmaduke Stevenson, gave in another pa­per, informing the court, how he heard a voice as he was plowing in Yorkshire, saying, I have [...]rdain­ed thee a prophet unto the nations; and after he came to Rhode-Island, he says, "The word of the Lord came unto me saying, Go to Boston, with thy brother William Robinson—This is given forth [Page 325]to the upon record, that all people may know, who hear it, that we came not in our own will, but in the will of God." ^* This was their way of following what they called the light; and the clearest account of what they meant thereby, that I have seen, is contained in the following sentences directed to Mr. Williams, viz.

"THOU wrongest the Quakers in saying, they confess their light to be conscience: In this thou pervertest their words, and thou wouldest have it so; for George Fox's words are, The light which you call conscience, which is the light of Christ, as you may see all along in his book.—Thou hast read our books with an evil eye, or else thou might­est see how often we mention, that Christ hath bought us with a price, which is his blood; and how that all died in Adam, and how that Christ died for all, that they that live, might live to him; and that all might believe in him, who died for them; and if they do not, they are condemned with the light, which they should believe in.—Christ lighteth every man that cometh into the world, ^† with life in him, the word, and saith, He is the light of the world, and saith, Believe in the light, that ye may be­come children of light, and he that believeth is saved, and he that doth not is condemned. And the con­demnation is the light that is come into the world; which light, is saving to them that believe in it, and condemning to them that do not believe in it, but hate it, whose deeds be evil, John 3." ^‡ In all which there is a manifest confounding of grace and works, law and gospel, which the inspired writers took great pains to keep distinct. And since Christ himself [Page 326]says, "God sent not HIS SON into the world to condemn the world; but that the world THROUGH HIM might be saved. Think not that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, IN WHOM YE TRUST." John 3.17. and 5.45; was not the zeal of these men like that we read of in Rom. 10.2—4? Did they not trust in the law instead of the gospel? As to the person of the Saviour, Mr. Williams, says, "Fox in all his book cannot endure to hear of the word human, as being a new name, and never heard of in scip­ture. I said in public, many words truly and pro­perly English, are commendably used that are not in scripture, in English. The word human comes from the Latin humanus, signifying pertaining, or belonging to man: So a human soul or body is such as all mankind have. Hence I told them, that the word anthropinos peirasmos, 1 Cor. 10. might have been turned human, but is truly turned, no temptation but such as is common to man. G. Fox knows, that if Christ Jesus be granted to have had such a soul and body as is human, or common to man, down falls their monstrous idol of a Christ, called light within." To which Fox answers, "For thee and the priests to give such names to Christ, our Lord and Saviour, which the scriptures do not give, and yet say the scriptures are the rule, that is abominable. And there is no such word in 1 Cor. 10. that calleth Christ's body and soul human; and whether is Christ's body celestial or terrestial, or which glory doth he bear?—1 Cor. 15.14. G.F. doth grant, and all the Quakers, that Christ was made like unto us, sin excepted, and had a body and soul, or else how could he suffer? And is risen, the same that decend­ed is ascended, as the apostle saith." ^* And I have [Page 327]seen other of their writings which hold expressly, that Christ brought the same body from heaven, that he carried thither again. But they reckoned it abominable for Mr. Williams to use a word con­cerning our Saviour's humanity, that is, not in our translation, while he at the same time approved of the reading as it is; yet when Hebrews 1.3. was brought in those times to prove the personallity of the Trinity, the Quakers said, "That is fasly trans­lated, for in the Greek it is not person but sub­stance." ^* And said Mr. Samuel Hubbard, "They turn the holy scriptures into allegories, all unless, some which they wrest to their own destruction, as the apostle Peter saith?

THEY expressly held to a power of direction with­in them, superior to the scriptures, which carried them into actions that light from thence, or from reason could not justify; and their only way, was to appeal to an inward motion or voice. As for instance, George Bishop speaks of Deborah Wilson, as a "modest woman, of retired life, and sober con­versation; and that bearing a great burthen for the hardness and cruelty of the people, she went through the town of Salem naked, as a sign, which she having in part porformed, was laid hold of, and bound over to appear at the next court of Salem, where the wicked rulers sentenced her to be whipt." Lydia Wardwel, a married woman of Hampton, went in the same manner into the meeting-house in Newbury, in time of public worship; for which she met with the like treatment. Mr. Williams refered the Quakers to these instances that their own author had published; and told them they never could persuade souls not bewitched, that the holy spirit would move them to do so: to which they [Page 328]answer thus. "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 parliaments, 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.—As thou didst in the dispute, so now, thou makest a great ado with our men and woman going naked: we told them then, we owned no such practice in any, unless they were called unto it by the Lord.— He begineth again to upbraid us with our men and women's going naked, as if it were a thing com­monly allowed among us in their wills, without the motion of God." ^*

As an impartial historian I thought it duty thus to state these plain facts and sentiments on both sides; for upon Dr. Mather's saying, some good Men formerly took that wrong way of reclaiming here­tics by persecution; the Quakers spent seventeen pages in the most striking recital of what they suf­fered in those times that their art would admit of, in order to prove, that no good man could be an actor therein. And to fix this prejudice more lastingly in the minds of all, they turned it into verse, saying,

"Those that in conscience cannot wrong a worm, Are sin'd and whip'd because they can't conform; And time hath been, which ne'er shall be forgot, [Page 329]God's servants have been hanged none knows for what; Except for serving of their blessed Lord, For quaking and for trembling at his word. Let these black days, like the fifth of November, Be writ in red, for ages to remember." ^*

AND they are remembered in such a manner to this day, that a person can hardly plead for equal liberty of conscience among the Massachusetts, with­out having the disorders of Rhode-Island colony brought up against it; nor for the good doctrine, and family orders of those fathers, among some in the latter colony, without having hot irons and halters thrown in his teeth! Not only so, but we have lately seen artful men trying to prevent our union in the cause of our civil liberties by these means. But from the above facts the reader may judge, whether an invasion of each others rights, under the name of religion, was not the real cause of those dreadful broils; which a true acknowledg­ment thereof, both as to property and conscience, would have prevented. Whether the grand error on both sides, was not the assuming a power to go­vern religion, instead of being governed by it?

ON October 20th, Robinson, Stevenson and Ma­ry Dyre, received the sentence of death, which was executed upon the two men, the 27th: the wo­man was brought with them to the gallows, but at the intercession of her son of Newport and others, she was then reprieved, and sent away. Though returning again the next spring, she was hanged, June 1st, 1660; twelve days after the court of Ply­mouth repealed one or more of the sharpest laws they had made against that people. Charles the second had been restored to the crown of England, on May 29, which Plymouth could have no know­ledge [Page 330]of then. After the news of it arrived, go­vernor Endicot and his court wrote to him, Dec. 10th, when they said, "Our liberty to walk in the faith of the gospel, with all good conscience, was the cause of our transporting ourselves, with our wives, little ones, and our substance, from that pleasant land over the atlantic ocean, into this vast wilderness, choosing rather the pure scripture wor­ship with a good conscience, in this remote wilder­ness among the heathen, than the pleasures of Eng­land with submission to the then so disposed and so far prevailing hierarchy, which we could not do without an evil conscience.—Concerning the Quakers, open and captial blasphemers, open sedu­cers from the glorious Trinity, our Lord Jesus Christ, the blessed gospel, and from the holy scrip­ture as the rule of life, open enemies to the govern­ment itself as established in the hands of any but men of their own principles.—"The magistrate at last, in conscience both to God and man, judged himself called for the defence of all, to keep the passage with the point of the sword held towards them; this could do no harm to him that would be warned thereby, their wittingly rushing them­selves thereupon was their own act, we with hu­mility conceive a crime bringing their blood upon their own head." ^*

IN like manner they proceeded and hanged Wil­liam Leddra, March 14th, 1661; but their friends in England procured and express from White-Hall, of Sept. 9th, which was brought over by Samuel Shattock, of Salem, requiring these rulers to for­bare such things for the future, and to send such Quakers as appeared to them so obnoxious, over to be tried in England. Soon after the receipt of [Page 331]which Mr. Norton and Mr. Bradstreet, were sent over as agents, by whom governor Endicot and his court wrote to the Earl of Manchester, "to beseech his ma­jesty to tender them in respect of those pestelent he­retics the Quakers, who have lately obtained his ma­jesty's letter, requiring us to forbare their punish­ments; in observance whereof we have suspended execution of our laws against them, respecting death or corporal punishments; but this indulgance they abuse to insolency and seduction of our people, and unless his majesty strengthen our hands in the ap­plication of some suitable remedy to suppress these and others, ill affected to our tranquility, this hope­ful plantation is likely in all probability to be de­stroyed." They had before said, that allowing such to have liberty here, would be "so contrary to our consciences to permit, and no less oppression of us than the destroying both us and ours by the sword." ^* How justly then did Mr. Williams call the use of force in such affairs, The bloody tenet!

WE will now return to the affairs of baptism: Mr Hubbard upon the year 1656, says, "Baptism unto this time had been administred unto those children only, whose immediate parents were admit­ted into full communion in the churches where they lived: but now the country came to be increased, and sundry families were found, that had children born in them, whose immediate parents had never attempted to join to any of the churches to which they belonged, and yet were very much unsatisfied that they could not obtain baptism for their children; the cause occasioned many debates between the ministers of the country." Connecticut took the lead therein, and sent a draught of questions about [Page 332]it to the rulers of the Massachusetts, requesting that the ablest ministers of both colonies might be called together, to answer the same. Such an as­sembly was therefore called by authority at Boston, June 4th, 1657, and sat till the 10th. Their an­swers to 21 questions were afterwards print­ed in London, under the title of A disputation con­cerning church members, and their children. Therein they concluded, that the children of professing pa­rents, "are by means of their parents covenant­ing, in covenant also, and members of the church by divine institution. 1. Because they are in that co­venant for substance which was made with Abra­ham, Gen. 17.7. compared with Deut. 29.12. &c. 2. Because such children are, by Christ affirmed to have a place and portion in the kingdom of hea­ven. 3. Else no children could be baptized, bap­tism being a church ordinance, and a seal of the covenant of grace." And also, that "it is the du­ty of infants, who confederate in their parents, when grown up to years of discretion, though not yet sit for the Lord's supper, to own the covenant they made with their parents, by entering thereinto in their own persons; and it is the duty of the church to call upon them for the performance thereof; and if, being called upon, they shall refuse the perfor­mance of this great duty, or otherwise continue scandalous, they are liable to be censured for the same by the church. And in case they understand the grounds of religion, are not scandalous, and solemnly own the covenant in their own persons, wherein they give up both themselves and their children unto the Lord, and desire baptism for them, we (with due reverence to any godly learn­ed that may dissent) see not sufficient cause to de­ny baptism unto their children."

"As this disputation had its first rise in Con­necticut, so was there much difference and con­tention raised at Hartford, between Mr. Samuel Stone, their teacher, and the rest of the church, occasioned at the first on some such account; inso­much that sundry members of that church, having rent themselves off, removed to another place higher up the river, where they settled, and ga­thered a distinct church in that way of Schism, as the rest of the churches accounted. This unhap­py difference overspread the whole colony of Con­necticut, with such a monstrous enchantment upon the minds of christian brethren that in all the towns round about, the people generally made themselves parties to one side or the other of the quarret.—A world of sin was doubtless committed, even by pi­ous men on this occasion.

IT came at last to an open breach, which could not be healed, or made up among themselves, which put them upon a necessity of calling a con­vention of the messengers of sundry churches in the Massachusetts, who met at Boston, in 1659, and made a reconciliation between them—The practice of church-care, about the children of our church [...]s, met with such opposition ascould not be ene [...] ­tered with any thing less than a synod, of [...]le [...]s and messengers from all the churches of the [...]s­sachusetts colony. Accordingly the general court, having the necessity of the matter laid before them at their second session, in the year 1661, issued out their desire and order for the convening of such a synod at Boston in the spring." After long [...] the majority of them approved of the above [...] position, and obtained the concurrance of the [...] ­neral court thereto, on [...]o [...] 8th, 1662. ^* [...] [Page 334]Mitchel, who was the chief draughtsman, of that resuit, said, "We make account that if we keep baptism within the non-excommunicable, and the Lord's supper within the compass of those that have (unto charity) some what of the power of goodliness, or grace in exercise, we shall be near about the right middle-way of church-reformation." ^* And it has been called the half-way covenant ever since; tho' this halving of matters in religion has done more mischief in this land, as well as elsewhere, than tongue can express.

MR. Eleazer Mather, the first minister of North­ampton, wrote on July 4, this year, to Devenport, and said concerning this synod, "There was scarce any of the congregational principles, but what were lyen at by some or other of the assembly; as rela­tions of the work of grace, power of voting of the fraternity in admission," &c. ^† President Chauncey published his testimony against this new scheme; and so did Mr. Devenport; to the last of which Mr. Increase Mather wrote a preface, containing a di­stinct apology for those who dissented from it. Mr. John Allen of Dedham answered Mr. Chauncey, and Mr. Richard Mather the other, while Mr. Mitchel was employed to answer his sons preface. Young Mr. Mather in that preface says, "The sy­nod acknowledged, that there ought be to true sav­ing faith in the parent, or else the child ought not to be baptized. We intreated and unged again and again, that this, which themselves acknowledged was a principle of truth, might be set down for a conclusion, and then we should all agree But those reverend persons would not consent to this." No; and Mr. Mitchel was so far from doing it in [Page 335]his answer, that he tells of distinguishing between faith in its hopeful beginning, and faith in special exercise; initial faith and exercised faith, and says, "All reformed churches, unanimously grant the child's right unto baptism, by its being born within the visible church. Besides, what have infants more than meer membership to give them right unto baptism? We know of no stronger argu­ment for infant baptism than this, that church members are to be baptized." ^* To which I would say, that the Jewish church indeed was first con­stituted of the houshold of Abraham, and all his offspring were born in the church, of whom the son of the bond woman was the first that was cir­cumcised; but the christian church is constituted of the houshold of God, the children of the free wo­man, in distinction from those who were born after the flesh, though from Abraham's body. Ephesians 2. Gal. 4.

MR Mitchel, by his reasonings drew Mr. I. Mather over to that side; after which he acted many cruel things against the baptists for near 20 years, till the same measures were meeted to him again, so as very sensable to convince him of his error therein. Mr. Hubbard says, "Some think Mr. Devenport's book hath overthrown the pro­positions of the synod, according to their own principles." Mr. Devenport was a while in Hol­land, before he came here, where he testified against their promiscuous baptisms; and he said, "When a reformation of the church has been brought about in any part of the world, it has rare­ly been afterwards carried on any one step farther than the first reformers did succeed in their first en­deavors. He observed, that as easily might the [...] [Page 336]have been removed from the mountains of Ararat, where it first grounded, as a people get any ground in reformation, after and beyond the first remove of the reformers. And this observation quick­ened him to embark in a design of reformation, wherein he might have opportunity to drive things in the first essay, as near to the precept and pattern of scripture as they could be driven." ^* We shall presently see other ministers promoting a separa­tion from him for these attempts.

On the 8th of May, this year, the assembly at Boston wrote to that of Rhode-Island and said, "Our affection to peace and a fair correspondance, puts us upon a condescention far beneath our own reason, and the justice of our cause, once more to transmit this our last letter to you, concerning the unjust molestation and intrusion of some of your inhabitants, upon the undoubted rights of this jurisdiction, and the inhabitants thereof, in their grants and possessions in the Pequot and Narragan­set country, upon pretence of authority from your court, and purchase from Indians, but producing no deed, record, order or commission for warrant­ing the same; wherein, as we conceive, they act directly against reason, righteousness, precedent, grants from England, clear conquest, purchase and possession. It is not unknow to yourselves what means have been used from time to time, both by the commissioners of the United Colonies, and by the governor and magistrates, general court and council of this jurisdiction, by their several letters, to desire you to cause your people to desist such proceedings, and extend your authority for suppressing injustice; but to this day have received no satisfactory or particular answer in the premises; [Page 337]which has given us grounds to suppose, that at least you indulge them in their proceedings. You may hereby have notice, that two of your people, namely, Tobias Sanders, and Robert Bar­dick, being long since taken on the place, and se­cured by us to answer their trespass, we have now called them before the court, and find no­thing from them to justify their proceedings; therefore the court hath fined them 40 l. for their offence, and towards satisfaction for the charges expended in carrying them before authority; and that they stand committed till the fine be satisfied, and security given to the secretary to the value of 100 l. for their peaceable demeanour to­ward all the inhabitants of this jurisdiction for the future. And we hereby signify unto you, that unless you command off your inhabitants that yet continue their possession at Sotherton and Pate­skomscut before the last of June next, you may expect we shall not continue to neglect the relief and protection of our people there molested; and shall account it our duty to secure all such persons and estates of yours as shall be found within our jurisdiction, until just damages be satisfied. But this we heartily and earnestly desire may be avoid­ed, by your prudent care and justice, and that peace and good agreement may for the future be preserved beween us." ^*

This reminds me of Mr. Locke's saying, "That dominion is founded in grace, is an assertion by which those who maintain it do plainly lay claim to the possession of all things; for they are not so wanting to themselves as not to believe, or at least as not to profess themselves to be the truly pious and faith­ful." ^† Because Mr. Williams testified against [Page 338]that power when he first came to Boston, the court wrote to Salem against him; whereupon he did not stay to contend with them, but peacably with­drew to Plymouth, where his teaching was well approved as long as Mr. Bradford was governor. But when Mr. Winslow came into that office, who with the Massachusetts was against a full to­leration in religious matters, ^* Mr. Williams peace­ably retired to Salem, and took the charge of that flock; but for the churches receiving him without the rulers leave, they took away some of their possessions, till they would give up Mr. Williams; and, for his faithful admonitions to them on that account, they expelled him out of their jurisdic­tion; but who can tell how far that extends? When he came first into this country all the Indians from Boston and Plymouth-Bays to Paucatuck river were tributaries to the chief sachems of Narragan­set; and from thence to Hudson's river, and over all Long-Island Sassicus had extended his power, even over 26 sachems. ^† The Pequot, being thus powerful, made war upon the Narragansets, who, in April 1632, had a number of their tributaries out of Plymouth and Massachusett colonies to assist them against him; yet Sassicus prevailed, and ex­tended ^‡ his territories ten miles east of Pauca­tuck river. About the same time Natuwannute, a sachem of the country about where Hartford now stands, with a number of his men, "were driven out from thence by the potency of the Pequots," and came to our fathers at Plymouth, and requested them to go up and trade there, tho' [Page 339]"their end was to be restored to their country again." This motion was complied with, and a trading house was set up among them. ^* Which was such an eyesore to the Pequots, that in 1634 they murdered captain Stone and seven men with him, plundered his goods an sunk his vessel, be­cause they were going up Connecticut river to trade there. Two years after they murdered Captain Oldham as I have related, p. 75. And upon the notice which Mr. Williams gave them of this sad event, Mr. Endicot with an armed force was sent in Aug. 25, 1636, to try to bring the Pequots to terms; but Johnson says it proved a bootless voyage, only his leaving some men with Underhill, at Saybrook fort prevented its being taken. Upon his return Sassicus applied to the Narragansets for a reconciliation, that they all might join to expel these new comers; represent­ing, "that if they should help, or suffer the Eng­lish to subdue the Pequots, they would thereby make way for their own future ruin; and that they need not come to open battle with the Eng­lish; for only to fire their houses; kill their cattle, lay in ambush and shoot them as they went about their business, they would quickly be forced to leave the country, and the Indians not be exposed to any great hazard." ^†

HAD two such politic and potent princes as Sassicus and Miantinomo were, united in this scheme, when Boston was but six years old; Providence and Hartford but a few months, and New-Haven not begun, what would have become of all their claims they were now contending for. And it is most evident that Mr. Williams was the very in­strument [Page 340]of preventing the junction of those two great Indian powers, and so of saving the vast in­terest we now have in this country; but how was he requited for it? Why after Warwick men had obtained as fair a title to that town, as the Massa­chusetts ever had to Boston yet because they were not orthodox they were fetched away by force of arms; and the captive sachem was murdered for fear he should revenge such doings. And when the orthodox part afterward proclaimed war upon his successors, because they were for revenging his death, and Mr. Williams, to prevent the further efusion of blood, had prevalled with them to go down and settle the matter at Boston, how were they treated? p. 193.195. They were not only compelled to sign an engagement to pay all dama­ges and costs, and to quit any claim to the Pequot country, but also to say, "The Narraganset and Nyantick sagamores and deputy, hereby agree and covenant, to and with the commissioners of the United Colonies, that henceforward, they will nei­ther give, grant, sell, or in any manner alienate any part of their country, nor any pa [...]cel of land therein, either to any English or others, without consent or allowance of the said commissioners." And two years after, upon their calling for their pay, Passicus sent them word, that "when he made this covenant, he did it in fear of the army, and though the English kept their covenant with him there, and let him go from them, yet the army, was to go to Narraganset immediately and kill him there; therefore said the commissioners, Set your hands to such and such things, or cise the ar­my shall go forth to the Narragansets." In answer to which the commissioner say, After covenants have been solemnly made, and hostages given, and [Page 341]a small part of the wampum paid, and all the rest due, now to pretend fears is a vain and offensive excuse" ^* This shews that themselves did not neglect the rule they prescribed to their general in that expedition, viz. "You are to use your best endeavours to gain the enemies canoes, or utterly to destroy them, and herein you may make good use of the Indians our confederates, as you may do upon other occasions, having due regard to the honor of God, who is both our sword and shield, and to the distance which is to be observed betwixt christians and barbarians, as well as in other negociations." ^†

SIXTEEN months before that covenant was made, Passicus and other heads of their tribes, had by an ample deed resigned over and submitted all those lands to the supreme authority in England, and Mr. Williams had procured a charter thereof from thence, extending unto the Pequot river and country, page 148, 192. The Massachusetts re­cords, upon granting Fisher's island to Mr. Win­throp, p. 115 say it lies against the mouth of Pe­quot river. What right of jurisdiction then had those colonies east of that river? and what right had Passicus to engage any of those lands to them, which he had submitted to another authority so long before? By repeated endeavors the com­missioners had got all the wampum that was pro­mised in said covenant but 308 fathom, before they met at Hartford on Sept. 5, 1650; and then cap­tian Atherton was sent, with twenty armed men, to demand the remainder, with orders to seize their goods if the Indians refused to pay it; and if resistance should be made so as any life was lost [Page 342]that a special meeting of the comissioners should then be called to make war upon them for it. He accordingly went, an placed his men round Pas­sicus's tent, and going into it, seized the sachem by the hair of his head, and threatened to shoot him, if any resistance was made. This terrified them so much, that the wampum was presently paid. On July 25, 1651, at the desire of the Nar­raganset sachems, Mr. Williams wrote to the go­vernor at Boston, an account of sundry complaints they had against Uncas; which letter was laid be­fore the commissioners when they met at New-Hanven, the 4th of September following; but tho' Uncas was present yet they acted nothing upon it, because the Narragansets had not sent any of their men to support the charge. At the same time a tribute of 312 fathom of wampum was paid by Uncas, Nincerost and others, on account of the Pequots they had among them; and upon laying of it down they demanded, "Why this tribute was required, how long it should continue. [...]nd whether the children to be born hereafter were to pay it? All which being considered, the commiss [...]n­ers by Thomas Stanton, answered, that the tribute by agreement hath been due yearly from the Pe­quots since anno 1638, for sundry murders with­out provocation committed by them upon several of the English at several times, as they found op­portunity; refusing either to deliver up the mur­derers or to do justice upon them; so drawing on a war upon themselves, to the great charge an in­convenience of the English: which war, through the good hand of our God, issued first in a con­quest over that treacherous and bloody people, and atter by agreement (to spare as much as might be even such guilty blood) in a small tribute, to be [Page 343]paid in different proportions, by, and for their males, according to their different ages yearly; but hath not hitherto been satisfied, though demanded. Wherefore, though twelve years tribute were due before the year 1650, and though the agreement was for a yearly tribute to be paid by them and theirs, so long as they continue in this part of the country; yet the commissioners, something to ease their spirits, and to engage them to an inoffensive and peacable carriage, declared that the payment of this tribute shall be limited to ten years, this last year to be reckoned the first; after which, unless they draw trouble unto themselves, they shall be free." ^*

SUCH an uneasiness among the Narragansets was discovered two years after, that another army was raised and sent against them, which compelled them into another treaty, which not being other­wise fulfilled, the sachems were brought on Octo­ber 13, 1660 to mortgage all their lands, to Major Atherton, and about twenty associates with him, for 600 fathom fo wampum, said then to be due to the commissioners of the united colonies. I find also by the records, that the Massachusetts and Connecticuts could never agree how to divide the Pequot lands betwixt them, till the commissioners from Plymouth and New-Haven had the case re­fered to them, and they on Sept. 16, 1658, settled the line betwixt them; which was to be Mistick river(which runs in betwixt Stonington and G [...]o­ton) up to the pond, by Lanthorn-hill, and thence from the middle of that pond to run a north course; the Massachusetts to have both property and juris­diction from thence to Wecapang-brook, which was the easterly bounds of Sassicus's conquest. [Page 344]Pataquamscut purchase was made partly in 1657 and partly in 1658, by some inhabitants of Rhode-Island, and John Hull of Boston, who got a great estate by coining their silver money.) This pur­chase was about fifteen miles in length, and seven in breadth, in the heart of the Narraganset country. ^*

WHEN their assembly met at Newport May 21, 1661, they appointed a committee upon the let­ters they had then received from the Massachu­setts, "who seriously considered and debated cir­cumstances, concerning the matter in difference, betwixt the gentlemen, and some friends with them, that are active in sharing the Narraganset lands in the colony, without the consent of the colony; and we find by their letter, that those gen­tlemen, major Atherton and associates are not so well informed of the intent of the colony as might be requisite." And they concluded to write and give them better information, and to offer to leave the case to referees to settle it; but say, "In case a fair issue cannot be had, as is desired, then, in a speedy and convenient time and season, to forbid the said gentlemen, or any of their company, in his majesty's name, from further proceeding in the said purchase, as to possessing or sharing of any of the said lands, and to prosecute them, or any of them, in case they still proceed without consent of the [Page 345]colony, as concluding that such their proceedings are contrary to the crown and dignity of hsi majes­ty and to the peace and well-being of his majesty's subjects in this colony." The 27th of August fol­lowing an assembly met at Portsmouth, of which Mr. Williams was a member. when they sent a commission and letters to Mr. Clarke, to sollicit for a new Charter, April 27th, 1662, the town of Pro­vidence gave Mr. Clarke a full purchase right of land therein as a free gist. The next month came the forgoing latter from Boston to their assembly, with account of their dealing with men whom they called trespasers, of whom. Mr. Burdick was then a member of Mr. Clarke's church.—He mar­ried Mr. Samuel Hubbard's danghter, and has a large posterity remaining in and about westerly to this day. Mr. Sanford, and Mr. Greene, were now sent to Boston to make another trial for an amicable settlement of this controversy▪ It is to be noted, that neither of those colonies, who had made such a noise about their rights, had ever re­ceived any charter, either from king or parliament, of any lands, to the west of Providence colony till Connecticut, by the help of Mr. Winthrop, ob­tained one dated April 23, 1662, which took New-Haven into the same colony. And when the com­missioners met at Boston the 4th of September, they wrote to Rhode-Island rulers in their former strain, and informed them of a warrant they had seen, signed by Joseph Torry their secretary, in the name of the general court, "warning Capt. Gookin and others to desist and forbear any further or fu­ture possession of any lands at or about Paucatuck as they shall answer the contrary at their peril; yet withal expressing your submission to his majesty's determination, Wherefore [say the commissioners] [Page 346]being earnestly desirous to prevent any further disturbance of the peace of the colonies, though we have no doubt of the present right and interest of the Massachusetts to those lands, we are willing to improve the argument which yourselves have owned and therefore thought meet to certify you, that we have read and perused a charter of incorpo­ration, under the broad seal of England, sent over in the last ship, granted to some gentlemen of Con­necticut, wherein the lands at Paucatuck and Nar­raganset are contained, which we hope will pre­vail with you to require and cause your people to withdraw themselves, and desist from further dis­turbance."

THE words in said charter which they built this upon, bounded that colony east, "by the Narra­ganset river, commonly called Narraganset bay, where the said rive, falleth into the sea." Now it is to be remembered, that Plymouth patent was bounded westward by Narraganset and bay, and these colonists pretended that Warwick was included therein, which could not be, unless Pau­catuck was the river meant; and if it was, where is their right now to go east of it by Connecticut charter? The truth is, names are arbitrary, and those worthy governors, Bradford and Winslow, took Patucket to be the river intended in their patent, p. 72, 74. And there was now less room left for this dispute; for on July 8, 1663 his ma­jesty granted Rhode-Island charter, which describes their west boundaries to be the middle channel of Paucatuck river up to its head, and thence a north course to the south line of the Massachusetts; which river says he, "having been yielded after much debate, for the fixed and certain bounds between these our said colonies, by the agents thereof; who [Page 347]have also agreed, that the said Paucatuck river shall be also called, alias, 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 eastwardly bounds of that colony." This colony of Rhode-Island and Providence plantations, was to extend three English miles east and north­east of the most eastern and northeastern parts of the Narraganset bay, unto the mouth of Providence river and thence by the eastwardly bank of it up to Patucket falls, being the most westwardly line of Ply­mouth colony; and thence due north to the Massa­chusetts line, by which it is bounded on the north, and by the ocean on the south, including Block-Island, and the other islands within their bay. As the Indians had formerly sent over a submission of themselves and land, to the king's father, they had now sent another to him; whereupon he says in this charter. "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 they bounds and 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."

This charter appointed that a governor deputy-governor, and ten assistants should be elected annu­ally on the first Wednesday in May, who, with de­puties or representatives from each town, were to make laws, not contrary to the laws of England, make grants of land, constitute courts of justice, and appoint their officers both civil and military. [Page 348]Mr. Clarke sent over this charter, and Capt. Gre­gory Dexter fetched it from Boston; upon which a large assembly of the freemen in all the colony, met at Newport November 2, and ordered Capt. Dexter to take forth the charter and read it before to their view, and then to have it safely deposited with governor Arnold. "And they voted to pay all Mr. Clarke's disburstments in going to England, in their service there, and upon his intended return; as also one hundred pounds sterl. as a free gratuity to him, beside those expences: yea, and to give Capt. Dexter twenty-five pounds sterl. for his ser­vice and faithfulness in bringing the charter from Boston. Mr. Clarke's letters were read; upon which letters of thanks were ordered to be sent to the king, and to lord Clarendon, for these great savors they had received by their means. The next day (after the govenor, duputy-governor, and six assistants had taken their engagements) they called the sachems of the Narragansets, and Nian­ticks before them, and let them know what the king had done for them; upon which they said, "they return his majesty great thanks for his gra­cious relief, in releasing their lands from those forced purchases and mortgages by some of the other co­lonies." But another thing which is by no means to be omitted is, that the king says, in their peti­tion for the charter they declared, "That it is much on their hearts, if they may 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 that best and greatest security [Page 349]to the sovereignty, and will lay in the hearts of men, the strongest obligation to true loyalty. This pe­tition was therefore fully granted: and above a hundred years after, a worthy gentleman well says, "This great experiment hath been made, and it hath fully appeared, that a flourishing civil state, and the most unstained loyalty, may stand without the help of any religious party tests to support them, and the christian religion is as little indebted to human laws for its support, as it is to human in­ventions, for the purity of its morals, and the subli­mity of its doctrines." ^*

For seven years past there had been many con­tentions about lands, and strivings to strain Indian purchases, beyond their just limits, in Providence, Newport, and other parts of the colony, which Mr. Williams had a great hand in composing and settle­ing; the particulars of which would be very in­structive, had we room for them And his HOPE in 1647; that government, held forth through love, union and order, though by few in number, and mean in condition, yet would withstand and over­come mighty opposers, [page 200] was wonderful­ly granted and confirmed; the memory of which, in the figure of an ANCHOR with this word for its motto, in their colony seal, has been continued from that time to this. Mr. Clarke returned, June 7th, 1664, after he had served his colony at the British court twelve years. In October following the assembly appointed him, Mr. Williams and others, to inspect their laws, to see if any of them were contrary to their charter, and to make a table of them. A committee was also appointed to con­sider of their eastern and western boundaries, and to write to the other colonies concerning them. [Page 350]Connecticut still contended for power and jurisdic­tion in Narraganset, and offered to leave the case to the colonies to Massachusetts and Plymouth; which Rhode-Island would not do. The king's commis­sioners who were now sent over, heard the com­plaints of the sachems and others, and entered upon the Narraganset country in the king's name, and called it the king's province. But on the east line they allowed Plymouth colony to come to the the water, till his majesty's pleasure should be fur­ther known. ^* And so the line continued, till other commissioners in 1741, settled the line according to to Rhode-Island charter, which gave them the towns of Bristol, Warren, Barrington, Tiverton and Littlecompton, which Plymouth and the Mas­sachusetts had held till then.

THE first baptist church within that which is now the Massachusetts state, was constituted in Re­hoboth this year; Mr. Holmes and his friends hav­ing only held a meeting there for a while, and then removed to Newport. For a more clear idea of of its original we must look over into Wales, where at Ilston in Glamorganshire a baptist church was formed, October 1st, 1649; the beginning where­of their records describe thus, viz. "We cannot but admire at the unsearchable wisdom, power and love of God, in bringing about his own designs, far above, and beyond the capacity and under­standing of the wisest of men. Thus, to the glory of his own great name, hath he dealt with us; for when there had been no company or society of peo­ple, holding forth and professing the doctrine, wor­ship, order and discipline of the gospel, according to the primative instiution, that ever we heard of in all Wales, since the apostacy, it pleased the Lord [Page 351]to chuse this dark corner to place his name in, and honor us, undeserving creatures, with the happi­ness of being the first in all these parts, among whom was practised the glorious ordinance of bap­tism, and here to gather the first church of bap­tized believers." From whence they go on to re­late, how Mr John Miles and Mr. Thomas Proud, went up to London the next preceeding spring, and by the direction of Providence, came into the bap­tist society at the Glass-house in Broadstreet, un­der the care of Mr. William Consett, and Mr. Ed­ward Draper, "immediately after thay had kept a day to seek the Lord, that he would send labor­ers into the dark corners of the land." These tra­vellers were well received, and were soon sent back into their own country again, and were instru­mental of gathering a baptist church at the time a­bove mentioned; and which, by a blessing upon their labors, increased by the close of the next year to fifty-five members. In 1651, forty more joined to it; forty-seven in 1652, and by the end of 1660, two hundred and sixty-three persons had joined to that church, whose names all now stand in a neat book of records which they kept; which contain a distinct account of the means and methods they took to promote vital and practical religion a­mong the several branches of their society; as also letters of correspondence to and from their bre­thren in various parts of England and Ireland

BUT here another scene opens.

THE presbyterians had been as much against e­qual religious liberty as the episcopalians, and ma­nifested as great bitterness against those who broke their power in the long parliament; and these two parties joined in restoring the second Charles to the throne, who came in with plausable promises [Page 352]of indulgence to tender consciences; and great pains were taken to accommodate matters between them, without any good effect. The episcopalians hav­ing got the power into their hands, determined to crush all that opposed it. Among the rest they wreak­ed their vengance on Sir Henry Vane, whom they beheaded in August 1662." His indiscretion and insolence (says a great author) as well on his trial as his execution, have been extreamly aggravated; but it is easy to see, it was only to save the king's honor, who having positivly promised a pardon to all except the king's judges, could not avoid grant­ing a pardon to Vane, without violating his pro­mise." And when Vane's friends persuaded him to make some submission in order to save his life, he said, "If the king does not think himself more concerned for his honor and word, than I do for my life, I am very willing they should take it. Nay, I declare that I value my life less in a good cause, than the king can do his promise." ^* A presbyterian author who writes very bitterly against him, yet owns that," the two things in which he had most success, and spake most plainly, were his earnest plea for universal liberty of conscience, and a­gainst the magistrates intermeddling with religion, and his teaching his followers to revile the mini­stry, calling them ordinarily black coats, priests, and other names which savoured of reproach." And he says, "No man could die with greater appear­ance of a gallant resolution, and fearlessness than he did, though before supposed a timerous man; in­somuch, that the manner of his death procured him more applause than all the actions of his life." ^† On the 24th of that month, called St. Bartholo­mew's [Page 353]day, and act of parliament took place, which ejected all teachers, both of churches and schools, out of their places, who would not declare their assent or consent to all the forms and ceremonies of the church of England. About 2000 were turned out by it; and the method the church party took to procure this act, was secretly to foment distur­bances and tumults in different parts of England, and then to persuade the parliament that the pres­byterians did it, and that no peace could be had with them till dissenters were all turned out of place. And among those so ejected was our Mr. Miles. ^* Upon which he and some of his friends came over to our country, and brought their church records with them. And at Mr. Butterworth's house in Rehoboth, in 1663, John Miles, elder, James Brown, Nicholas Tanner, Joseph Carpenter, John Butterworth, Eldad Kingsley, and Benjamin Alby, joined in asolemn covenant together.

THIS church was then in Plymouth colony, con­cerning whom Dr. Mather says, "there being ma­ny good men among those—I do not know that they have been persecuted with any harder means, than those of kind conferences to reclaim them." ^† I suppose it was so for some years, and that because Mr. Newman, who persecuted Mr. Holmes, died this year; but four years after I find it thus re­corded, viz. "At the court holden at Plymouth the 2d of July, 1667, before Thomas Prince, go­vernor, John Alden, Josiah Winshow, Thomas Southworth, William Bradford, Thomas Hinck­ley, Nathniel Bacon, and John Freeman, assis­tants —Mr. Miles, and Mr. Brown, for their breach of order, in setting up of a public meeting with­out [Page 354]the knowledge and approbation of the court, to the disturbance of the peace of the place, are fined each of them 5 l. and Mr. Tanner the sum of 1 l. and we judge that their continuance at Reho­both, being very projudicial to the peace of that church and that town, may not be allowed; and do therefore order all persons concerned therein, wholly to desist from the said meeting in that place or township, within this month. Yet in case they shall remove their meeting unto some other place, where they may not prejudice any other church, and shall give us any reasonable satisfaction respec­ting their principles, we know not but they may be permitted by this government so to do." And it was no longer than the 30th of October follow­ing, before the court made them an ample grant of Wannamoiset which they called Swanzey. It then included what is now Warren and Barring­ton, and the district of Shawomet, as well as the present town of Swanzey. ^* There they made a regular settlement, which has continued to this day. The families also of Luther, Cole, Bowen, Whea­ton, Martin, Barnes, Thurber, Bozworth, Mason, Child and others, which are numerous in those parts, sprang from the early planters of that town and church. There first meeting house was built a little west of Kelly's ferry, against Warren, but Mr. Miles settled the west side of the great bridge which still bears his name.

CHAP. VI. An account of the constitution of the first baptist church in Boston, in 1665, and of their sufferings down to 1675.

MR. Hubbard says,"As some were studying how baptism might be enlarged and extend­ed to the seed of the faithful in their several gene­rations, there were others as studious to deprive all unadult children thereof, and to restrain the privi­lege inly to adult believers." And Dr. Mather, after confessing that very odious and unjust things had been published against anabaptists ever since Luther's time, says, "Infant baptism hath been scrupled by multitudes in our day, who have been in other points most worthy christains, and as holy, whatchful, fruitful and heavenly people as perhaps any in the world. Some few of these people have been among the planters of New-England from the beginning, and have been welcome to the commu­nion of our churches, reserving their particular o­pinion unto themselves—At last some of our churches used, it may be, a little too much cogency towards the brethren, who would weakly turn their backs when infants were brouht forth to be baptized." ^* Twenty years before Mr. Cobbet had called their so doings a prophane trick: And what [Page 356]their dealings were, which are here covered under the obscure term cogency, will presently be seen. It was such that a number drew off and met by themselves in Charlestown, till on May 28th, 1665; Thomas Gould, Thomas Osburne, Edward Drinker, and John George, were baptized, and joined with Richard Goodall, William Turner, Robert Lambert, Mary Goodall, and Mary Newel, "in a solemn covenant, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to walk in fellowship and com­munion together, in the practice of all the holy appointments of Christ, which he had, or should further make known to them." Goodall came recommended from Mr. Kiffen's church in London; Turner and Lambert from Mr. Stead's church in Dartmouth, having been regular walk­ers in the baptist order before they came to this country. Gould and Osburne separated from the church in Charlestown; Drinker and George had lived many years in this country, but had not join­ed to any of their churches. ^*

THE king's commissioners being here, caused the court not to lay hold of these people so soon as o­therwise they might have done. But in August a note was entered in Roxbury church records, and published in an Almanack, which has been com­municated to me in these words, "The anabaptists gathered themselves into a church, prophesied one by one, and some one among them administered the Lord's-supper after he was regularly excommu­nicated by the church at Charlestown, they also set up a lecture at Drinker's house once a fortnight." As great noise was made about their receiving ex­communicate members and officers, it is proper to give that matter a distinct consideration here. Dr. Mather tells of this church being formed, "not on­ly [Page 357]with a manifest violation of the laws in the com­mon-wealth, relating to the orderly manner of ga­thering a church, but also with a manifold provo­cation unto the rest of our churches, by admitting into their own society such as our churches had excommunicated for moral scandals, yea, and em­ploying such persons to be administrators of the two sacraments among them." ^*

THEY would thus represent as tho' that church had many such members and officers, whereas in fifteen years, among fourscore baptist members, they have not named but four excommunicate persons, and but one of them an officer, viz. Thomas Gould, who with Thomas Osburne were of the first mem­bers; and as the impartial reader would be willing to hear both sides upon it, I will give him their story in their own words.

MR. Samuel Willard of Boston, who wrote a­gainst this church, says of Thomas Gould, "1 Though he was first called to an account about withold­ing his child from baptism, yet that was not the reason of his being admonished, nor because he could not be convinced of error; nor yet did the church proceed to admonition, till such time as he (not only spake contemptuously and irreligi­ously of the emptiness and nullity of that ordi­nance, but also) used unbecoming gestures in the time of administration, of which (being asked the reason) he (before the congregation) acknow­ledged they were to cast disrespect upon it: nor then neither till after much patience. 2 At his first admonition he was not sententially suspend­ed, but only desired, for preventing of the offence of some, to abstain from coming to the other sa­crament. 3 Upon this Thomas Gould took up a [Page 358]trade of absenting himself from the meetings of the church to worship God on the sabbath, which made a new offence. 4 The church in much ten­derness waited upon him, and proceeded not to excommunication, but tried with admonition up­on admonition, and that by the space of seven or eight years: nor was he excommunicated, till (having left his own) he joined to another society, without the churches leave, or once asking it: and now also being twice sent for by the church, he disclaimed their authority over him. 5 Tho­mas Gould did not leave the church at Charlestown on the account of the anabaptists new church (as is pretended) but had many years before renounc­ed his submission to that church. 6 He did (while under admonition) neglect public worship, and gather a private meeting on the sabbath to his house. 7 He did wickedly slight the admonition of the church, declaring that they had by it, dis­charged him of all relation to them.

"FOR Thomas Osburne; the churches pro­ceedings with him were with the like patience as to Thomas Gould: only it is to be observed, that his first offence was this; whereas it is one thing which church-members engage to upon admission to walk with the church in constant attendance upon public worship, he (without notifying any offence) did withdraw and separate, frequenting those schismatic meetings at Gould's on the sabbath: this was the offence, nor did he when first dealt with pretend any dislike of infant baptism, but that the church gave no liberty to private brethren to prophesie, that they limited the ministry to learned men, and that he did not find his own spi­rit free to come; though afterwards he spake both of that, and of their severity to the Quakers, though [Page 359]that church meddled not with them, but to preach against their errors. In this practice he con [...]uma­ciously persisted many years, denying himself to be subject to that church, or bound to assembl [...] with them, slighting many admonitions; and af­terwards (with Thomas Gould) went off to, and be­came a worthy pillar of an anabaptist church." ^† This is the pedobabtist's story; Mr. Gould has given us his in the words following

"IT having been a long time a scruple to me a­bout infant baptism, God was pleased at last to make it clear to me by the rule of the gospel, that children were not capable nor fit subjects for such an ordinance, because Christ gave this commission to his apostl [...]s, first to preach, to make them dis­ciples, and then to baptize them, which infants were not capable of; so that I durst not bring forth my child to be partaker of it; so looking that my child had no right to it, which was in the year 1655 when the Lord was pleased to give me a child; I staid some space of time and said nothing to see what the church would do with me. On a third day of the week when there was a meeting at my house, to keep a day of thanksgiving to God for his mercy shown to my wife, at that time one coming to the meeting, brought a note from the elders of the church to this effect, that they de­sired me to come down on the morrow to the el­ders house, and to send word again what time of that day I would come, and they would stay at home for me; and if I could not come that day to send them word. I looking on the writ­ing [Page 360]with many friends with me, I told them I had promised to go another way on the morrow. Master Dunstan ^* being present desired me to send them word, that I could not come on the morrow, but that I would come any other time that they would appoint me; and so I sent word back by the same messenger. The fifth day, meeting with elder Green I told him how it was; he told me it was well, and that they would appoint ano­ther day when he had spoken with the pastor, and then they would send me word. This lay a­bout two months, before I heard any more from them. On a first day in the afternoon one told me I must stop for the church would speak with me. They called me out, and master Sims told the church, that this brother did withhold his child from baptism, and that they had sent unto him to come down on such a day to speak with them, and if he could not come on that day to set a day when he would be at home, but he refusing to come, would appoint no time, when we writ to him to take his own time, and send us word.

"I REPLIED, That there was no such word in the letter, for me to appoint the day; but what time that day I should come. Mr. Sims stood up and told me, I aid lie, for they sent to me to ap­point the day. I replied again that there was no such thing in the letter. He replied again, that they did not set down a time, and not a day, therefore he told me it was a lie, and that they would leave my judgement, and deal with me for a lie; and told the church that he and the elder agreed to write, that if I could not come that day, to appoint the time when I could come, and that he read it, after the elder writ is, and the elder [Page 361]affirmed it was so, but I still replied, there was no such thing in the letter, and thought I could pro­duce the letter. They bid me let them see the letter, or they would proceed against me for a lie. Brother Thomas Wilder, sitting before me, stood up and told them, that it was so in the letter as I said, for he read it when it came to me. But they answered, it was not so, and bid him produce the letter, or they would proceed with me. He said, I think I can produce the letter, and forthwith took it out of his pocket, which I wondered at; and I desired him to give it to Mr. Russell to read, and so he did, and he read it very faithfully, and it was just as I had said, that I must send them word what time of that day I would come down: so that their mouths were stoped, and master Sims put it off, and said he was mistaken, for he thought he had read it otherwise; but the elder sayed, this is nothing, let us proceed with him for his judg­ment. Now let any man judge what a fair begin­ning this was, and if you wait a while you may see as fair an ending. They called me forth to know why I would not bring my child to bap­tism. But before I speak to that, observe the pro­vidence of God in the carriage of this letter-Brother Wilder was with us when their letter come to my house, and after Mr. Dunstan had read it, he gave it to brother Wilder, and he put it into his pocket, and it lay there eight or nine week's, till that day, I was called forth, going a good space from his house, finding it too cold to go in the clothes he had on, returned again and put on another pair of breeches which were warm­er, and when he had so done, put his hand into his pocket to see if he had any paper to write with, and there found that letter, and put it in again [Page 362]and went to meeting, yet not knowing what would be done that day concerning me. God had so ap­pointed it, to stop their sirece proceedings against me for a lie, which they sought to take me in. Then asking me why I did not bring my child to baptism, my answer was, I did not see any rule of Christ for it, for that ordinance belongs to such as can make profession of their faith, as the scripture doth plainly hold forth.—They answered me that was ment of grown persons and not of chil­dren: but that which was most alledged by them was, that children were capable of circumcision in the time of the law, and therefore as capable in the time of the gospel of baptism; and asked me why children were not to be baptized in the time of the gospel, as well as children were circumcised in the time of the law? My answer was, God gave a strict command in the law for the circumcision of children; but we have no command in the gos­pel, nor example, for the baptizing of children. Many other things were spoken, then a meeting was appointed by the church the next week at Mr Russel's.

"BEING met at Mr. Russel's house, Mr. Sims took a writing out of his pocket wherein he had drawn up many arguments for infants baptism, and told the church that I must answer those ar­guments, which I suppose he had drawn from some author; and told me I must keep to those arguments. My answer was, I thought the church had met together to answer my scruples, and to satisfy my conscience by a rule of God, and not for me to answer his writing. He said he had drawn it up for the help of his memory, and de­sired we might go on. Then I requested three things of them. 1st That they should not make [Page 363]me offender for a word. 2d. They should not drive me faster than I was able to go. 3d. That if any present should see cause to clear up any thing that is spoken by me, they might have their liberty without offence; because here are many of you that have their liberty to speak against me if you see cause. But it was denied, and Mr. Sim's was pleased to reply, that he was able to deal with me himself, and that I know it. So we spent four or five hours speaking to many things to and again; but so hot both sides that we quickly forgot and went from the arguments that were written. At last one of the company stood up and said, I will give you one plain place of scripture where children were baptized. I told him that would put an end to the controversy. That place in the second of the Acts 39th, 40th verses. After he had read the scripture, Mr. Sims told me that promise belonged to infants, for the scripture saith, The promise is to you and your children, and to all that are af [...]r off; and he said no more: to which I replied, Even so many as the Lord our God shall call. Mr. Sims replied, that I spoke blasphemously in adding to the scrip­tures. I said, pray do not comdemn me, for if I am deceived, my eyes deceive me. He replied again, I added to the scripture which was blasphe­my. I looking into my bible read the words again, and said it was so. He replied the same words the third time before the church. Mr. Russell stood up and told him it was so as I had read it. Ay, it may be so in your bible, saith Mr. Sims. Mr. Russell ans­wered, yea in yours too if you will look into it. Then he said he was mistaken, for he thought on another place; so after many other words we broke up for that time.

"AT another meeting the church required me [Page 364]to bring out my child to baptism. I told them I durst not do it, for I did not see any rule, for it in the word of God. They brought many places of scripture in the old and new testament, as circum­cis [...]on and the promise to Abraham, and that chil­dren were holy, and they were disciples. But I told them that all these places made nothing for infants baptism. Then stood up W. D. in the church and said, Put him in the court! Put him in the court! But Mr. Sims answered, I pray forbear such words; but it proved so, for presently after they put me in the court, and put me in seven or eight courts, whilst they looked upon me to be a member of their church. The elder pressed the church to lay me under admonition, which the church was back­ward to do. Afterwards I went out at the sprink­ling of children which was a great trouble to some honest hearts, and they told me of it. But I told them I could not stay, for I lookt upon it as no ordinance of Christ. They told me that now I had made known my judgment I might stay, for they know I did not join with them. So I stayed and sat down in my seat when they were at prayer and administring that service to infants. Then they dealt with me for my unreverent carriage—one stood up and accused me, that I stoped my cars; but I denied it.

"AT another meeting they asked me if I would suffer the church to fetch my child and baptize it? I answered, if they would fetch my child and do it as their own act they might do it; but when they should bring my child I would make known to the congregation that I had no hand in it: then some of the church were against doing of it. A brother stood up and said, Brother Gould, you were once for childrens baptism, why are you fallen from it? [Page 365]I answered, It is true, and I suppose you were once for crossing in baptism, why are you fallen from that? the man was silent: But Mr. Sims stood up in a great heat, and desired the church to take notice of it, that I compared the ordinance of Christ to the cross in baptism! this was one of the great offences they dealt with me for. After this the deputy governor ^* meeting me in Boston, called me to him and said, Goodman Gould, I de­sire you that you would let the church baptize your child. I told him that if the church would do it upon their own account they should do it, but I durst not bring out my child. So he called to Mrs. Norton of Charlestown and prayed her to fetch Goodman Gould's child and baptize it. So she spake to them, but not rightly, informing them, she gave them to understand that I would bring out my child. They called me out again and ask­ed me if I would bring forth my child? I told them no, I durst not do it, for I see no rule for it. One of the brethren stood up and said, If I would not let my child pertake of one ordinance, it was meet I should not pertake of the other; so many of the church concluded to lay me under admo­nition; but before they did it Mr. Sims told me, It was more according to rule for me to withdraw from the ordinance, than for them to put me by; bringing that place of scripture, If thou bring thy gift to the alter, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee, leave there thy offering and he reconciled first to thy brother. But I told them, I did not know that my brother had any thing justly against me; for they had not shewn me [Page 366]any rule of Christ that I had broken, therefore durst not withdraw from that ordinance that I had found so much of God in; but if they would put me by I hoped God would feed my soul another way. So they proceeded to admonition. Elder Green ^* said, Brother Gould you are to take notice that you are admonished for three things; the first is, that you refused to bring your child to be baptiz­ed; the second is, for your contentious words, and unreverent carriage in the time of that ordi­nance; the third is, for a late lie you told, and therefore you are to take notice, that you are not to pertake any more of the ordinance of Christ with us, till you give satisfaction for these things. But when that late lie was told I know not, ex­cept it was when the letter was found in brother Wilder's pocket. This admonition was between seven and eight years before they cast me out. After this I went to Cambridge meeting, which was as near to my house as the other; upon that they put me into the court, that I did not come to hear; but many satisfied the court that I did come constantly to Cambridge; so they cleared me. Then the church called me to account and dealt with me for schism, that I rent from the church. I told them, I did not rend from them, for they put me away. Master Sims was very earnest for another admonition for schism, which most of the church were against; but it seems he set it down for an admonition on a bit of pa­per. This continued for a long time before they called me out again. In the mean time, I had some friends who came to me out of old England, [Page 367]who were baptists, and desired to meet at my house of a first day, which I granted: Of these was my­self, my wife and Thomas Osburne, that were of their church. Afterward they called me forth and asked why I kept the meeting in private on the Lord's day, and did not come to the public? My answer was, I know not what reason the church had to call me forth. They asked me if I was not a member of that church? I told them they had not acted toward me as a member, who had put me by the ordinances of Christ seven years ago— they had denied me the privileges of a member. They asked whether I looked upon admonition as an appointment of Christ? I told them, yes, but not to lie un [...]er it above seven years, and to be put by the ordinances of Christ in the church; for the rule of Christ is first to deal with men in the first and in the second place, and then in the third place before the church; but the first time that ever they dealt with me, they called me be­fore the whole church. Many meetings we had about this thing, whether I was a member or not, but could come to no conclusion; for I still af­firmed that their actings rendered me no member. Then Mr. Sims told the church that I was ripe for excommunication, and was very earnest for it; but the church would not consent. Then I de­sired that we might send to other churches for their help to hear the thing betwixt us; but mas­ter Sims made me this answer, We are a church of Christ ourselves, and you shall know that we have power to deal with you ourselves. Then said Mr. Russell, We have not gone the right way to gain this our brother, for we have dealt too harshly with him. But still master Sims pressed the church to excommunicate me. Mr. Russell [Page 368]said, There were greater errors in the church in the apostles time and yet they did not so deal with them. Mr. Sims asked him what they were? He said, How say some of you that there is no resur­rection of the dead? Mr. Sims was troubled and said, I wonder you will bring this place of scrip­ture to encourage him in his error! Mr. Sims was earnest for another admonition; then stood up Solomon Phips and said, you may clap one ad­monition on him upon another, but to what end, for he was admonished about seven years ago? Mr. Sims said, Brother! do you make such a light matter of admonition, to say, Clap them one upon another! doth not the apostle say, After the first and second admonition reject an heretick? there­fore there might be a second admonition. It was answered, it was a hard matter to prove a man an heretic, for every error doth not make a man a heretic. Mr. Sims said, it was not seven years ago, nor above three since I was admonished, and that was for schism. A brother replied and said, it was seven years since I was admonished. On that there was some difference in the church what I was admonished for. Mr. Sims then pulled a bit of paper out of his pocket and said, This is that he was admonished for, and that was but three years since. Brother Phips asked him when that paper was writ, for he never heard of that admoni­tion before? He answered, he set it down for his own memory; then he read it, that it was for schism, and rending from the church. I told him I did not rend from the church, but the church put me away from them, and that was four years before this. Then there was much aggitation when the admonition was given, and what it was for? And this was all the church records that [Page 369]could be found, which was about seven years after, the admonition was given; so after many words we broke up, which was the last time we met to­gether. Now let any man judge of the church records that were drawn up against me, and read at the dispute in Boston, which contained three or four sheets of paper; read by Mr. Shepard, ^* and drawn up by him, a little while before the dispute, who was not an eye nor ear witness to the chur­ches actings, not above half the time.

"Now after this, considering with myself what the Lord would have me to do; not likely to join with any of the churches of New-England any more, and so to be without the ordinances of Christ; in the mean time God sent out of Old England who were baptists; we consulting toge­ther what to do, sought the Lord to direct us, and taking counsel of other friends who [...]dwelt among us, who were able and godly, they gave us counsel to congregate ourselves together; and so we did, being nine of us, to walk in the order of the gospel according to the rule of Christ, yet knowing that is was a breach of the law of this country; that we had not the approbation of magistrates and ministers, for that we suffered the penalty of that law, when we were called before them. After we had been called into one or two courts, the church understanding that we were gathered into church order, they sent three mes­sengers from the church to me, telling me the church required me to come before them the next Lord's-day. I replyed, The church had nothing to do with me, for they had put me from them eight years before. They replied, that they had nothing to do with that, but were sent by the [Page 370]church to tell me it was the mind of the church to speak with me. I told them I was joined to another church, and that church was not willing I should come to them, they having nothing to do with me, therefore I would not come without the churches consent; then they departed. The next week they sent three messengers more, who came to my house and told me that the church had sent them to require me to come to the church the next Lord's-day after. I told them that the church had nothing to do to require me to come, who had put me from them eight years, and the church I now walked with would not let me come. They told me again that if I did not come, the church would proceed against me the next Lord's-day. I told them that I could not come for we were to break bread the next Lord's-day. They told me they would return my answer to the church. One of them asked if I would come the next Lord's-day after? But another presently said, We have no such order from the church; so they departed. The last day of that week three loving friends com­ing to me of their own account, one of them was pleased to say to me, Brother Gould, though you look upon it as unjust for them to cast you out, yet there be many that are godly among them that will act with them through ignorance, which will be a few of them, and you are per­suaded I believe that it is your duty to prevent any one from any sinful act; for they will cast you out for not hearing the church; now your coming will stop them from acting against you, and so keep many from that sin. Upon these words I was clearly convinced that it was my duty to go, and replied, Although I could not come the next day, yet I promised them that if I was alive [Page 371]and well I would come the next Lord's-day if the Lord permit. He replied, What if the church I was joined to was not willing? I told him I did not question that any one would be against it upon this ground. After I had propounded it to the church, not one was against it. I intreated these friends to make it known to the elders that I would come to them the next Lord's-day after: Yet tho' they knew of it, they proceeded against me that day, and delivered me up to Satan for not hear­ing the church."

THIS narrative I met with among Mr. Callen­der's papers, and have good reason to think it genuine, and that the manuscript now in my hands was written above a hundred years ago, which I have copied that the public may be better able to judge of what those excomunications were. It appears by Mr. Willard, that the first charge they had against Mr Osburne, was his going to meeting with that schismatical Gould; therefore, as the reader judges of the one, so likely he will of the other. Only it ought to be noted, that nei­ther of them were excommunicate persons, when they formed that baptist church, but had that sentance pronounced upon them, and afterwards for refusing to return to those, who had treated them so ill. And before that act, viz on August 20, 1665. Richard Russell, Esq; issued a warrant to the constable of Charlestown, the original whereof is now before me, requiring him in his majesty's name, to labour to discover where these people were assembled, and to require them to attend the established worship, which if they re­fused, he was to return their names and places of abode to the next magistrate. In consequence whereof they were brought before the court of [Page 372]assistants in September: to whom they exhibited ä confession of their faith, which is copied into their records. The only article of which, that I find objected against is in these words, viz. "Christ's commission to his disciples is to teach and baptize, and those who gladly receive the word and are baptized, are saints by calling, and fit matter for visible church. This was complained of as exclud­ing all from a visible saint-ship but baptized persons, which we shall hereafter see they had no thought of. But their grand crime lay in not obeying the fuling party in their religious affairs.

THE court of assistants charged them to desist from what they called their schismatical practice; and because they would not, the general court that met Oct. 11, convented Gould, Turner, Osburne, Drinker and George before them, to whom these baptists exhibited the same confession as they had to the court of assistants, which was closed with saying, "If any take this to be heresy, then do we with the apostle confess, that after the way which they call heresy, we worship God the Fa­ther of our Lord Jesus Christ, believing all things that are written in the law and the prophets and apostles." Which the court called a "contemn­ing the authority and laws here established, for the maintenance of godliness and honesty, as well as continuing in the prophanation of God's holy ordinances; (and said) This court taking the premises into their serious consideration, do judge meet to declare, that the said Gould and compa­ [...]y, are no orderly church assembly, and that they stand justly convicted of high presumption against the Lord and his holy appointment, as also the peace of this government, against which this court [...]th account themselves bound to God, his truth and [Page 373]his churches here planted, to bear their testimony, and do therefore sentence the said Thomas Gould, William Turner, Thomas Osburne, Edward Drinker and John George, such of them as are freemen, to be dissfranchied, and all of them, upon conviction before any one magistrate or court, of their further proceeding herein, to be commit­ted to prison until the general court shall take further order with them. Zechariah Rhodes, be­ing in court when they were proceeding against Thomas Gould and company, and saying in court, The court has not to do in matters of religion: he was committed; being sent for he acknowledged his fault, declaring he was sorry he had given them offence. The court judged meet to discharge him, the governor giving him an admonition for his said offence." ^*

CAN any man believe that these were measures to promote either godliness or honesty, in Rhodes, o [...] in any one else? rather did not the court take Jehovah's name in vain in this act! The foremen­tioned excuse, made by Dr. Mather, for this severity, viz. their joining in church fellowship without the approbation of other [...] and their rulers, says Mr. Neal, "conditions all the dissenting congregations that have b [...] gathered in England, since the act of uniformity in the year 1662—Let the reader judge, who had most reason to complain; the New-England churches, who would neither suffer the baptists to live quiet­ly in their communion, nor seperate peacably from it? or these unhappy persons who were treated so unkindly for following the light of their con­sciences." ^† Yet because they still followed that [Page 374]light, they were presented to the county court at Cambridge, April 17, 1666, "for absenting themselves from the public worship." And when they asserted that they did steadi [...]y attend such worship, the forgoing act of the assembly was pro­duced to prove that it was not in a lawful way; and Gould, Osburne and George, were each or them fined four pounds therefor, and ordered to bind themselves in a bond of twenty pounds apiece, for their appearance at the next court of assistants; and refusing so to do were committed to prison. ^* When the court of assistants came they gave sentance that they should pay their sines and court charges; and when the assembly sat on Sept. 11, they ordered, that if they would pay the same, they should be set at liberty; but added that, "the order of court of October 1665, refer­ing to the said schismatical assembly, shall be, and hereby is declared to stand in full force." ^† Thus they went on from time to time, till the court of assistants at Boston, March 3, who adjourned to May 1, 1668, passed the following act, a copy of which I find among their church papers, exactly in these words, viz.

"Thomas Gould plaintiff, on appeal from the judgement of the last county court at Charlestown. After the courts judgement reasons of appeal, and evidences in the case produced were read, com­mitted to the jury, and remain on files with the records of this court. The jury brought in their verdict, they found for the plaintiff, reversion of the former judgement. The court not accepting this verdict, commended it to the jury's further consideration, and sent them out again. And at the adjournment, on the further consideration, [Page 375]they brought in a special verdict, i. e. If the intent of this law, that the appallent is accused of the breach of, be that the presentment of the grand jury, without their certain knowledge, or other evidence, or the person so complained of is legally convicted of the breach of the law, thereby he not making it appear he had done his duty; then they confirm'd the judgement of the former court at Charlestown, but if otherwise they acquit the ap­pellant. The court, on a due consideration of this special verdict, do confirm the judgement of the county court at Charlestown. This judgment was declared, and on the plaintiff's refusal to pay the fine imposed, was committed to prison."

ON the 7th of this March, they also said, "The governor and council, accounting themselves bound by the law of God, and of this common­wealth, to protect the churches of Christ here planted, from the intrusion thereby made upon their peace in the ways of godliness, yet being willing by all christian candor to endeavour the reducing of the said persons from the error of their way, and their return to the Lord and the com­munion of his people from whence they are fallen, do judge meet to grant unto Thomas Gould, John Fa [...]num, Thomas Osburne and company, yet fur­ther an opportunity of a full and full and free debate, of their grounds for their practice; and for that end this court doth nominate and request the Rev. Mr. John Allen, Mr. Thomas Cobbet, Mr. John Higginson, Mr. Samuel Danforth, Mr. Jonathan Mitchel, and Mr Thomas Shepard, to assemble with the governor and magistrates upon the 14th day of the next month, in the meeting-house at Boston, at nine in the morning; before whom, [...] so many of them, with any other the Reve­rend [Page 376]elders or ministers, as shall then assemble, the abovesaid persons and their company shall have liberty, freely and fully in open assembly, to pre­sent their grounds as abovesaid, in an orderly de­bate of this following question: whether it be justifiable by the word of God, for these persons and their company to depart from the commu­nion of these churches, and to set up an assembly here in the way of anabaptism, and whether such a practice is to be allowed by the government of this jurisdiction?—To Thomas Gould: you are hereby required in his majesty's name, according to the order of the council above-written, to give notice thereof to John Farnum, Senior, Thomas Osburne, and the company, and you and they are alike required to give your attendance, at the time and place, above-mentioned, for the end therein expressed.

EDWARD RAWSON, Secratary." ^*

MR. Clarke's church in Newport, hearing of this appointment, sent to the assistance of their brethren, Mr. William Hiscox, Mr. Joseph Tory and Mr. Samuel Hubbard, who arrived at Boston three days before the dispute. The author o [...] Mr. Mitchel's life says, "when the churches were troubled by a strong attempt upon them from th [...] the spirit of anabaptism, there was a public dis­putation appointed at Boston, two days together, for the clearing of the faith in that article; this worthy man was he, who did most service in this disputation; whereof the effect was, that although the erring brethren, as is usual in such cases, made this their last answer to the arguments, which had cast them into much confusion, say what you will, [Page 377]we will hold our minds! Yet others were happily established in the right ways of the Lord." How well this corresponds with the preceeding pages, the reader may judge. For therein we are inform­ed, that Mr. Mitchel was fearful of going to a learned gentleman who had renounced infant baptism; and that he resolved that he would have an argument able to remove a mountain, before he would recede from that principle, ^* And a look back to our p. 226, will shew what fear the ruling party had, of disputing upon their way with ano­ther learned baptist; but the whole power of the country now adventured to enter the list with a few honest mechanicks.

WHEN the assembly met at Boston in May fol­lowing, they proceeded to the next argument, and said,—"Whereas the council in March last did, for their further conviction, appoint a meet­ing of divers elders, and required the said persons to attend the said meeting, which was held in Bos­ton with a great concourse of people.—This court, being sensible of their duty to God and the coun­try, and being desirous that their proceedings in this great cause might be clear and regul [...], do order that the said Gould and company he requir­ed to appear before this court, on the seventh instant, at eight in the morning, that the court may understand from themselves, whether upon the means used, or other considerations, they have altered their former declared resolution, and are willing to desist from their former offensive prac­tice, that accordingly a mete effectual remedy may be applied to 10 dangerous a malady, At the time they made their appearance and after [Page 378]the court had heard what they had to say for themselves, proceeded. Whereas Thomas Gould, William Turner, and John Farnum, Senior, ob­stinate and turbulent anabaptists, have some time since combined themselves with others in a pre­tended church estate, without the knowledge and approbation of the authority here established, to the great grief and offence of the godly orthodox; the said persons did in open court, assert their former practice to have been according to the mind of God, that nothing that they had heard convinced them to the contrary; which practice, being also otherwise circumstanced with making infant bap­tism a nullity, and thereby making us all to be unbaptized persons, and so consequently no regu­lar churches, ministry or ordinances; as also re­nouncing all our churches, as being so bad and cor­rupt that they are not fit to be held communion with; denying to submit to the government of Christ in the church, and entertaining of those who are under church censure, thereby making the discipline of Christ to be of none effect, and manifestly tending to the disturbance and de­struction of these churches—opening the door for all sorts of abominations to come in among us, to the disturbance not only of ecclesiastical enjoy­ments, but also contempt of our civil order, and the authority here established—which duty to God and the country doth oblige us to prevent, by using the most compassionate effectual means to attain the same; all which considering, toge­ther with the danger of disseminating their errors, and encourageing presumptuous irregularities by their example, should they continue in this juris­diction; this court do judge it necessary that they be removed to some other part of this coun­try, [Page 379]or elsewhere, and accordingly doth order, that the said Thomas Gould, William Turner and John Farnum, Senior, do before the 20th of July next remove themselves out of this jurisdiction, and that if after the said 20th of July either of them be found in any part of this jurisdiction, without licence had from this court or the council, he or they shall be forthwith apprehended and committed to prison by warrant from any magi­strate, and there remain without bail or main prise, until he or they shall give sufficient security to the governor or any magistrate, immediately to de­part the jurisdiction, and not to return as above-said. And all constables and other officers, are required to be faithful and diligent in the execu­tion of this sentance. And it is further ordered, that the keepers of all prisons whereto the said Thomas, or any of them shall be committed, shall not permit any resort of companies of more than, two at one time to any of the said persons. And our experience of their high obstinate and pre­sumptuous carriage, doth engage us to prohibit them any further meeting together, on the Lord's day, or other days, upon pretence of their church estate, or for the administration or exercise of any pretended ecclesiastical functions, or dispensation of the seals or preaching; wherein, if they shall be taken offending, they shall be imprisoned until the tenth of July next, and then left at their liber­ty within ten days to depart the jurisdiction upon penalty as aforesaid. And whereas Thomas Gould is committed to prison in the county of Middlesex, by the last court of assistants, for non­payment of a fine imposed, this court judgeth it meet, after the sentance of this court is published this day after the lecture to them, that the said Gould [Page 380]shall be discharged from imprisonment in Middle­sex as to his fine, that so he may have time to pre­pare to submit to the judgment of this court." ^*

THIS looked like a powerful way of arguing; but the baptists were not convinced by it, either of its being duty to return into fellowship with those who managed the argument, or to quit their stations and enjoyments at their command. I find by the colony records, that John Farnum was admitted a freeman of that colony May 13, 1640; Thomas Gould, June 2, 1641; in which year John George bound himself to governor Winthrop, I suppose to pay for his passage over to this country. And I have a copy before me of a warrant for the commitment of Turner and Farnum to Boston Goal, dated July 30 this year, signed by governor Bellingham, Eleazer Lusher and Edward Tyng. When the assembly met again in the fall, a petition was presented to them whereof a copy found among their church papers, is before me, in these words.

"WHEREAS by the censure of this honorable court Thomas Gould, William Turner and John Farnum, now lie in prison deprived of their liber­ty, taken off from their callings, separated from their wives and children, disabled to govern or to provide for their families, to their great damage and hastening ruin, how innocent soever; beside the hazard of their own lives, being aged and weakly men, and needing that succour a prison will not afford; the sense of this, their personal and family most deplorable and afflicted condition, hath sadly affected the hearts of many sober and serious christians, and such as neither approve of their judgment or practice; especially considering that [Page 381]the men are reputed godly, and of a blameless con­versation; and the things for which they seem to suffer seem not to be moral, unquestioned, scanda­lous evils, but matters of religion and conscience; not in things fundamental, plain and clear, but circumstantial, more dark and doubtful, wherein the saints are wont to differ, and to forbear one another in love, that they be not exposed to sin, or to suffer for conscience sake. We therefore most humbly beseech this honored court, in their christian mercy and bowels of compassion, to pity and relieve these poor prisoners; whose sufferings (also being doubtful to many, and some of great worth among ourselves, and grievous to sundry of God's people at home and abroad, may crave a further consideration) whereby perceiving this court not likely to effect the end desired, but ra­ther to grieve the hearts of God's people: Now your wisdoms may be pleased to think of some better expedient, and seriously consider whether an indulgence, justifiable by the word of God, pleaded for and practised by congregational churches, may not, in this day of suffering to the people of God, be more effectual, safe and inof­fensive than other ways, which are always griev­ous, and seldom find success. We in all humility hope, hereby occasions of difference being removed, that love and communion among all saints, which our dying Lord so weightily charged and earnest­ly prayed for, will more easily be preserved and practised, to the glory of God, honor of the gos­pel, peace and welfare of all the churches, which this honored court being the happy instruments of effecting, will oblige your poor petitioners, as in duty bound, to pray for your happiness both in this life and in that to [...]ome, and that your [Page 382]authority may be long continued as an unparalled blessing to this commonwealth."

WE are informed that Capt. Edward Hutchin­son, Capt. Oliver, and many others signed this petition; but the Court were so far from granting it, that the chief promoters of it were fined, and others compelled to an acknowledgment of their fault in reflecting upon the Court herein. We are also told, that the Hon. Francis Willoughby, who was their deputy Governor from 1665, till he died on April 4, 1671, "was a great opposer of these persecutions against the baptists." ^* Leveret and Symonds, his successors in that office, appear also to have been on that side of the question. The ruling party printed their sentance against those baptists, and answer to which I find among their church papers, which is closed with these words. "This my husband would intreat of you, to take counsel of master Bennet, and if he and you judge [...] mete, to send it to England, and the printed sentance with it. It is desired that no man see it but goodman Sweetser, and that Josiah write it fair and plain." I conclude the person here speaking is elder Gould's wife; and the most material points of her answer are as follows:

"FIRST, They call them obstinate and turbulent anabaptists. 1. I desire to know wherein their ob­stinacy doth appear? They desired the court to show them, from the rule of Christ, of any point that they were out of the way of God; and if the Lord was pleased to shew them wherein they were out, they would freely lay it down; but they shewed them no other rule than their own law; and sentanced them to be fined and impri­soned; and this was all the rule they could give, [Page 383]which did not convince them. 2. They say they were turbulent: I desire them to prove wherein they were turbulent, when they did not disturb neither churches nor courts, neither by word nor by action; but desired to live quietly and peace­ably among them, and they cannot tell of any one thing that they disturbed them in, but desired they might enjoy that liberty that Christ hath purchas­ed for them. They know not that they spoke any word that gave offence to the court, unless it was those few words, when master Bradstreet pro­nounced that sentance against them, and charged them no more to meet together, whether on the Lord's day or on the weekdays , in their conventicles; those words were returned by them, We ought to obey God rather than man; we cannot but do the things that we have heard and learned. 3. As for anabaptists, they do not own that name, except they will be pleased to explain what they mean by it; for they own them to be of the baptized. Again they say, they combined together in a pretended church estate. They need not have said so, unless they could have proved they set up their church contrary to a rule of Christ. Beside, they gave them in a writing wherein they gave a brief ac­count of their faith, where they declared what they owned to be a church of Christ, and the or­der of it according to the rule of the scripture, which neither the court nor the elders ever an­swered to this day. They say it was without the knowledge or approbation of the authority here establish­ed as the law required. Answer, 1. If the apostles had not set up churches in their time, without the approbation of the authority and their priests, there had been few or no churches in their time. 2. Christ is Lord and King of his church, and he [Page 384]will set up his government therein, and hath given them rules from himself, how to set it up and to carry it along according to his appointment, and not to ask leave of the powers of the word to set up his church; for Christ's jurisdiction is the reatest jurisdiction [...]n the world. 3. They had ask­ged leave, had they found a command of Christ for it, but finding no rule of Christ they did not do it.

"AGAIN, they say some of themselves were excommunicated persons. First, it is true what they say, yet that some was but two that were cast out, and that after they were gathered into this pre­tended church, as they call it, a good space of time. But consider for what it was, and how it was? [Hear the foregoing account of Mr. Gould and Osburne is confirmed. And of the day they were cast out she says,] The word was carried to the elder, that if they were alive and well they would come the next day, yet they were so hot upon it that they would not stay, but master Sims, when he was laying out the sins of these men, before he had propounded it to the church, to know their mind, the church having no liberty to speak, he wound it up in his discourse, and de­livered them up to satan, to the amazment of the people, that ever such an ordinance of Christ should be so abused, that many of the people went out: and these were the excommunicated persons. They say, after long forbearence to use the utmost mean [...] convince and reduce them, intreated the assistance of to divers elders. Answer 1. It is true there were seven elders appointed to discourse with them, and there were a few plowman and taylors to come before: but how they were served with a warrant to appear before these elders in his Majes­t'ys name! 2. When they were met, there was a [Page 385]long speech made by one of them, of what vile persons they were and how they acted against the churches and government here, and stood con­demned by the court. The other desiring liberty to speak, they would not suffer them, but told them they stood there as delinquents, and ought not to have liberty to speak. Then they desired they might choose a moderator as well as they: they denied them. Two days were spent to little purpose—in the close, master Jonathan Mitchel pronounced that dreadful sentance against them in Deut. xvii, 8. to the end of the 12th, and this was the way they took to convince them, and you may see what a good effect it had—There was nothing spoken from the rule of Christ, nei­ther from the court nor the elders, but such sen­tances as these, fineing, and whipping, and prison­ing, and banishing, and master Mitchel's sentance, and all these are not the weapons of Christ, but carnal weapons that never did convince any soul of the error of his ways.

"WHEREAS they say, which practice making in­fant baptism a nullity, &c. I answer, it is good for every one to be sure that they are upon good ground whatsoever the practice of others may seem to condemn—They say, tending to the distur­bance and destruction of these churches. For answer, 1. If eight or nine poor anabaptists, as they call them, should be the destruction of their churches, then let any seeing man judge what their churches are built upon; then we may think they are built upon a sandy foundation; for the church of Christ is built upon himself, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. 2. If they be the churches of Christ, and think they shall be over­thrown by them, it is from the weakness of their [Page 386]faith, looking more to an arm flesh and powers of the world to uphold them, than to Christ and his faithful promise. 3. If they fear they will be the destruction of their churches, now all the power of the country is for them and have an arm of flesh to help them, what will they do when all the powers of the country are against them, as are against the other, as you say yourselves of them, that when they were in examination before the court, they professed themselves resolved to adhere to the same practice; and now suffer will­ingly for it. But for the men, what they are I shall say nothing, for the sixty-five hands to the petition that was put into the general Court, does plainly declare to their best discerning, that they have been honest and godly, and lived quietly and peacably among them a good length of time. Again they say, by using the most compassionate and effectual means to attain the same. Answer, 1. The Lord keep every gracious soul from such com­passionate means for the truth of the gospel! 2. For what compassionate means were used with them, let men fearing God judge; for one of them was called from prison when this sentance of banishment was read against them; and if any man desires to inform himself wherein their com­passion appears, let him read their printed sentance against them, which was executed upon them; for not moving themselves, they sent the consta­able, and fetch them away to prison on a public lecture day at Boston, when the said Thomas Gould, William Turner and John Farnum, had been all there, and newly come home to their houses, and they remain in prison to this day."

How any that feared God, could be ensnared and held in such a way of treating their follow [Page 387]servants, may doubtless appear unaccountable to many; but a careful search will help us to discover the nature of this mystery. The establishment of christian commonwealth, was the grand object that had been before those leaders for forty years, and it continued so to their last hours. Mr. Wil­son, the first minister of Boston, had been famed for a gist of prophecy, or foreteling future events; and as his dissolution appeared near, a large num­ber [...] ministers came round him on May 16, 166 [...], and desired him to declare unto them, what he conceived to be the sins among them that caused the displeasure of God against the country, he told them he had long feared the following sins as chief among others, which greatly provoked God, viz. "

• 1 Separation.
• 2. Anabaptism.
• 3. Corahism, when people rise up as Corah, against their mini­sters or elders, as if they took too much upon them, when indeed they do but rule for Christ, and according to Christ; yet (said he) it is no­thing for a brother to stand up, and oppose with­out scripture or reason, the doctrine and word of the elder, saying I am not satisfied, &c. and hence, if he do not like the administration, be it baptism or the like, he will turn his back upon God and his ordinances, and go away. And for our neglect or baptising the children of the church, those that some call grand-children, I think God is provoked by it.
• 4. Another sin I take to be the making light of, not subjecting to the authority of synods without which, the churches cannot long subsist. And so for the magistrates being Gallio like, either not careing for these things, or else not using their power and authrity for the maintenance of the truth, gospel and ordinances of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and for bearing thorough witness against the contrary: should the Lord leave them [Page 388]hereunto, how miserable a people should we be! [And at night he blessed them upon their parting] with great affection, and with tears, and all the m [...]nisters wept with him, and took their leave of him, even as children of their father, who having blessed them was about to die."

And did so the the 7th of August following. ^* These things af­fected their minds in such a manner, that upon his church's obtaining Mr. Devenport from New-Haven to succeed him, who had printed his testi­mony against the result of the late synod about the halfway covenant, a minor part of the church drew off from the rest, and in May 1669 other ministers assisted in forming them into a new church, in open separation from the first church in Boston, which schism continued about fourteen years, till an episcopal invader of their rights drove them together again. ^† Hence see what a schismatical doctrine that is, of infants church-membership, and of using secular force in religious affairs. What divisions and contentions did it produce both in Counecticut and the Massachu­setts? And is it not evident that they proceeded from a confounding of the Jewish and Christian churches together? for a right to membership and to office, in the former, proceeded in a na­tural, in the latter, in a spiritual line. The gain-saying [Page 389]of Korah was after an infalliable authority had fixed the priest-hood in the line of Aaron and his seed, who were types of Christ and his saints; but officers in distinction from the rest of the lively stone whereof his house is built, are never called priests in the new-testament: yea, we have seen ministers resenting others calling of them by that name, and yet they in the above instance and down to this day, have applied the case of Korah to those who refuse practically to own them as such. And they have often told us of David's error, in carrying the ark upon a new cart, instead of the priests shoulders; but that error is theirs, not ours; and had they been as ready to immitate David in reformation as they were in transgression what happy times might we have seen before now? The oracles of God were then carried in the ark, but now his church is the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Tim. 13, 15, 1 Peter 2, 5. Upon Uzza's being struck dead, David was turned to search the divine rules, which taught him to rest the cause of truth upon living shoulders, instead of an earthly machine drawn by beastly force: 1 Cor. 15, 2. But when the rulers of the Massachusetts were moved by their ministers to exert such force against the baptists, though they saw the chief procurers of that sentance struck dead before the time came for its execution, and many more of them about that time, yet their posterity have approved their sayings even to this day. ^* I am well sensible that the divine judge­ments [Page 390]are a great deep, and that love or hatred is not to be known merely by such outward events; yet they ought to put us all upon searching and trying our ways (as David did) by the revealed will of God; which duty was excellently inculcated upon them at that time in a letter to Capt. Oliver of Boston, in the words following.

THIS occasioned the following epistle to them, viz.

THIS sweet letter, Mr. Hubbard has preserved, and it caused no alianation of mind, but there re­mained a great nearness between them as long as they lived. I find him in a letter the next year to his brother Hamlit, "desiring the welfare of the whole Sion, and the brethren with you; brother Foster, brother Farlow, elder Russell and his son; yea to all the church, with thanks for their love to me and my wife." Mr. Hamlit wrote on June 19, 1673, that the baptists were still per­secuted for their withdrawing from the public meetings, and said, "Brother Trumbel and bro­ther Osborne were fined last court at Charlestown twenty shillings a piece; they have appealed to [Page 414]the court of assistants." But Mr. Bellingham dy­ing, and Mr. Leveret being chosen governor, and Mr. Symonds deputy governor; things took ano­ther turn, so that Mr. Hamlit wrote to his brother Hubbard on Jan. 9, 1674, and said, "Brother Drinker hath been very sick near unto death, but the Lord hath restored him to health again. The church of the baptized to peacably enjoy their liberty. Brother Russell, the elder and the youn­ger, have good remembrance of you." And while those governors lived, that church enjoyed the greatest liberty that ever they did under their first charter. After governor Leveret's death, I find Mr. Russell and his church, in a appoint­ment of a day of thanksgiving, expressing their sense of "the Lord's goodness in preserving our peace and liberty beyond all expectation; God having removed him, who was a friend to us in the authority, by reason of which our opposites have the greater advantage against us, who have not been wanting to do their endeavour to sup­press us." Whe shall soon find how that advan­tage was improved. We are informed by their records, that the next members that were added, after the first constitution of the church, were Isaac Hull, John Farnum, Jacob Barney, John Russell, junior, John Johnson, George Farlow, Benjamin Sweetser, all before Ellis Callender, who was received, Nov. 9, 1669. Mr. Hull was called also to be an elder in the church in the time of their sufferings. The next on the list are Joshua Turner, Thomas Foster, John Russell, senior, (af­terwards their pastor) William Hamlit, James Landon. Thomas Skinner, John Williams, Philip Squire, Mary Gould, Susanna Jackson, Mary Greenleaf, &c. Elder Gould died Oct. 27, 1675, [Page 415]having been a man, "in some good measure fitted and qualified (says elder Russell) for such a work; and proved an eminent instrument in the hand of the Lord, for the carrying on this good work of God in its low and weak beginnings" And in­cluding the other first constitutors with him, says, "Their trouble and temptations followed, one upon the neck of another, like the waves of the sea; but these precious servants of the Lord, hav­ing in some good measure counted the cost before­hand, were cheerfully carried on by the hand of the Lord upon them, through all the afflictions and reproaches they met with; and are the most of them now at rest with the Lord, having served the will of God in their generation." ^*

CHAP. VII. An account of Philip's war, of the bap­tist's further sufferings, and other events down to 1690.

THE forgoing history may give the reader some idea, of the nature and causes of the contentions that long laboured in the country, between the natives and the English. Mr. Samuel Hubba [...]d in the close of that war, wrote to a mi­nister in England and said, "God has been long waiting with patience, by several signs and warn­ings these forty years as I can witness; but we in our turnings have not so turned to the Lord as ought to be, and his displeasure is broke forth in the country by the [...]atives, who were forced there­to [Page 416]to, as some of them said (and in very deed I judge truly.") I find by their records, that the commis­sioners of the united colonies, in September 1662, appointed Capt. George Denison, Thomas Stanton and James Averell, to manage their affairs at Pau­catuck, to govern the Indians, and collect the tax imposed upon them on account of the Pequots; and then say, "They are also hereby authorised to act and do, or cause to be done, what in their discretion may best conduce, to reduce them to civility and the knowledge of God, as well by causing due punishment to be inflicted on disor­derly persons according to their demirits, as by encouraging such as shall be sent to instruct them by order of the commissioners, and by causing them to attend thereunto." And nothing has been more common with their party ever since, than to represent the Rhode-Islanders as an irre­ligious people: but I trust the forgoing facts shew that they were not all so, to which I shall add, that Mr. S. Hubbard's daughter Ruth was con­verted and joined to Mr. Clarke's church in 1652, when she was not 13 years old, and on August 4, 1666, she wrote from Westerly thus,

"MOST loving and dear father and mother, my duty with my husband and children presented unto you, with all my dear friends,—My longing desire is to hear from you, how your hearts are borne up above these troubles which are come up­on us, and are coming as we fear; for we have the rumours of war, and that almost every day. Even now we have heard from your Island by some Indians who declared unto us, that the French have done some mischief upon the coast, and we have heard that 1200 Frenchmen have joined with the Mohawks, to clear the land both [Page 417]of English and Indians. But I trust in the Lord, if such a thing be intended, that will not suffer such a thing to be. My desire and prayer to God is, that he will be pleased to fulfil his promise to us, that is, that as in the world we shall have troubles, so in him we shall have peace. The Lord of comfort, comfort your and our hearts, and give us peace in believing, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Oh that the Lord would be pleased to fill our hearts with his good spirit, that we may be carried above all these things! and that we may remember his saying, When ye see these things come to pass, list up your heads, knowing that your redemption draws nigh. Then if these things be the certain sign of our Lord's re­turn, let us mind his command, that is, pray al­ways that ye may be counted worthy to escape all these things, and to stand before the son of man. Let us have boldness to come unto him in the new and living way, which he hath prepared for us. Through grace I find the Lord doth bear up the spirits of his in this place, in some comfortable measure, to be looking above these things, the Lord increase it more and more unto the day of his appearing, which I hope is at hand. Dear fa­ther and mother, the Lord hath been pleased to give us here many sweet and comfortable days of refreshing, which is great cause of thankfulness, and my desire is, that we may highly prise it, and you with us give the Lord the praise for this benefit. I pray remember my love to all my dear friends with you in fellowship. Sister Sanders desires to be remembered to you all: so doth sister Clarke. Your loving daughter to my power, RUTH BURDICK."

PHILIP was son to Osamaquin and succeeded him as the chief sachem on the east side of Narra­ganset [Page 418]Bay. He had this name given him by Plymouth court in 1660. Such rumours spread of his preparing for war, as brought governor Prince, and two of his assistants to Taunton, April 13, 1671, to meet three gentlemen from the Mas­sachusetts, to examine into the matter. Philip kept at a distance, and sent to them to come to him at three mile river. ^* The governor sent again for him to come to them, but he refused, till old Mr. Roger Williams and Mr. Brown, [I suppose of Swanzey] offered to remain there as hostages; by which means he was brought for­ward and prevailed with to deliver up about 70 guns he had got, and to promise future fidelity, which suspended the war four years. ^† And then it was brought on in the following manner. John Sasaman, and Indian that the English had given considerable instruction to, both as to human learning [...]d religious affairs, being with Philip at Namasket, discovered that he was preparing for war, and informed the English of it; for which he was murdered upon a pond at Assawamset, both of which places are in Middleborough. Three Indians were apprehended for that murder, and were executed at Plymouth.

Mr. John Tracy of Norwich had married Mrs. Mary Winslow from Marshfield five years before, and returning from a visit there at this time, hap­pened to fall in among a party of Indians in arms, waiting to hear whether their friends would be ex­ecuted or not. They brought him to Philip, whom he satisfied that he was only a traveller and upon [Page 419]no ill design, so that he sent him away in peace. ^* But hearing soon after that those Indians were exe­cuted, they broke out on June 24, 1675, and killed nine men in different parts of Swanzey, and fired upon one in Rehoboth; which alarmed the country, and in four days an army was collected there, and made Mr. Miles's house their head quarters. Philip soon left his station at Mount Hope, now Bristol, and retired to a great swamp east of the great river. The Massachusetts part of the army went into the Narraganset country, and brought those Indians to promise not to join in the war, and then returned, and with the other forces, attacked Philip at the swamp on July 18, but had little success therein. Soon after which, Philip and many of his men repassed the river, and crossing Seaconk plain, made his way up to the Nepmuck Indians in Worcester county, who had begun the war on July 14.

THESE alarms caused Mr. Joseph Tory and Mr. Hubbard to send a boat which brought their friends from Westerly to Newport this month, who continued on the island till the war was over. Soon after Philip had joined the Nepmucks, they violently assaulted a small English plantation at Brookfield, and at Capt. Hutchinson with a com­pany went to relieve them on August 2, they from an ambush gave him a mortal wound. But Major Willard came two days after with 48 men, and slew many of the enemy, and delivered his friends. Upon which the enemy steered further westward, and on Sept. I, burnt most of the houses in Deerfield, and killed 8 men the next day at Northfield; and Capt. Beers going with [Page 420]36 men to fetch off the inhabitants there, had a terrible fight with the enemy, wherein he and above half of his men fell. September 18, sundry teams went to bring off a large quantity of grain from Deerfield, and Capt. Lothrop went with about 80 men to guard them; but not seeing any of the enemy, they on their return, got to picking grapes by Muddy-brook, when the enemy got a dreadful advantage of them. I have seen the stone over the place where they tell me about 70 of them were buried in one grave. Presently after an assault was made upon Springfield, where the minister's house and library was burnt, with 31 houses beside. But a large body of Indians making an onset upon Hadly, Oct. 19, and hav­ing killed one man, were so bravely repulsed by the English, that in their flight some of them were drowned in Connecticut river, and others who escaped retired into Narraganset. In that country on a small tract of upland within a great swamp, seven miles west from the south ferry that goes over from Newport, the Indians built and stored the strongest fort they ever had in this country. Therefore the colonies gathered an army of a thousand men, under the command of governor Winslow, and after a fierce con [...]ct, [...]oo [...] and destroyed it on Dec. 19. They supposed that a thousand of the enemy were cut off; but it cost on our side the lives of six Captains, and 170, some said 210 men killed or wounded. They march­ed 16 or 18 miles from Major Smith's to that fight, and returned through a terrible snow-storn the same night. ^*

GREAT stores of corn were destroyed in that fort, which reduced the Indians to terrible distress. [Page 422]But a thaw in January enabled them to get some sustenance out of the earth, upon which they burnt the deserted houses in Mendon, and on Feb, 10, 1676, made and onset upon Lancaster, burnt their habitations, and killed or captivated 40 per­sons one of whom was Mrs. Rowlandson, wife to the minister, who was then gone to Boston to pro­cure help against the enemy. The narrative she gave of her captivity has lately been re-printed. Like mischiefs were done at Groton, Marlborough, Sudbury and Chelmsford; and on Feb. 21 the enemy wheeled round and came down upon Med­field, (twenty miles from Boston) and burnt half their house, and slew eighteen men, notwith­standing two or three hundred soldiers that they then had in the town, Feb. 25 they did consider­able damage in Weymouth, still nearer to Boston; and the like at Groton and Sudbury on March 10. The 12th they cut off two families in Clark's gar­rison at Plymouth; and the next day burnt al­most all Groton [in Middlesex] to the ground.

HERE I must open something that has been surprizingly concealed from this country. It has been the constant practice of all parties who are fond of an ecclesiastical establishment by human laws, to accuse the baptists of disobedience to goverment, especially in the point of a defensive war. This the reader may see inserted in a law of the Massachusetts, but three years before this war began. Mr. Callender was then a member of the baptist church in Boston, and was continued a great blessing to them for more than fifty years. The copy of Mr. Russell's narrative that I am fa­voured with came out of his family, and in it is a manuscipt note in the margin, against Mr. Rus­sell's account of Mr. Turner, which says, " In the [Page 423]beginning of the war, William Turner gathered a company of volunteers, but was denied a com­mission and discouraged, because the chief of the company were anabaptists. Afterwards when the war grew more general and distructive, and the country in very great distress, having divers towns burnt, and many men slain, then he was desired to accept a commission. He complained it was too late, his men on whom he could confide being scattered; however was moved to accept." They made him Captain, and his brother Drinker Lieu­tenant of a company that marched up with others in the beginning of this month, to relieve the western towns, under Major Savage as chief com­mander; and by them the Indians were repulsed and driven off from Northampton on March 14. The 17th they burnt all but one of the houses in Warwick, most of the inhabitants being gone to Rhode-Island. On Lord's day, March 26, Capt. Pierce being at Rehoboth, with fifty English sol­diers, and twenty friend Indians, heard of a body of the enemy up Patucket river, and wrote to Capt. Andrew Edmunds of Providence, to meet him there with his company to attack them. He sent the letter by a person who was going over to Providence meeting, but who did not deliver it till their worship was done at noon. As soon as Capt. Edmunds had read the letter, he gave the bearer a sharp reprimand, for not delivering it before, and expressed his fear of the consequence as it proved; for Capt. Pierce engaging the ene­my alone, who were also more numerous than he expected, he was surrounded and cut off; with all but 13 of his men, only one of whom was of the English; and it is said he escaped by a friend Indian's turning and runing after him with a wea­pon, [Page 424]as if he was an enemy, which others seeing did not persue him. They tell us that another of those friends escaped in this manner; being persued by an enemy, he took shelter behind a rock, where as each waited for an opportunity to shoot the other, our friend gently raising his hat above the rock upon a stick, the enemy discharg­ed his gun at it, on which the other shot him down and escaped. It is reported, that Capt. Pierce and his men slew 140 of the enemy in the conflict. The people both of Marlborough and Springfield suffered considerably the same day. March 28, forty houses were burnt in Rehoboth, and twenty-nine the next day at Providence, the people returning into garrisons.

IN the clerk's office in that town is a paper, in which Mr. Williams said. "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." To this eleven principal inhabitants subscribed, the highest whereof was two pounds six shillings, ex­cept Mr. Williams who subscribed ten pounds. Tradition says, that when the Indians appeared on the high lands north of their great cove, Mr. Williams took his staff and walked over towards them, hoping likely to pacify them as he had often done; but when some of their aged men saw him, they came out and met him, and told him that though those who had long known him would not hurt him, yet their young men were so in­raged [Page 425]that it was not safe for him to venture among them; upon which he returned to the garrison. The house where their records were kept was plundered, and they thrown into the mill-pond, but were recovered, though by that means some passages are not legible, and likely many articles were lost.

IN April Capt. George Denison of Stonington, with a number of English and Mohegan Indians, performed two great exploits. They penetrated into the Narraganset country, and slew forty-four of the enemy at one time, and sixty-six at ano­ther, without the loss of a man. Though in the mean time the Massachusetts met with a dreadful blow Capt. Wadsworth and Lieut. Bruttle­bank, with above thirty men, were cut off as they were going to relieve Sudbury, on April 18. Bridgewater, which was planted in 1652, was now assaulted by a great body of the enemy on May 8, when twelve deserted houses were burnt, but there was never one of their people killed in that war; neither can we learn that any English person who was born in that town, was ever slain by the sword for eighty years after. Major Sa­vage and most of his men returning, he left Capt. Turner to command in that quarter. Hereupon the enemy, thinking themselves more out of dan­ger, resorted seven or eight hundred of them to to the great falls above Deerfield, on the fishing design. Two captive lads made their escape, and gave information of their secure state, whereupon Capt. Turner and young Capt. Holioke of Spring-field, collected what force they could on a sudden, being not much more than a hundred and fifty men, and went up silently in the night, tied their horses at some distance, and a little before day [Page 426]break, May 13, 1676, came unawares upon the enemy, "fired amain into their very wigwams, killing many upon the place, and frighting others with the sudden alarm of their guns, made them run into the river, where the swiftness of the stream carrying them down a steep fall, they perished in the waters; some getting into canoes, sank or overset by the shooting of our men; others creeping for shelter, under the banks of the great river, were espied by our men and killed with their swords.—Some of their prisoners after­wards owned that they lost above three hundred, some whereof were principal men, sachems and some of their best fighting men that were left.—Nor did they seem ever to have recovered themselves after this defeat, but their ruin immediately fol­lowed upon it" When our people first fired upon them they cried out, Mohawks! but in the morn­ing discovering their mistake, they rallied their scattered men, and Capt. Turner being unwell, and so "not able for want of bodily strength (no ways defective for want of skill or courage) to assist or direct in making a retreat; some of the enemy fell upon the guards that kept the horses, others persued them in the rear, so as our men sustained pretty much damage as they retired, missing after their return thirty-eight of their men." One of whom was Capt. Turner, who was afterwards found and buried. ^* Dr. Stephen Williams says, "There were many remarkables in this affair (as related by Jonathan Wells, Esq; who was present) which are taken notice of by Mr. Hubbard, or Dr. Mather." ^† Mr. Hubbard's account was examined and approved by three [Page 427]gentlemen of the council, and so was published by authority. All the rest of the baptists who were in that action, but their Captain were preserved and returned. And as they again meet with cru­el treatment four years after, both from rulers and ministers, and the old charge of denying magis­tracy was revived, they said in answer thereto.

1st. "IT is directly against our principles, and con­trary to what we asserted in a confession of our faith, that we gave into the court, as also to that confession of our faith lately set forth by our bre­thren in Old-England, which confession we own in every particular. ^* 2. Our continual prayer to God for them, according to 1 Tim. ii. 1, 2, will witness against this charge. 3. Our constant sub­jection and obedience to their laws, both actively, as far as we can with a good conscience, and where we could not actively, there have we been passively obedient; in suffering what they inflicted on us, without seeking any revenge in the least. 4. In paying all due demands whatsoever; not being desirous to withhold from Caesar at any time, any of his dues. In a word, both our per­sons and estates are always ready at command to be serviceable in the defence of the country; yea and have been voluntarily offered on the high places of the field, in the time of the country's greatest extremity.—Among whom was William Turner, whom they pleased to make Captain of that company, who had been one of the greatest sufferers among us, for the profession of religion. He was a very worthy man for soldiery; and Ed­ward Drinker, who had been another sufferer, whom they pleased to make Lieutenant; and by [Page 428]the presence of the Lord with them, they were made instruments of the preservation of one town from the rage of the heathen, who violently broke into it, but they being there beat them out. And after that by Capt. Turner, who was then com­mander in chief, as an instrument in the hand of the Lord, was the greatest blow struck to the Indians of any they had received; for after this they were broken and scattered, so that they were overcome and sudd [...]ed with ease. Here it is to be observed that those who had suffered so much from the country, and scandalized as enemies to the country, and their privileges, freely offering themselves in their service have been (through the Lord's presence with them) some of the principal instruments to subdue the barbarous heathen, and to deliver the country from its greatest distress; which may stand as a witness of our fidelity to the government to the world's end. We have been vilified and greatly reproached, and are at this day, it being without any just reason laid to us, that we are one chief cause of all the judgments of God on the land. We do not excuse ourselves, as not having a share or part in many of the sins that have provoked the Lord against poor New-England; neither have we been freed from having part with others in the general calamities that God hath brought on this poor place. Yet it is ob­servable bow graciously the Lord hath dealt with us; that in the time of great mortallity by the small-pox, when so many hundreds died, though many of us were visited with that visitation, yet not one of our society was removed by it; but it was not for any thing in us, that the Lord spared us, but for his names sake, that the mouth of our [Page 429]adversaries might be silent." ^* But in answer to this Mr. Willard said,

"THE German anabaptists were enemies to civil government, we hope these (though they have shown too much contempt of authority) are not so far gone. But for his so gloriously em­blazoning their service in the late wars, it is nei­ther to the purpose, nor of much moment. That they did join against the common enemy is true. Swanzey (a place chiefly consisting of anabaptists, and where they had a church) was the place where the enemy made the first onset.—Besides, any man would fight, rather than have his throat cut; it was not for religion, nor civil government, but for lives and estates.—Nor did the Indians re­ceive the greatest blow at that time; nor it is the anabaptists true, but vain glory, to set such an encomium upon their own deeds.—We have dis­missed the charge, now comes a strong argument of their orthodoxy, a witness from Heaven, viz. their happy preservation in the time of the small­pox. Let it be remembered, that one of their perswation died of it at Woborn, (where John Russell lived, and should have observed it) and many of their children. But be it so; their so­ciety is small, and scattered from Dan to Beersheba. And who knows, but God might spare them in judgment, to harden them? These are too high things for us; only when God comes to chasten his people, those that are not chastened, may ask whether they are not bastards?" He had before said, "As the honored magistrates here are christians, so have they judged it their duty to maintain the ways of Christ, and strengthen them by civil laws, which hath not only been the prac­tice [Page 430]of reformers of old, but the constant judge­ment of the church of Christ ever since the apostles.—On this principal our worthy rulers have made laws against many sects and intruders, and among the rest the anabaptists. That in quelling the anabaptists they do not oppose the truth, but suppress error, they are fully perswaded; and although they never pretended to a lordship over men's consciences, yet they account the out­ward man is subject to them: and if they must tarry till all men are agreed about what is truth, before we oppose error, we shall stay till there is no need of it." ^*

ACCORDING to this, we are not to imagine that those ministers ever intended to lord it over Thomas Gould's conscience, when they censured him for not standing up, and looking on when they sprinkled infants in the sacred name. He might have thought what he pleased of it inwardly, if he would but have honored them before the people; ^† and though for refusing so to do, they excluded him from the ordinance of the supper for seven years, and then for taking another method to en­joy it, they moved the rulers to di [...]franchize, fine, imprison and banish him, yet all this was for error in his outward man, not in his conscience! neither must it be supposed, that vain glory had any influ­ence in the emblazoning of things on their side; for all these things were done by orthodox mini­sters, and christian rulers. But let the anabap­tists offer themselves ever so willingly, and at a time when the main of the enemy were remote from their churches, both of Boston and Swanzey; and let them do ever so great public service, yet it must not be thought that they were moved [Page 431]thereto, either by religion or loyalty. No, all proceeded either from love to the world, or else fear of having their throats cut by the Indians in Boston, if they had not gone a hundred miles into the country to meet them! Which is spoken, not in contempt to any man's person, but to expose and detect that self-flatiery which so often deceives mankind. The above is all the mention I ever saw, in any publication from that party, that shews the chief commander in the fall-fight to have been a baptist. Most of their histories of that war mention his name, but not a word of his be­ing the man who had before suffered in the bap­tists cause. And lest it should detect the slanders they still were casting upon our denomination, they having gained his son to their party, intirely concealed this fact from his numerous posterity. For though his grandson, Capt. William Turner of Swanzey embraced our principals, which he con­tinued in after he removed to Newport, where he died in 1759, bequeathing, among other legacies in his will, his lands in Fall-town, adjoining to the place where his grandfather was slain; yet in June 1774, I was conversing with one of his daughters, together with her son, William Tur­ner Millar, Esq; both members of the baptist church in Warren, and they told me, they had often heard of their ancestors exploits and death in Philip's war, but never a word before of his being a baptist, or of his sufferings in that cause. Neither have any of their historians ever ventured to publish a particular account of the baptist suf­ferings, as they have of the Quakers. For which I can give no better reason than, because they could find incroachments upon their rights in the batter to found a plea upon, which they could not [Page 432]in the former. And the author of the Magnalia plainly exprest his unwillingness, that the records thereof should be kept any where.

CAPTAIN Benjamin Church of Duxbury near Plymouth, who had made some beginning at Sokonet, now Little-Compton, east of Rhode-Island, the year before the war, carried his family on that Island after it began, as a place in his opi­nion of greater safety than Duxbury or Plymouth; and he was an active and successful commander through the war. As he knew that Philip had forced the Sokonet Indians into the war, contra­ry to the minds of the leading part of them, he against his friends advice, went over in a canoe, and adventered himself among them in June this year, and gained them over to our side, by whose help he took great numbers of the enemy from day to day, who had now lost all their courage. At length returning to visit his wife, whose anxious mind fainted to see him again well; he was im­mediately informed by Major Sanford and Capt. Golding, that one of Philip's men had fled from him (then at the foot of Mount-Hope) and was come over to the Island. Hereupon they all put spurs to their horses, and having heard the Indian's account, crossed the ferry in the night with a few men, and after Capt. Church had stationed his ambush, of the Rhode-Island gentlemen, beat up Philip's head-quarters, upon which he set out to flee through a little swamp, but after an Eng­lish man had snapt his gun at him without effect, Alderman, an Indian, fired a bullet through his heart on August 12, 1676, a little before the break of day; after which the war was soon brought to a close.

THIS summary of that bloody war I have care­fully [Page 433]collected from a gret variety of histories and accounts. And upon the whole, it was said, that in this war were slain, twelve Captians and about six hundred men. That about one thou­sand, two hundred houses were burnt, eight thou­sand head of cattle, and many thousand bushels of grain destroyed; and also three thousand Indians. The loss to the English colonies, was computed at £ 150,000 sterling, and Capt. Tom, with ano­ther chief of the christian Indians at Natick, were taken and hanged at Boston, for being active in­struments of those mischiefs. ^* Though many others were faithful. Of those twelve Captains, Gallop, Seily and Marshall, (who were slain at the Narraganset fort) were of Connecticut; Hutch­inson, Beers, Lothrop, Devenport, Gardner, Johnson, Wadsworth and Turner, were of the Massachusetts, and Peirce was of Scituate in Ply­mouth colony; from whence one baptist elder of that name, and many members of the baptist churches of Swanzey, Rehoboth and other places have sprung.

ON November 29, this year Mr. Samuel Hub­bard wrote to Mr. Edward Stennett, in England. ^† and after what is recited in the beginning of this Chapter, he further said of the Indians, "They have done much harm in our bordering towns, as Warwick, destroyed by fires; only most of the people are here and their goods, and some of their cattle; and the like at Pawtuxet and Provi­dence, though not altogether desstroyed, for a garrison remaineth there to this day. And for the other side over against us on the main, which [Page 434]once was ours, and is I judge by charter, many are killed by the Indians, the rest came to us with what they could bring. Connecticut army, Plymouth and Bay armies being there, wasted very much; when they left it, the Indians burnt near all that was left. In Plymouth the wars be­gan, and are sore wasted; the Bay lost very many men. Connecticut did most service, and I have not heard of one town destroyed or fired in that colony. In the beginning of these troubles of the wars, Lieutenant Joseph Tory, elder of Mr. Clarke's church, having but one daughter living at Squamicot [Westerly] and his wife being there, he said unto me, come let us send a boat to Squa­micot, my all is there and part of yours. We sent a boat so as his wife, his daughter, and son-in-law, and all their children, and my two daughters and their children (one had eight, the other three, with an apprentice boy) all came, and brother John Crandal and his family, with as many others as could possibly come. My son Clarke came afterwards before winter, and my other daughter's husband came in the spring, and they all have been at my house to this day. Now dear brother, although we are not destroyed by the Indians, God hath visited this land by taking away many by death; and in this place, of all sorts. Of the old church first Mr. Joseph Tory, then my dear brother John Crandal, then Mr. John Clarke, then William Weeden, a deacon, then John Salmon: a sad stroke in very deed: young men and maids to this day, I never knew or heard the like in New-England. Last week four or five were buried in this town—Brother Turner went to war, and God prospered him for a time, but he is now kill­ed by the Indians; the rest are well and enjoy [Page 435]their liberty. Mr. Miles that was at Swanzey, is now with them. Brother William Gibson, who came from Old-England with brother Mumford, is now gone to New-London to visit our brethren there." Mr. Mumford had been over to London, and he with Mr. Gibson returned to Boston, in October 1675; who afterward succeeded elder Hiscox in the pastoral office at Newport.

THE above account of the preservation of Con­necticut, as well as the other articles expressed are just, as far as I can learn. The Mohegan Indians, under Uncas, did the English great service in that war. I have seen scarce any account of any other damages in Swanzey and Rehoboth, beside what have been recited, except the Indians killing Capt. Willet's son near the garrison in Swanzey this year. Middleborough and Dartmouth were but just be­gun before the war, and when it came on, the English and part of the Indians therein, removed to Plymouth and other places of greater safety; and the large body of natives near to and upon Cape-Cod, continued in amity with the English, as those on the Islands south of it also did; and of the latter I have met with the following entertaining account.

THOMAS MAYHEW, Esq; obtained agrant of Martha's-Vineyard, with the islands adjacent, and began a settlement at Edgarton on the east part of the Vineyard, in 1642, where he was their chief ruler, and his son their minister In 1646, the son began to preach to the Indians with success; to promote which cause his father told them, "That by order from the crown of England, he was to govern the English who should inhabit those Islands; that his royal master was in power far above any of the Indian monarchs; but that as he was great and powerful, so he was a lover of [Page 436]justice; and that therefore he would in no mea­sure invade their jurisdictions, but on the contrary assist them if need required; that religion and government were distinct things, and their sachems might retain their just authority, though their subjects were christians." And he practised ac­cording to his profession; "for he would not suffer any to injure them, either in their goods, lands or persons. They always found a father and pro­tector in him; and he was so far from introduce­ing any form of government among them against their wills, that he first convinced them of the ad­vantage of it, and even brought them to desire him to introduce and settle it." This wise conduct and the gospel means that were used with them, produced such happy effects, that a christian church was formed and organized among them five years before this war. And now in the time of it, the government furnished those christian Indians with arms and ammunition, and employed them to defend the Islands against the enemy. "And so faithful were they, that they not only resolutely rejected the strong sollicitations of the natives on the neigh­bouring Main, but, in observance of the gerneral orders given them, when any landed to sollicit them though some were nearly related by mar­raige and others by blood, yet the Island Indians would immediately bring them before the gover­nor to attend his pleasure." By the divine bless­ing on these means, though the Indians there were twenty to one of the English, yet through this ex­tensive and bloody war, "These Islands enjoyed a perfect calm of peace; and the people wrought and dwell secure and quiet." ^*

NINEGRET and his Nyantick subjects, who dwelt from Point Judith up to Westerly, on the shore south of the Narragansets, did not join in that war; and a considerable number of their descen­dants [Page 438]now live there in Charlestown; and in 1741 a great reformation took place among them; a baptist church was formed there some years after over whom James Simons was ordained; and [Page 439]since that Samuel Niles, both of their own nation; and a considerable number of them have given lasting evidence of their being pious christians.

It may be proper to take some particular notice here of Mr. Clarke, who left as spotless a character as any man I knew of, that ever acted in any pub­lic station in this coutry. ^* The Massachusett [Page 440]writers have been so watchful and careful, to pub­lish whatever they could find, which might seem to countenance the severities, they used towards dissenters from their way, that I expected to find some thing of that nature against Mr. Clarke; but have happily been disappointed. Though he was disarmed by them, in 1637, and imprisoned and fined at Boston, in 1651, and he exposed their in­justice and cruelty, to him and his berthren, in print the next year, and continued in England, to oppose and defeat all their attempts at the court there against his colony, till he obtained their present charter; yet among all their authors or records, that I have searched, I have not met with a single reflection cast upon him by any one; which I think is very extraordinary. There was doubtless enough said against him, for his princi­ples of believers baptism, and liberty of conscience, to secure him from the wo, of being spoken well of by all men; yet, like Daniel, it seems as if his enemies could find no fault in him in matter of the kingdom, but only concerning the law of his God.

FEW men ever merited the title of a Patriot more than he did; for he was a principal pro­curer of Rhode-Island, for sufferers and exiles. And when their rights and liberties were grossly invaded, he crossed the boistrous ocean, and ex­erted all his influence, in twelve years watchful and diligent labours, for his colony at the British court, till he obtained a new charter for them, of great and distinguishing privileges; for the ac­complishment of which, he mortgaged his own estate in Newport, willing to venture his all, in so good a cause, though he was not insensable of the coveteousness and ingratitude of some great pre­tenders [Page 441]to liberty in that colony; whose influence had caused a great deal of trouble and expence to Mr. Williams, without any suitable recompence. ^* The inventions of men are scarce ever more fruit­ful, [Page 442]than in finding out ways to get money, and excuses to keep it; but how few have parted with it for public good, so freely as Mr. Williams and Mr. Clarke did?

AFTER Mr. Clarke's return, he was improved in various public offices; was elected deputy go­vernor three years successively, in two of which he accepted the office; but all the concern of the state did not prevail with him, as it has done with many, to neglect the affairs of religion. His church records and other writings prove, the continuance of his pastoral relation to the first church in Newport, and his care and labours to uphold gospel worship, and discipline therein. And the instrument by which he settled his last con­cerns in this world, shews what his faith and hope were, as to that which is to come; for therein he says, "Whereas I John Clarke of Newport, in the colony of Rhode-Island, and Providence plantations in New-England, physician, am at this present, through the abundant goodness and mercy of my God, though weak in my body, yet sound in my memory and understanding, and being sensible of the inconveniences that may ensue in case I should not set my house in order, before this spirit of mine be called by the Lord to remove out of this tabernacle, do therefore make and declare this my last will and testament, in manner following; willing and readily resigning up my soul unto my merciful Redeemer, through faith in whose death I firmly hope and believe, to escape from that second hurting death, and through his resurrection and life, to be glorified with him in life eternal. And my spirit being returned out of this frail body, in which it hath conversed for about sixty-six years my will is, that it be decent­ly [Page 443]intered, without any vain ostentation, between my loving wives Elizabeth and Jane, already de­ceased, in hopeful expectation, that the same Re­deemer who hath laid down a price both for my soul and body, will raise it up at the last day a spiritual one, that they may together be singing hallelujah unto him to all eternity." ^* Oh! what [Page 444]miserable things are all earthly pleasures or glories, when compared with such a life, and such a death! Mark the perfect man, and behold the upright; for the end of that man is peace.

IT has often been observed, that when one heavy affliction comes upon a person or people, others soon follow; which observation was re­markaly verefied this year. For beside those al­ready named, Mr. Mark Luker, an ancient mem­ber, and a ruling elder of Mr. Clarke's church, died the December after him, leaving the character of a very worthy walker.

ABOUT the begining of 1677, came out Mr. Williams's account of his dispute with the Quakers, upon which M. Cordington wrote over to his friend Fox and said, "Here is a lying scandalous book of Roger Williams of Providence, printed at Cambridge in New-England—I have known him about fifty years a meer weathercock, con­stant only inconstancy: poor man! that doth not know what should become of his soul, if this night it should be taken from him. He was for the priests, and took up their principles to fight against the truth, and to gratify them and bad magistrates, that licked up his vomit, and wrote the said scurrilous book; and so hath transgressed for a piece of bread. And so are all joined with the red dragon to pour out their flood against the man-child. Into their secrets let not my soul come; my honor be not thou united. Dear G. F. I may yet more prove what I have said. One while he is a separatest at New-Plymouth, joining with them till they are weary of him (as from Morton's memo­rial in print doth appear;) another time you may have him a teacher or a member of the church at Salem. O! then a great deal of devotion is pleaded in women wearing of vails in their assem­blies, as if the power of godliness was in it; and to have the cross out of the colours; and then to be against the King's patent and authority, and writeth a large book in quarto against it. And another time he is hired for money, and gets a pa­tent from the long parliament, so that it is not long, but he is off and on it again. One time for mens wearing caps, and not hats for covering their faces; and again, hats and no caps; one time for water baptism, men and women must be plunged into the water; and then throw it all down again [Page 446]so that Cotton (who in his day did know the pow­er of God to salvation) said of him, that he was a h [...]rberdasher of small questions against the power. So they ought to have fe [...]ed God and the King, that is to punish evil-doers; and therefore not to meddle to their hurt, with him that is given to change." And goes on to say he was credibly in­formed that governor Leveret said he would give 20 l. and governor Winslow 5 l. rather than that book should not be printed. Scott's letter which is mentioned in p. 108, was also wrote on this oc­casion, wherein after accusing Mr. Williams of acting contrary to his own principle of liberty of conscience, he says, "Witness his presenting of it to the court at Newport; and when this would not take effect, afterwards when the commissioners were two of them at Providence, being in the house of Thomas Olney; senior, Roger Williams propounded this question to them; we have a people here among us, who will not act in our government with us, what course shall we take with them? George Cartwright, one of the com­missioners, asked him what manner of persons they were? do they live quietly and peaceably amongst you? This they could not deny; then he made this answer, if they can govern themselves, they have no need of your government; at which they were silent. This was told again by a women of the the house where the speech was spoken, to ano­ther women, whom the complaint with the rest was made against, who related it to me; but they are both dead, and cannot bear witness with me to what was spoken there." ^*

THESE letters being sent over with the book to Fox, he with John Burnyeat published them, with [Page 447]an answer to Williams, in 1678, which they in­titled, A New-England firebrand quenched. Fox's former book in folio Williams says was wrote against about six score authors and papers, to which Edward Burroughs wrote a preface; and some things that they said in the dispute, turned his thoughts so, as from those names he called his work, George Fox digged out of his Burroughs. Such titles were more common in that day than ours, but I have nothing to say to justify them, nor a great deal of the language that was used on both sides. What I am concerned with is fact and not dialect. As Mr. Williams had occasion to vindicate many things in the writings of Mr. Richard Baxter, Dr. John Owen, and others that Fox had written against, whom Williams call pious and learned men; he prefixed a particular address to them, in which he says, "As to matters in difference between your selves and me, I have willingly omitted them as knowing that many able and honest seamen in their observations of the sun (one picture of Christ Jesus) differ sometimes in their reckings, though uprightly aiming at, and bound for one port and harbour, I humbly beg of you, 1. That you will more and more earnestly, candidly and christianly study the things that differ without reflecting up­on credit, maintenance, liberty, and life itself re­membering who it was that said, He that loves his life shall lose it. 2. More and more study the pro­phesies and the signs of the times: you know when it was that sive bishops, twenty-two ministers, and almost three hundred other precious believers in the true Lord Jesus, were sacrificed in the flames, for his ever blessed sake, against that mon­strous man of sin and bloody whore of Rome. These Foxians fancy is but a feather to those high [Page 448]Pico [...]s and Tenariffs, the Pope and Mahomet; whom some of you may live to see flung into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." To this they answer and say,

"HERE you may see, though there is, and hath been great difference betwixt R. W. R. B. and J. O. yet all these have written against God's peo­ple, that are in the truth.—But it is well if they come to repentance for what they have done, for imprisoning and persecuting us, when they had both the sword and the bag. And so R. W. and the rest of the New-England priests, have been one with them in the spirit of envy and malice against the people of God, like the wily foxes, whose blood lyeth at all your doors.—All may see what a devilish and unchristian mind is in this R. W. whose desires are to. R. B. And J. O. that they may see Mahomet, and the Turk, and the whore of Rome, and us (that he joins with them) flung into the lake of fire." ^* And in answer to his attempt to prove that pride about spiritual matters was the root and branch of their religion they say, "Roger, this is their condition, and the New England priests and professors. Oh! that your eyes were open that you might see it! and so what thou measurest to others, it will be measured to thee again, pressed down and running over; and the god of the world will fail thee in thy proofs, and hath failed thee; as he did thy mother Eve, and thy father Adam. ^† For this is the mouth of the pit, that thou speakest of, and Lucifers boast in thee against the children of the Lord, that are daily in jeopardy of their lives, and some of them have lost their lives amongst you in New-England, in obedience to the command of Christ their saviour. And we [Page 449]know, they hated Christ our Lord and Master without a cause, and so you do as. But R. W. may say, he doth not persecute with his hands, but let him read p. 200 of his book, wherein he declares himself, that a due and moderate restraint he would have inflicted upon us, yea, through pre­tending conscience; and he would not have this called persecution. But would R. W. be so served himself? No; but now he lives in a peaceable government, where he cannot exercise his cruelty, and he hath not the sword in his hand, but is in a restless spirit, who grudgeth at the liberty of others, and cannot be content with his own." Again they mention his plea for liberty against the bloody tenet in 1652, and says, "But R. W. is fallen from that plea, who now desireth the ma­gistrates to persecute us, &c. and it must not be called persecution neither, as in p. 200; and many things we would bring out of his former books, which would render him very uncertain; but we shall forbear at the present, and leave him to the Lord, for his books declare themselves, what he said then, and what he saith now; but the reader may see how R. W. hath invented and forged many words against us, the people of God in scorn called Quakers, which we never spoke nor wrote." ^*

THEY refer to that page, from one end to the other if their book, to prove him a persecutor; and when the Magnalia came out in 1702, John Whiting wrote and answer the next year, wherein he said of the author, "He compares Roger Williams to a wind-mill, that by his rapid motion was like to set the whole country on fire—yet [Page 450]commends him, though such a wind-mill, for his opposition against the Quakers—but that haber­dasher of small questions against the power of godli­ness, as their great Cotton called him, was answered by George Fox and John Burnyeat, in another book intitled, A New-England fire-brand quenched." ^* Joseph Grove published his abridgment of bishop with notes, the same year. And against where bishop had mentioned Mr. Norton, Grove says, "This is that priest Norton, whom Cotton Mather, in his late history of New-England, so much com­m [...]nds, and with his brother in iniquity, John Wilson, ranks with John Cotton, a man of a better spirit in his day." ^†

THUS both parties could extol Mr. Cotton, while they vented their resentment against Mr. Williams at a high rate; and by these means, and by some connection with the Coddington family, Mr. Cal­lender in his century sermon scrupled to own him for a baptist, and in the dedication of it, set Mr. Coddington up as the main founder and supporter of that colony. Though by his papers, I find he was afterwards convinced of his error herein; and let us now examine the evidences refered to, to prove those dreadful charges again? Mr. Williams.

1. MORTON does not represent that the people were weary of him at Plymouth, but that they were backward to grant his request of a dismission to Salem, though their elder prevailed with them to do it; and governor Bradford blessed God for the good effects of his ministry many years after he was banished, p. 54. 2. Like those he calls New-England priests, Coddington tries to draw womens vails, and mens hats and caps over people's eyes, [Page 451]to prevent a just view of those affairs; Mr. Hub­bard speaks of those vails, as the first article in his account of the causes of Mr. Williams's banishment, though he is so honest as to let us know, that it was Mr. Skelton who introduced the custom at Salem, which Mr. Williams only concurred with; and governor Hutchinson shews, that Mr. Cotton had spoken in saver of that mode of dress it. Eng­land; but now he went to Salem, and preached the people out of conceit of it. And among all Mr. Williams's numerous writings, I have not met with any thing about it; no, nor about his hat or cap though in the Massachusett records, I find that the year before they banished him, when Codding­ton was both a magistrate and their treasurer, they made a law against superfluous and expensive fashions, wherein they prohibited the making or wearing of beaver hats upon penalty of forfeiting of them if they did. 3. As to the cross in the military co­lours, which Hutchinson also names as a sufficient ground for the authority to take hold of Mr. Williams, it is certain from Winthrop Hubbard, and the colony records, that the assembly took hold of Endicot and not Williams for that act, and put him out of all office for one year therefor; and the Magnalia assures us, that the scruple about that Popish sign prevailed in their colony, after Mr. Williams was gone out of it. ^* 4. Upon the affairs of the patent, Coddington artfully slips in the word authority, willing with his friend Cotton, to have Williams appear as a rebel against the king. We learn from governor Winthrop, that Mr. Williams first wrote upon that subject at Plymouth, and after he came to Salem, the court called for a copy of it, which he granted them, and then near [Page 452]the close of 1633, they had him before them; but he gave them such satisfaction about it, that they disimissed him; yet they afterward brought in and re-examined that matter, as one cause of his banish­ment. ^* 5. By the foregoing history, the reader may see with what grace the Quakers could ac­cuse Mr. Williams, of being mercinary or hired for money, in procuring their first charter. And I find that when he was setting off upon his second agency, to get Mr. Coddington's commission re­voked, he, on Sept. 3, 1651, sold his trading house and interest in Narragganset, for 50 l. to Mr. Rich­ard Smith. ^† His great crime therefore, was his advancing such questions as he did, against the pow­er; which in plain terms, was a power to frame to themselves a gospel and a Christ without the cross. A power to suspend obedience to what they looked upon to be truth in England, and to compel others to their judgments, when they had got out of the prelates reach. Yea, a power to confirm and sup­port such corruptions by oaths, both there and here. p. 71.

MR. Williams says, "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, 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." ^‡ And in the face of all their re­proaches, I am bold in it, that I know not of one. [Page 452]Pedobaptist or Quaker, that came to this country in that age, who acted so consistantly and steadi­ly upon right principles about government and liberty, as Mr. Williams did; neither do I think that they had, or have any cause to glory over him as to religion. Though Mr. Cotton repre­sented it as a meer pretence for him to tell of church government, when he did not join fully with any church that was then extant, yet he replies and says, "The institution of any government and or­der is one thing, and the administration and execu­tion, which may be interrupted and eclipsed, in ano­ther Jeremiah could not rightly have been judg­ed a pretender, when he mourned for, and la­mented the desolations of the temple, priests, el­ders, altar and sacrifices; and neither he nor Daniel, nor any of God's servants, could, during the desolation and captivity, acknowledge either temple, altar of sacrifice aright, extant upon the face of the earth,—Although the discussor be not satisfied in the period of the times and the manner of Christ's glorious appearing, yet his soul uprightly desires to see and adore, and to be thankful to master Cotton, yea to the least of the disciples of Christ, for any coal or spark of true light, among so many false and pretended candles and candle sticks." ^* Now as no man was permitted by Ezra, to officiate as a priest at God's altar, but those who would find their register of a lawful descent from Aaron, and the church had been through a more terrible captivity in mystical Babylon, between the apostolic age and that we are upon, than the Jews had in Chaldea; how could a man, so honest as Mr. Williams was, receive any man to administer the ordinance of the supper to him, who could not [Page 453]produce a register of his succession from the apo­stles? p. 110. I know of no other consistant way, to get over this difficulty but this; that as the lawful seed of Aaron were to govern in the Jewish church, so are the spiritual seed of Christ to go­vern in his church, into which none ought to be admitted, without gospel evidence of their being such; and it seems that Mr. Williams had not at­tained to a clear settlement in this point. But in my opinion his greatest mistake, when he first came to this country was, his blending the duties of natural and revealed religion too much toge­ther. The light of nature teaches the importance of seeking to God for what we need, and of praising him for what we receive; which duties ought to be inculcated upon all men, as much as love to God or our neighbours; while the revealed in­stitutions of baptism and the supper, are tokens of fellowship with Christ, and therefore cannot be our duty to perform before we are united to him. Pasalms, 107, Acts 17, 27. Rom. 1, 20, 21. and 6.3—5. [...] Cor. 10, 16. But for a while, Mr. Williams seemed to limit these two kinds of duties alike to the regenerate. It is also well known, that the divine ruler is perfect, but that the best of men in this state are imperfect, and how far we are to exercise forbearance, and how not, has not been an easy [...]stion to the most enlightned saints; yet Mr. Williams's grand crime in the view of both of these parties, was because he would not yield to their power in this matter. And the pas­sage the Quakers so often appealed to, as an evi­dence of his being a bloody persecutor, is as follows.

AN author had said, the Quakers spirit doth teach them to honor no man, Upon which Fox said, [Page 455]"That is a lie; for it teacheth them to have all men in esteem and to honor all men in the Lord; yet they are convinced by the law as transgressors if they respect mens persons as you do. In reply to which Mr. W. says, "All men may see how truly they honor all in the Lord, and what Lord they mean, when his first word to his opposite is that most provoking term, that is a lie. It is true that Christ Jesus and his servants, used sharp re­proofs, similitudes, &c. but thus suddenly at the first dash to give fire, thou lyest, that is a lie, &c. Shews neither religion nor civility, but a barbarous spirit, for they that know the barbarians, know how common that word is in all their mouth's— The most Holy and only Wise knows how proud­ly and simply, and barbarously they have run into uncivil and inhuman behaviour towards all their superiors, the eldest and highest, how they have declared by principle and practice, that there are no men to be respected in the world but them­selves, as being God's and Christ's. It is true our English bibles and grammar (as Fox in his great learning often objects) makes thou to a single per­son, and thou in holy scripture is used in a grave and respective way unto superiors, unto kings and patents, and God himself. But 1. the Hebrew and Greek signify no more thou than you, and so may be truly turned. 2. Every nation, every shire, every calling have their particular properties or idioms of speech, which are improper and ridi­culuos with others. Hence these simple reformers are extreamly ridiculous in giving thou and thee to every body, which our nation commonly gives to familiars only; and they are insufferably proud and contemptuous unto all their superiors in using thou to every body, which our English idiom of [Page 456]propriety of speech, useth in a way of familiarity, or anger, scorn and contempt. I have therefore publicly declared myself, that a due and moderate restraint, and punishing of these incivilities (though pretending conscience) is so far from persecution, (properly so called) that it is a duty and command of God unto all mankind, first in families, and thence into all human societies." ^*

THIS is all the passage in his whole book that speaks in favour of punishing Quakers; and com­pared with the instance of Norton's incivilities to governor Prince and others, and observing that the emphesies lies upon their manner of using those words, the reader will judge, whether a moderate punishing of the same, is any ways inconsistant with Mr. William's plea for liberty against Mr. Cotton. And as to his practice, we learn expreslly that the instance Scott refers to at Newport, was that of Harris's at the election, in 1655. And though he and Mr. Coddington submitted to Mr. William's government the next year, (a few months before the Quakers arrived) yet after that they and others became so spiritual as to refuse to act therein. This is seems caused Mr. Williams to ask Mr. Cart­wright what they should do with them, which in their view was another proof of his persecuting disposition. In 1665 their assembly framed an en­gagment to the government, which they hoped those men would have taken, and so have come in to act with them again; but in March 1666 they pleaded that they could not in conscience do it, and prevailed with the assembly to make a law, to allow those who pleaded, that they could not in conscience take either that engagment, nor the oath of alliegence in England, to make their sub­mission [Page 457]to the government, either before the court or before two magistrates, in their own words, in­stead of any that others could frame for them. And no sooner was this point gained, than at the election in May ensuing, they got in a Quaker deputy governor, and three magistrates; two of the latter being Coddington and Harris. Har­ris was in the same office in 1667, when on July 2, he procured an extraordinary meeting of the assembly, to try Mr. Fenner, (another magistrate) for a rout which Harris charged him with making in Providence on June 3. But the assembly ac­quited Fenner, and fined Harris 50 l. and put him out of office, choosing Stephen Arnold in his stead. The next fall lie was fined 10 s. for breach of peace, and bound to his good behaviour. Yet he had influence enough in May 1668, to get again into the magistracy, and in the fall to have his 50 l. remitted. He was likewise in the same office in 1669; and as Connecticut then revived their claim to the Narraganset country, he eagerly turned to assist them, hoping doubtless, to share largely therein, if they prevailed.

IT seems that the agents who procured their charters, agreed that some persons living near Mr. Smith's trading house in Narraganset, should have liberty to choose which government they would be under; therefore from thence, and from the words of Connecticut charter, they set out afresh to grasp all that country to themselves. And for that end would come over from Stonington and knock Westerly people down, and carry them off to goal, and persisted long in those encroachments against the remonstrances of the authority of Rhode-Island colony; one of which they sent by Mr. John Crandal to Hartford, in May 1671. [Page 458]The assembly at the same time made choice of Mr. Clarke as their agent, to go again to England upon the affair; though after repeated applications to Connecticut court, such a prospect appeared of having the matter settled by treaty, that they re­voked that appointment the next year. But Harris, finding that the King's words in their charter had most explicitly fixed Paucatuck river as the bounds betwixt the two colonies, openly attacked the validity of the charter, because there­in the King had granted full religious liberty, not­withstanding the penal laws in England: Upon which Harris declared, "That the King cannot dispence with the penal laws on the consciences of his subjects, Papists or Protestants, at home or abroad." Their rulers then were Benedict Arnold, governor John Clarke, deputy governor, John Cranston, John Coggshall, James Barker, William Carpenter, Thomas Harris, Roger Williams, William Baul­ [...]ton, John Albro, John Green, Benjamin Smith, assistants; John Sanford recorder, James Rogers, general Serjeant, and Joseph Tory, attorney gene­ral. And they committed Harris to prison for denying the King's authority and prerogative. And when the assembly met at Newport, April 2, 1672, he presented a petition to them by the hand of a Quaker, but, because not directed in those words which his majesty, in his gracious charter hath pleased to give the title unto the corpora­tion," the assembly voted not to take cognizance of it. ^* At their election the next month they chose the first Quaker governor they ever had in that colony; and Mr. Williams says, the Quakers prevailing, Harris, by their means gets loose. ^† These facts I have carefully collected from their colony [Page 459]records, compared with Mr. Williams's account; to which they return no better answer than to say, "It is like he doth belie W. H. as he hath done us; and, for thy story and anger against William Harris, he is of age and able enough to speak for himself." ^*

FOX and other noted teachers of theirs were now come over, and gained many proselytes; upon which Mr. Williams went to a general meet­ing they had at Newport, and began to present to them some considerations concerning the true Christ and the false, the true spirit and the false, but says I was cut off in the midst, by the sudden prayer of one, and singing of another, &c. which is afterward explained thus, viz. "I was stopt by the sudden praying of the governor's wife, who also told me of her asking her husband at home, (meaning Christ which I had toucht upon) I rose and said, if a man had so alledged, I would have answered him; but I would not countenance the violation of God's order so much in making a re­ply to a woman in public. Hereupon J. Nicols stood up and said, in Christ Jesus neither male nor female. I was replying to him and to J. Burnyeats speech concerning their spirit, but was stopt by Burnyeats sudden falling into prayer, and dismis­ing the assembly. I resolved, with God's help, to be patient and civil, and so ceased, not seeing a willingness in them for me to proceed; which ex­perience, made me not trouble G. Fox and the assembly at Providence, but rather to make a fair and solemn offer of a dispute about these matters." ^† To which they answer and say, "So here thou mayest see, it was thy spirit that was cut by the spirit [Page 460]of God, that lead them to pray and sing in order; and this thou callest confusion; and thus thou judg­ [...]t of things, thou knowest not, with thy doting spirit. For the true Christ we know, who is our shepherd; and the false spirit of Christ is eastly savoured in thee, which was cut off by the spirit of prayer, and the spirit of singing, from the true spirit of Christ." ^*

THUS each party call their own way order; but the order and decency which the inspired apostle enjoined upon the church of Corinth, concerned the behaviour of their women, as distinguished from men; their women who had husbands, in the plural number, who had each a distinct part to act in divine worship, which they ought to know and attend unto. As all saints are one in Christ, there is but one husband and one bride; and viewing things in this distinct light, tends both to purity and peace; but the confounding of literal women with mystical husbands, has often produced the grapes of Sodom and clusters of Gomorrah. And among the many instances of the Quakers asum­ing a power to govern the scriptures instead of being governed by them, take the following. The baptist churches in Wales, gathered by our Mr. Miles and others, published a confession of their faith, wherein they adopted the words of David in Psalm. 51, 5. To which Fox, in p. 214 of his former book said, "David doth not say, you were conceived in sin, but I. John was sanctified from the womb, and the scriptures speak of chil­dren that are clean. And so you do not speak as elders and messengers of true churches, or men dividing the word aright, but you are one against another, though you are all against them you call [Page 461]Quakers, that be in the truth" In which passage says Mr. Williams, he discovers a strong presumption that he never felt what the woful estate of all mankind by nature is. ^* To which they reply and say, "Paul saith, I am crucified with Christ (mark I AM) and Christ liveth in me: and the life that I live in the flesh, is by the faith of the son of God, &c. is not the saith victory? and thou fallest a rail­ing, and speaking of our conditions, which thou art ignorant of, and thy own, and hast abused both the scriptures and us." ^†

IN July 1672, Mr. Williams drew up fourteen propositions, and inclosed them in a letter to de­puty governor Cranston, whom he stiles, My kind friend, for him to deliver them to Fox or his friends; in which Mr. Williams proposed a fair dispute upon those points with any of them, seven propositions to be handled at Newport, and the other at Providence, on the days they should ap­point. By some means the matter was delayed till Fox had sailed for England; after which John Stubs, John Burnyeat and William Edmundson, engaged in the affair, and with them Williams held the dispute at Newport, on the 9th, 10th and 12th of August, and at Providence the 17th. When they began at Newport, he publickly de­clared his motives to be these. "1. The vindicat­ing HIS most holy name, which my soul saw trod­den in the dirt by satan cloathed in Samuel's man­tle, and the bright garment of an angel of light, which once he was, but pride deceived him. 2. I had in my eye the vindicating this colony for re­ceiving such persons whom others would not; we suffer for their sakes, and are accounted their [Page 462]abettors, that therefore together with the improv­ment of our liberties which the God of Heaven, and our King's majesty have graciously given us, 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 (in some regards) more than most in the colony. I may also truly says, 3. That I had it in my eye, that this exercise might occasion some soul-consideration in many." ^* And as they dwelt so much upon the word light, and upon its coming into the world with all man­kind, he asked them in public,

"WHETHER it comes into them at the con­ception, or at the birth, or when else? whether it was in all mankind before the coming and death of Christ or to those since his coming, or both? whether it be in the understanding, will, memory, affections, in any of them severally, or lodged in all of them jointly.? ^† In answer to which they say, "As to his unlearned questions, whether the light cometh into mankind at the conception, or at the birth, or when else? we leave him to what is written John 1, 9. Christ is the true light, that lighteth every man that cometh into the world. So it is evident, ALL ARE LIGHTED that come into the world; and the believers witnessed it to shine in their hearts; and Abraham saw his light, or day; and in it David saw more light, which was before Christ came in the flesh, John saith, in the word which was in the beginning was life, and the life was the light of men." ^‡ Mr. Williams says, "The hinge and pinch of the difference lies in the opposition which the Quakers make against [Page 463]the manhood of Christ Jesus to be yet extent — Who questions but Christ Jesus, as the sun in the Heavens, influenceth all parts of the world in several respects, and nothing is hid from his heart? He is felt in the brused reed and smoaking flax; in the poor in spirit, in the hungry and thirsty after righteousness; sometimes in the hope of glory to come, yea, in present joy unutterable and glorious: sometimes the Lamb's wife is visibly asleep though her heart wakes; sometimes she is alarmed by his knocking and is slugishly unwill­ing to open to him; sometimes she rises and opens but he is gone, and she seeks for him by day and night and cannot find him." But says he, "The Papists, Arminians and Quakers are one:

• 1. As to the power of nature and free will in heavenly and spiritual matters.
• 2. As to the loosing of true saving grace.
• 3. As to election and predesti­nation in time, upon obedience, and rejection, and reprobation upon rebellion and disobedience.—
• 4. The Quakers are brethren with the Socinians, in mak­ing Christ a type and figure, a pattren and example how christians ought to walk; not that the blood which he shed upon the cross at Jerusalem, was a sufficient price and satisfaction unto God for the sins of the whole world." ^*

To which they say, "This is like the rest of thy false charges and comparisons; what dost thou talk of election and predestination, &c. when thou callest the light of Christ an idol? for these are mystries to thee, who art not come to take heed unto the light that shineth in a dark place." ^† See 2 Cor. 10, 1.

HIS last proposition was, that their spirit tended to arbitrary government and firery persecution; [Page 464]upon which he said, "By an arbitrary government I do not intend a ruling by force, for there could be no government in the world without the sword; but arbitrary. I said came from arbitrium, which signifies will or pleasure: and so my argument is, that persons immediately speaking from God, it is impertinent and profane to clog and cumber them with laws, for the voice of God, the law of laws, proceeds out of their mouth; than which there could be none more just, wise or holy—I told them I must crave their patience while I must profess my fears, left the spirit by which they were guided, might run them upon their own and others temporal destruction. I told them I thought they had no such thing in their eye at present; but if power of the sword came into their hands, it was easy to imagine, that whom the spirit (infaliable) decreed to death, pesant or [...]ce if it were possible, he must be executed." ^* To this they say, "Where there is no force there is no fear of slavery, and such an arbitrary government no body was ever afraid of.—But Roger, dost thou not accuse the people called Quakers of hold­ing, that they are acted by the spirit of God, and not by their own spirits? if so it is the arbitrium, or will and pleasure of their God, and not their own wills and spirits that they are acted by, and what harm is this to just government? or how doth this set up mens will and power? O thy blindness! thy darkness! and thy confusion!" ^†

HE then refered them to the passage before re­cited about the magistrates subjecting all into his light; and closed that head with observing, that Christ says, out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh, and asks if any professors of the [Page 465]christian name except Papists, were ever so sharp and cutting with their tongue, as they, even to knowing and conscientious persons? From whence he questions, what might be expected if whips, swords and halters were permitted to fall into their hands? To which they say, "The tongues of God's people have in all ages been as a fire and a sword to the wicked.—It may be as rationally questioned of the people of God in this age, as in former ages; and God will reckon with thee, thou ungodly, unjust man, that insinuatest these wicked things against a suffering, as well as harmless people! This spirit thou art lead by in writing against us, would BURN us, as it lead thy forefathers to burn the martyers in Smithfield; for ye are all of CAIN's race, and are found in his steps, and shall have Cain's reward, if you repent not." ^* This was their way of quenching a fire­brand.—

THE Quakers prevailed so far, that in 1675, Mr. Coddington was governor, and Mr. John Easton deputy governor; when finding that their spiritual power would not secure them against the Indi­ans, they gave out military commissions under their hands and seals to arm both vessels and garrisons against them. ^† Harris was again chosen an assist­ant in the years 73, 74 and 76, in the last of which Mr. S. Hubbard said in a letter to Boston, "The Quakers are still upermost in government among us, I mean in outward rule, though we have put out the chief, Mr. John Cranston is deputy governor." Mr. Williams book came out soon after, and at their next election, May 2, 1677, the Quakers were left out of office; and on June 28, [Page 466]Mr. Coddington wrote the forecited letter to his friend Fox; which facts may enable us to account for the spirit of it. Mr. Williams was again cho­sen a magistrate, but excused himself from that service; yet he wrote thus to Providence, viz. "I pray the town that the place of meeting be certain, and some course settled for payment, that the clerk and serjeant 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 obstanacy, cast out from sober and freemens company, that our ancient use of arbitration be brought into esteem again, that (it being constantly reported that Connecticut is upon the gaining his majesty's consent to enslave us to their parish worship) we consider what we ought to do"

A SPECIAL court of commissioners met at Pro­vidence, October, 3, 1677, procured by Harris; who by a jury gave his party five verdicts for land, the first of which was against Gregory [...]ex­ter. Arthur Fenner, and the town of Providence, wherein they gave, "two pounds in money da­mage and cost of court; and also that the said defendants run the line equally between Paw­tuxet river and Wenasquatucket river, till they meet with a thwart line from the head of Wenas­quatucket river, directly runing to Pawtuxet river." The two next verdicts gave that party 30 l. damages in each, with lands further south-ward; of which the town of Warwick, by the hands of Mr. Holden and Mr. Greene, gave an account two years after to the King, wherein they mention the former ill treatment they had [Page 467]met with at Boston, and represent, that the late war was wholly caused by the arbitrary conduct of the neighbouring colonies, who after the Nar­raganset fight in December, 1675, they say, "with­drew their forces from us, leaving our unguard­ed towns to the destroyer, whereby the town of Warwick was wholly burnt, great part of our goods and cattle lost and consumed, but the lives of most of us reserved as a prey, supported with hope that yet in time of peace, we might be en­abled to re-build and provide for our distressed families and succeeding generations—But William Warris of Pautuxet, came over in 1674, and claimed land in Narraganset by Indian purchase, and the King appointed the case to be heard by commissioners, chosen out of the several colonies of New-England. We attended time and place according to summons, but the major part of the commissioners, elected out of our professed and mortal enemies, out-voted those of Rhode-Island, granting and awarding to him the lands brought and improved by your petitioners, also giving him great damages, notwithstanding the testimony of one Mr. Williams, the first Indian perchaser of those lands, and other material witnesses in our behalf, whereby above 5000 acres of land and medows, belonging to the poor town of Warwick, and parts adjacent are taken away, and we prohi­bited to rebuild, or attempt any thing for the sup­port of our dependances," and so went on to pray for relief, p. 299.

CONNECTICUT in the mean time had continu­ed their encroachments upon the west part of that colony, till a letter was obtained from the King dated July 9, 1679, confirming Rhode-Island charter; upon which the assembly wrote to warn [Page 468]them off their lands, and to charge their own peo­ple not to obey them. But at the same time Harris had procured an order from the King to the authority of the colony, to levy the aforesaid exe­cutions. In consequence whereof I have seen war­rants issued to John Smith of Newport, appoint­ing him magistrate to levy three of them, signed Nov. 24, 1679, by John Cranston, governor, Ca­leb Carr, Joseph Clarke, Arthur Fenner and John Sanford, assistants. But this not satisfying Harris, he soon set off again for England with new com­plaints. Mr. Samuel Hubbard wrote to his chil­dren at Westerly the 7th of February following, informing them or a rumor he heard of turning their governor out of his place, and of puting a Quaker into it and of seting Narraganset, which they called the King's province off by itself; and said he, "William Harris is gone for Old-England, displeased at our courts act, and will not accept, though offered it is said, to be Connecticut agent's attorney. God can have Ahithophel's counsel to fall, and to hang himself." Poor man! he was taken and carried into Turkish slavery, from whence he never returned. Thus ended the con­troversy with him, whose first title to any of those lands was a free gift from Mr. Williams.

TWO considerations have moved me to be much larger and more particular upon these unhappy affairs, than I had any thoughts of at first. One is, that harrangues have often been made from pulpits, and in courts of justice, from that time to ours, upon the great disorders of Rhode-Island colony, to prove that an established religion by human laws is exceeding necessary in every go­vernment. I thought it duty, therefore to give the public a fair and full state of those facts, to [Page 469]enable them to judge righteously concerning such addresses. The other is, that I might plainly de­ [...]ect and expose the pernicious nature, of imagin­ing that dominion is founded in grace, or that re­ligon endows the subjects of it with a right to act as lawgivers and judges over others. In the as­sembly that banished Mrs. Hutchinson, in 1637, Mr. Coddington said, "I do not see any clear witness against her; and you know it is a rule of the court, that no man may be a judge and accu­ser too." ^* But where was that rule when he, in his letter to Fox, acted the part of an accuser, wit­ness and judge against Mr. Williams, even as to the in ward state of his soul! with all their talk about light, Mr. Cotton formerly (p. 159) and the Quakers now, accused Mr. Williams of counter­acting his own principles about liberty of consci­ence, only for examining and bringing to light the nature of their principles and behaviour; and the word of truth tells us what light that is, Mat. 6. 23. John 3.19, 21. The Quakers have had a fame among many for honestly and liberty, and far be it from me to detract in the least from what has truly been among them of that nature; and I readily grant that not only in those respects, but also in their moderation in dress, and solemnity in worship, (though not singularity) and hospi­tality to strangers they have merited high com­mendation, and more so for their zeal against the slave-trade. Yet what a bondage is it to be un­der such a power as their first leaders assumed? What pope ever spake more haughtily than to say, "He lives in a peaceable government, but is in a restless spirit, grudgeth at the liberty of othrs, and cannot be content with his own," only be­cause [Page 470]he sought in a peaceable way to discharge his conscience, by bearing a plain testimony against what appeared to him to be very corrupt and dange­rous? And what sentence was ever more unjust t [...]n that which is delivered in their martyrbook? Grove tells us the first part of it was published in 166 [...], the other in 1667, by that zealous servant of the [...]o [...]d, George Bishop. He lived in the city of [...]ri [...]tol, and he intitled his work, "New-England judged, not by man's, but the spirit of the Lord." And after his account of the whipping of Hum­phrey Norton and Deborah Wilson, among the rest, he reads off his sentence thus—"Whether they will hear or forbear, they shall know that his prophets have been amongst them.—So, see where you are, and in what case, ye blood thirsty ene­mies of God; ye men of Boston, of Plymouth, pa­tent, and New-Haven; ye rulers of Sodom, and inhabitants of Gomorrah, who are hardned against the hour of your visitation; whose day is over; who delight in blood, in the blood of the saints of the Most High God, to whom blood will be given, for ye are worthy; the Lord will come upon ye, you that put his day afar off, and say, he delays his coming; I say, He will come upon you, in a day that ye think not of, and in an hour of which ye are not aware; and will cut you asunder, and appoint you your portion with hypocrites and sinners; and ye shall be cast into the lake that burneth with fire and brim­stone, there to be tormented with the devil and his an­gels, which is the second death." And in 1703, in the margin against this sentence, Grove said, This was fulfilled in the Indian wars, wherein many of them were cut to pieces. ^*

NOW, if in Fox's view Mr. Williams discovered [Page 471]a devilish spirit, in telling the ministers he wrote to, that perhaps some of them might live to see the Pope and Mahomet cast into that lake, what a spirit did this great writer of theirs discover? and what God did he worship, if this sentence came immediately from him! The evident reason of their favourable opinion of Mr. Cotton above his col­legue, was his countenancing the power, by which Mrs. Hutchinson declared that she should be deli­vered, and the court ruined with their posterity." P. 103. A gentleman of that assembly said she told him in London, that she had never any great thing done about her, but it was revealed to her be­fore hand: to which she, before the court, replied, "I say the same thing again." ^* And how was that revelation fulfilled? why Bishop says, "some of your patents endeavoured to get Rhode-Island under some of your governments, which occasion­ed some to remove under the Dutch, where Anne Hutchinson, and her son Francies, and W. Collin's her son-in-law, with others, were murdered by the Indians; the guilt and weight of whose blood lies upon you, as done by you; who were people of an honest life, and good behaviour, only differing from you" ^† See p. 118. And the first legislator and captain that was slain in Philip's war was her son Edward, who, as Bishop tell's us, entered his pro­test at Boston, in 1658, against their making a law to banish Quakers on pain of death. Neither can I learn that any man who had ever been an assistant in their colony was then slain by the Indians, except Mr. John Wickes, of Warwick who had been a sufferer with Gorton; he was then killed in a very advanced age. ^‡ Put all these things [Page 472]together and shall we not say with Solomon, That which is crooked cannot be made straight?

MR. Williams's zeal appeared to be directed, not against the person of any man, but only against their errors. In the preface to his reply to Mr. Cotton he says, "Since it pleased God to [...]y a command upon my conscience, to come in as his poor witness in this great cause, I rejoice that it pleased him to appoint so able and excellent an instrument to bolt out the truth to the bran; though I can humbly say in God's holy presence, it is my constant heaviness and soul's grief to dif­fer from any fearing God; much more from Mr. Cotton, whom I have ever desired, and still desire highly to esteem, and dearly to respect, for so great a portion of mercy and grace vouchsafed unto him, and so many truths of Christ maintained by him. Therefore (notwithstanding some of no common judgment and respect to him, have said, he wrote his washings of the bloody tenet in blood against Christ, and gall against me, yet) if upon so slippery and narrow a passage, I have slipt into any term or expression unbeseeming his person, or the cause of the Most High in hand, I humbly crave pardon of God, and Mr. Cotton also." And though he could not say the like of the chief teachers among the Quakers, yet he said, "Many truly humble souls may be captivated among them.—And many of the Quakers I love and honor." And he said, "He that shall ponder the fathers polligamy, the best kings of Judah suffer­ing the high places, David's slaying Uriah, Asia's imprisoning the prophet, Peter's rash using the sword, the disciples calling for fire from Heaven, shall see cause to reprove the Quakers for their rash damning of others from whom they have [Page 473]suffered." ^* But when they came to answer him, they were so far from regarding this admonition, that where he spake of the matter of the christian churches, viz. true converts (see p. 144) [...]nd said in the margin, "this was and I hope is, the princi­ple of the New-English churches;" they spent three pages full of capitals about their [...]ufferings, to prove that it could not be [...]o, and [...]l [...]st said, "So it is clear, you that have destroyed mens lives, are not of God, but the devil" ^† This was the temper of their teachers; but of others the two Easton's father and son. Walter Clarke, and Henry Bull, were all worthy governors of that denomination, and I find Mr. S. Hubbard express­ing a considerable esteem also for Mr. Coddington after his death, in a letter to a friend. Neither have I found one reflection upon his person in all Mr. Williams's writings, unless a plain recital of facts may be so called.

A NEW sect came out from among the Baptists about this time, who have caused not a little trou­ble to themselves and others, of whom I have col­lected the following brief account, chiefly from the letters preserved by Mr. Samuel Hubbard. In the close of the year 1674, the family of Mr. James Rogers of New-London, called Mr. Crandal over from Westerly, who preached among them, and baptized his sons John and James, and an In­dian named Japheth. This alarmed th [...] other de­nomination and Mr. Bradstreet, minister at New-London said he hoped the next court would ta [...]e a course with them. They sent to Newport, and elder Hiscox, Mr. Hubbard and his s [...]n Clarke were sent to visit them in March 167 [...], when [Page 474]Jonathan Rogers was also baptized, and all four of them were received as members of their church, by prayer and laying on of hands. Hereupon John Rogers's father-in-law, took his wife and chil­dren from him; and, upon her complaints against him, he was carried before their deputy governor, and committed to Hartford goal, from whence he wrote to Mr. Hubbard April 6, 1675. How long he continued there I do not find, only he visited the church at Newport the next September. In September 18, 1676, those four members went with a boat, and brought elder Hiscox and Mr. Hubbard to New-London again, when old Mr. Rogers, his wife and daughter were all baptized and received into that church; whereupon they were called before the magistrate, but were soon released; though from that time they began to imprison the Rogers's for working on the first day of the week. And when Mr. Hiscox and Mr. Hubbard visited them again, and held worship with them two miles out of town on their sabbath Nov. 23, 1677, and Joseph Rogers's wife had next morning given them a satisfying account of her experiences, John must needs have them go up to town to baptize her there. Mr. Hubbard opposed it, but John carried the day; and while Mr. Hiscox was preaching at town the constable came and took him, and they all went before the magistrate; where also was the minister, Mr. Bradstreet, who had much to say, about the good way that their fathers had set up. Upon which Mr. Hubbard, obtaining leave to speak, said, "You are a young man, but I am an old planter of about forty years, a beginner of Connecticut, and have been persecuted for my conscience from this co­lony, and I can assure you, that the old beginners [Page 475]were not for persecution, but we had liberty at first." After further discourse the magistrate said, Could you not do it else whore? "A good answer," says Mr. Hubbard; and so they were released and went to Samuel Rogers's house, where his brother John put himself forward, prayed, and then went out to the water and baptized his sister; upon which Mr. Hiscox was seized again, as supposing he had done it, but John came before the magis­trate, and was forward to make known his act therein; so the others were released and returned home.

JONATHAN ROGERS, had married Naomi Bur­dick, grand daughter, to Mr. Hubbard, and on March 2, 1678, elder Hiscox baptized her at Wes­terly, together with James Babcock, George Lamphere, and two others; and on the 5th of May following Joseph Clarke wrote from thence to his father Hubbard, that John and James Rogers with their father were in prison; having previously ex­communicated Jonathan, chiefly because he did not retain their judgment, of the unlawfulness of using medicines, nor accuse himself before authori­ty, for working on the first day of the week." Hereupon the church at Newport, sent messen­gers to New-London about this matter, who re­ [...]orted on their return that, "a practice was start­ed up, (out of conscience) that because the world, yea, most professors, pray in their families morn­ings and nights, and before meats and after, in a customary way, therefore to forbear prayer in their families or at meats publickly, except some are lead forth upon some special occasion; saying, they find no command in the word of God for it." About this time, elder Hiscox's church received letters from Dr. Chamberlain, whereof one was [Page 476]directed to their church, he being of the same faith and order with them, the other was directed as follows.

"PETER CHAMBERLAIN, senior, Doctor of both universities, and first and eldest physician in ordinary to his majesty's person, according to the world, but according to grace, a servant of the word of God; to the excellent and noble gover­nor of New-England; grace, mercy, peace and truth, f [...]m God our father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ; praying for you, that you may abound in heavenly graces and temporal comforts. I have always had a love to the intended purity, and unspotted doctrine of New-England; for Mr. Cotton was of the same college and university, of Emanuel in Cambridge, as I was, and so was Mr. Hooker and others with whom we were all contemporary; and I never knew them, but of a holy life and conversation. I also knew Colonel Humfrey, sir Richard Saltonstall and Mr. Peters, who were of note among you, and sir Henry Vane, who all had some share in the foundation of your government. But certainly the first in­tentions were never to debar the truths of scrip­ture, and liberty of conscience guided thereby; but to suppress sin and idolatry, and prevent all the adulteries of Rome, to whom all things are lawful, especially lies in hipocrisy, to promote their most damnable doctrines, coveteous super­stitions, and blasphemous supremacy. It is great wisdom to suppress sin, but not oppress the liber­ty of a good conscience; and whilst men grant liberty of conscience not to admit liberty of sin. All magistrates have not attained to this wisdom, else England had been long since freed from po­pery and perjury. Whatsoever is against the ten [Page 477]commandments is sin. Rom. 3, 20. 1. John 3, 4. and he that sinneth in one point is guilty of all, because he that spake one word of them spake all, and he added no more. Jam. 2, 10, 11. Exo. 20, 1. While Moses and Solomon caution men, so much against adding to, or taking from Deut. 4, 2. Prov. 30, 5, 6, and so doth the beloved apostle, Rev. 22, 18, 19, what shall we say of those that take away of those ten words, or those that make them void, and teach men so? Nay, they dare give the lie to JEHOVAH, and make Jesus Christ not only a breaker of the law, but the very author of sin in others, also causing them to break them. Hath not the little horn played his part lustily in this, and worn out the saints of the Most High, so that they become little horn men also! If you are pleased to enquire about these things, and to require any instances or informations, be pleased by your letters to com­mand it from your humble servant in the Lord Jesus Christ.

PETER CHAMBERLAIN."

Most worthy Governor, Sep. 1, 1677.

COPIES hereof were sent to those whom it was directed to; and the church sent a letter there­with to Connecticut, from whence this answer was returned.

Hartford, 8, 8, 58.

"FRIENDS of Newport on Rhode-Island, Wil­liam Hiscox, &c. yours of 9, 4, 78, was received the 7th instant, with one enclosed from another Peter Chamberlain, senior. The advice in both is readily complied withal and thankfully accept­ed. To be minded of any parts of the scriptures of truth is greatfully received, and were it not for a seducing devil, and a deceitful heart, they would be a rule of life unto all that have senses [Page 478]exercised therein, and make due application there­of. What yourselves, or that worthy gentleman intend, or who or what he refers to, is not so easy to guess at. We have of late had to deal with Rogers and his of New-London, towards whom the authority have shewn all condescension imagina­ble to us; that if they would forbear to offend our consciences, we should indulge them in their perswasion, and give them no offence in the se­venth day, in worshiping God by themselves. We may doubt (if they were governors in our stead) they would tell us, that their consciences would not suffer them to give us so much liberty; but that they must bear witness to the truth, and beat down idolatry, as the old good kings did in scrip­ture; they judging so of our Lord's day wor­shiping. It may be that your counsel may be more taking with them, to make them forbear, than ours: which is all at present, with respects,

From your friend and servant in Christ. WILLIAM LE [...]TE"

THE church repeatedly sent and labored with them but to little effect. Mr. Gibson went and lived and preached a while among them at New-London; but Mr. Hubbard wrote to their aged brother Thorton (who had removed from New­port to Providence) on Nov. 8, 1679, informing him of his late visit to that people, when he found that old Mr. Rogers, had the wheel of a loaded cart went over his leg a little below his knee, bruising it much, and had been so six weeks, but now could move it: their judgment is not to use any means." And said he, "pray remember my respects to Mr. Roger Williams; I should be glad to hear of him and his wife;" a great respect to whom was shewn in all their letters as long as he [Page 479]lived. But on June 7, 1685, Mr. Hubbard wrote to Mr. Henry Reeve of Jamaica, and informed him that messengers were then gone from thier church to New-London, "to declare against two or more of them that were of us, who are declined to Quakerism, I might say more; of whom be thou aware, for by their principles, they will tra­vel by land and sea to make disciples, yea, sorry ones too. Their names are John and James Ro­gers, and one Donham."

FROM this beginning proceeded a sect which has continued to this day, who from their chief leader have been called ROGERENES. In their dialect, and many other things, they have been like the first Quakers in this country? though they have retained the external use of baptism and the supper, and have been singular in refusing the use of means and medicines for their bodies. Their greatest zeal has been discovered going from meeting to meeting, and from town to town, as far as Nor­wich and Lebanon, (the one 14, the other 24 miles) to testify against hireling teachers, and against keeping the first day of the week as a sabbath, which they call the idol-sabbath. And when the authority have taken them up and fined them therefor, and have sometimes whipt them for re­fusing to pay it they have soon published accounts of all such persecutions, which has been the very means of keeping their sect alive. When the small­pox was very terrible in Boston, in 1721, and great fear of it was discovered in the country, John Rogers their founder, was confident he could go in where it was and not catch it; and to prove his faith, went 100 miles to Boston, but catched the distemper, came home and died with it, and scattered it in his family: yet his successors still [Page 480]kept on in their way. So late down as 1763, some of them repeatedly came and clapped shingles and pieces of boards together around the meeting-house in Norwich town, as well as delivered messages to the worshippers, against their keeping of the Lord's day. But as the rulers had learned so much wis­dom as only to remove them away from disturb­ing others without inflicting either fine, or corpo­ral punishment upon them, they have ceased from such things since in a great measure, and as they never were a large society, there is hope of a true reformation among them. Besides these, there have been some sabbatarian baptists in that place from the beginning to the present time, though not a distinct church.

WE must now return to our baptist fathers at Boston. The liberty they had enjoyed, with a blessing upon the ministry of Mr. Miles and others, had caused such an increase of members, that in February 1677, they agreed to divide into two churches; but in January 1678, they revoked that act, and concluded to build them a meeting-house, in Boston, and to defer the affair of dividing, till they could obtain the settlement of an able suffi­cient ministry there. They first nominated Mr. Russell for that end, and then talked of his going to Swanzey in Mr. Miles's room; but in conclu­sion Mr. Miles returned to his old flock, and Mr. Russell was ordained their pastor in Boston, July 28, 1679, and removed there. Before which time governor Leveret was deceased, and Mr. Brad­street chosen in his stead; in consequence of which this church wrote to their brethren at Newport the 25th of January this year, that several of their brethren and sisters had been called to court, cen­sured, fined twenty shillings a piece, and to pay [Page 481]court charges, and others only admonished and to pay court charges, which had not then been paid, and the constables were backward to make distress upon them if they could shift it off. Feb. 9, the church met, and purchased their meeting-house with the land it was built upon, of Philip Squire, and Ellis Callender, for 60 l.; and they met in it for worship the 15th. They had built with so much caution as not openly to call it by that name till it was done. They had been often cen­sured and reproached for meeting in private houses, but now say, "since we have for our convenience obtained a public house on purpose for that use, we are become more offensive than before." ^* The leaders of the society were convented before the general court of May 10, who not finding any old law to suit their turn then made a new one, in these words.

"IT is ordered by the court and the authority thereof, that no person whatever, without the consent of the freemen of the town where they live, first orderly had, and obtained, at a public meeting assembled for that end, and licence of the county court, or in defeat of such consent, a licence by the special order of the general court, shall erect or make use of any house as abovesaid; and in case any person or persons shall be convicted or transgressing this law, every such house or houses wherein such persons shall so meet more than three times, with the land whereon such house or houses stand, and all private ways leading thereto, shall be forfeited to the use of the county, and disposed of by the county treasurer, by sale or demolishing, as the court that gives judgment in the case shall order." ^†

HOW different is this from the above language of governor Leete? But instead of seeking for porsecution as Rogers did, this peaceable people refrained from meeting in their own house for the present, waiting to see what God would do for them. And he who has the hearts of kings in his hand, moved their king to write to the Mas­sachusetts rulers on July 24, requiring that liberty of conscience should be allowed to all protestants, so as they might not be discountenanced from sharing in the government, much less that no such good subjects of his, for not agreeing in the congrega­tional way, should by law, "be subjected to fines or forfeitures, or other incapacities for the same; which is a severity to be the more wondered at, whereas liberty of conscience was made a principle motive for your first transportation into those parts." ^* Deplorable indeed was their case at this time. Their all was in great danger, for doing so much of that which they thought Heaven frowned upon them for not doing more of; and it was evidently the two errors I have mentioned at the foot of p. 48, which brought them into this dilemma. Mr. William Hubbard, whom I have so often quoted, who was a minister at Ipswich, preach­ed at their election in Boston May 3, 1676; and as the permission of quaker meetings had been de­clard by many ministers, to be one great cause of God's judgments then upon them, which had stirred up the court to severity against that people, he plain­ly gave his mind to the contrary; and that pride and woridlymindedness were the greatest evils then among them: yet least governor Leveret and his court should be too favorable to the baptists, he in his dedication of that sermon to them, p. 6, [Page 483]said, "If he were not much mistaken who said it is morally impossible to rivit the christian reli­gion into the body of a nation without infant bap­tism, by proportion it will as necessarily follow, that the neglect or difuse thereof, will as directly tend to root it out." And Dr. Increase Mather, who yielded to Mr. Mitchel's reasonings about the Massachusetts ministers after his death, he in that capacity now moved the assembly to convene, what they called The reforming synod. First they kept a general fast in their churches, and then the synod met at Boston, Sept. 20, 1679, to answer these two questions. 1st. What are the evils that have provoked the Lord to bring his judgements on New-England? 2d. What is to be done, that so these evils may be reformed?

THEY had not gone far in their answer before they said, "men have set up their thresholds by God's thresholds, and their post "by his post. Quakers are false worshippers; and such anabap­tists as have risen up among us, in opposition to the churches of the Lord Jesus, receiving into their society, those that have been for scandal delivered unto satan; yea, and improving those as administra­tors of holy things, who have been (as doth appear) justly under censure, do no better than set up altar against the Lord's altar. Wherefore it must needs be provoking to God, if these things be not duly and fully testifyed against, by every one in their several capacities." Their result was approved of by the general court on Oct. 15, who commended it to all their churches, "enjoining and requiring all persons in their respective capacities to a care­ful and diligent reformation of all those provoking evils mentioned therein, according to the true in­tent thereof, that so the anger and displeasure of [Page 484]God many ways manifested, might be averted; and his favour and blessing obtained." ^*

THIS dreadful charge, coming out from the whole power of the colony against one small so­ciety, put them upon a critical review of their past conduct; and they found that among about eighty members that they had received, there were but two who had been censured in those other churches (since Mr. Gould and Mr. Os­borne, of whom we have before spoken) one of whom was Mr. Thomas Foster of Biderica who for turning and going away, when infants were sprinkled, and for going at last and joining with the baptist, and refusing, after they had presented him to court, to return to the other church, was censure and excommunicated by them. The other was Mr. Farnum, who was the only one that the baptist had received, after others had cast him out; which was from the north church in Boston, where Mr. Mayo and Dr. Mather was mini­sters. The baptists now seat and obtained copies of the proceedings of that church against him, whereby it appeared, that they were in the height of their dealings with him, the same month that the assembly disfranchised Gould and Osborne for constituting that baptist church, viz. in October 1665; and that Farnum got his temper up, and in sundry instances spake and acted very unadvis­edly; [Page 485]for which the baptist now required him to offer satisfaction to that church, before they would commune with him again. This he soon after did. Mr. Willard owns that he offered a confession therefor both orally and in writing; but because he refused to return into their com­munion they judged it not to be sincere. The baptists say that some who had been baptized among them had afterward been refused com­munion by the other churches, when they had desired it. To which Mr. Willard says, "They know that our churches have received some that were scrupelous about infant baptism, who were willing to carry inoffensively: that we have refused such as were re-baptized among those excommu­nicate anabaptists, is true hypothetically, viz. ex­cept they would acknowledge and repent of that act; because we judge it scandalous." ^* Upon which I would only remark, that God says. He that doubteth is damned if he eat; but the Massachusetts were willing to admit persons to cat with scruples, but excommunicated such as put their full persua­sion about baptism into practice, and judged those not to be sincere, who would not repent of that act! A letter at this time to their governor deserves notice, which is as follows.

MR. Samuel Hubbard sometime after sent a let­ter, with a copy of this to governor Leete, to check their imprisoning the Rogers's at New-London. Notice being received by the baptists in Boston, of the king's letter in their favor, they met again in their house; but had not so done above four times before the court met, and issued a warrant to the constable of Boston, requiring him, "in his Majesty's name, forthwith to sum­mons Philip Squire, Thomas S [...]ner and Mr. Drinker, to make their appearance before the court of assistants now sitting, having liberty to bring with them three or four more of their friends, to give an account of their breach of the law in erecting a meeting house, and that they appear at three of the clock this instant, 5th March 1680." They appeared accordingly, and the court required a positive answer to the questi­on, whether they would engage, either for the whole society, or for themselves in particular, to desist from meeting in said house till the next ge­neral court? They said they were not prepared to answer it, and desired time to consult their bre­thren. This was then denied them, but upon re­newing the request next morning, they were al­lowed [Page 487]so much time as from Saturday till Mon­day. The church met on Monday, and presented the following address, viz.

"To the honorable the governor and magi­strates now assembled at Boston, at the court of assistants the 8th of March 1680, the petition and declaration of the society of people commonly known or distinguished by the name of baptists, residing in and about Boston, humbly sheweth,

IN primum, that whereas the only wise God, having by his providence led us into that order and way of the gospel of gathering into church fellowship, we do hereby confess, that what we did was not out of opposition to, or contempt of the churches of Christ in New-England, but in a holy imitation meerly for the better enjoyment of the liberty of our consciences, the great motive to their removal at first into this wilderness 2. That the building a convenient place for our public church assembly, was [...]ot thought of affronting authority, there being no law in the country against any such practice at the erecting of this house, and did therefore think as the apostle saith, where there is no law, there is no transgression. The dictates of nature, or common prudence belonging to mankind, and the example or practice of the country throughout lead to the seeking of this convenience. 3. There being a law made in May last against meeting in the place built, we sub­mitted to the same, until we fully understood by letters from several in London, that it was his majesty's pleasure and command (the common supersedus to all corporation laws in the English nation, that have not the royal assent ^*) that we [Page 488]should enjoy liberty of our meetings in the man­ner as other of his protestant subjects; and the general court at their last meeting not having voted a non-concurrence. 4. As therefore the two tribes and half did humbly and meekly vindicate themselves, upon the erecting of their altar, when challanged for it by Eleazer, and the messengers of the ten tribes, so do we hereby confess in like manner, that we have not designed by this act any contempt of authority, nor any departing from the living God, or churches of his worship, the Lord God of gods he knows it, Joshua xxii, 22. Though it be our lot, with the apostles, in the way that some call heresy so to worship the God of our fathers. Your petitioners therefore, having no design against the peace of this place, but being still as ready as ever to hazard our lives for the defence of the people of God here, do humbly re­quest that this our profession and declaration may find acceptance with this honorable court, as that of the two tribes did with Eleazer; and that we may still, through your allowance and protection, enjoy the liberty of God's worship, in such places as God hath afforded us, which will greatly o­blige your petitioners, as in duty bound, humbly to pray.

Signed by us in the name and with the consent of the church.

• Isaac Hull,
• John Russell,
• Edward Drinker,
• Thomas Skinner,"

BUT instead of having any ears to hear this loyal and christian address, their marshal was sent, and finding their gate locked, forced his way through Mr. Squire's ground, and nailed up their meeting-house [Page 489]doors, putting a paper thereon which said, "All persons are to take notice, that by order of the court the doors of this house are shut up, and that they are inhibited to hold any meeting therein, or to open the doors thereof, without license from authority, till the general court take further order, as they will answer the contrary at their peril.

Dated in Boston, 8th March, 1680, By order of the council, EDWARD RAWSON, sec'ry,"

THE Baptists required a copy of the Marshal's warrant, but he refused it; they then went to the secretary for one, who plainly told them, "he was not to let them have any." They met the next Lord's-day in their yard, and in the week ensuing prepared a shed therein for the purpose; but when they came together the second Lord's-day, they found the doors open; and considering say they, "that the court had not done it legally, and that we were denied a copy of the constables order and Marshal's warrant, we concluded to go into our house, it being our own, having a civil right to it." And they met therein till the as­sembly sat, before whom they were convented on May 11. When they gave in these pleas, "1. The house was our own, 2. It was built before the law was made, therefore no transgression. 3. The express will and pleasure of the king, that we should enjoy our liberty. After some debate of the matter (in which we met with some hard and reviling speeches from some of them) we were dismissed for that time. Next morning we put up a humble petition, (being blamed by some in the court that we had not done it before) that there might be a suspension of any proceedings [Page 490]against us." These accounts I have taken from their church records and papers. On the colony records under May 19, I find it thus written, viz.

"AFTER the court had heard their answer and plea [...] perused, their petition and what else was produced, the parties were called in, the courts sentence in the name of the court was published to them; that the court in answer to their petition judged it meet and ordered, that the petitioners be admonished by the present honored governor for their offence, and so granted them their peti­tion, so far as to forgive them their offence past, but still prohibited them as a society of themselves, or joined with others, to meet in that public place they have built, or any public house except such as are allowed by lawful authority: and accord­ingly the governor in open court gave them their admonition."

DR. Mather had published a piece the proceed­ing March, intitled The divine right of infant bap­tism, containing some injurious reflections upon this people; which, with others, were briefly an­swered in Mr. Russell's narrative, dated from Bos­ton, the 20th of this month, with the consent of the whole church, and sent to London, where Mess'rs William Kissens Daniel Dyke, William Collins, Hanserd Knollys, John Harris and Nehemiah Cox, noted baptist minister, wrote a preface to it, in which they say, "As for our brethren of the congregational way in Old-England, both their principles and practice do equally plead for our liberties as for their own; and it seems strange that such of the same way in New-England, yea, even such (a generation not yet extinct, or the very next successors of them) who with liberal estates chose rather to depart from their native [Page 491]soil into a wilderness, than be under the im­position and lash of those, who upon religious pretences took delight to smite their fellow-servants, should exercise towards others the like severity that themselves with so great hazard and hardship sought to avoid; especially consi­dering that it is against their brethren, who a­vowedly profess and appeal to the same rule with themselves for their guidance in, and decision of all matters relating to the worship of God, and the ordering of their whole conversation—For one protestant congregation to persecute another, where there is no pretence to infallibility in the decision of all controversies, seems much more unreasona­ble than the cruelties of the church of Rome to­wards them that depart from their superstitions; and if prejudices were removed and oppertunities of power not abused, but the golden rule of our Saviour were duly attended unto and rightly ap­plied in the present case, certainly more modera­tion, yea, even compassion would be exercised to­wards these our christian friends by such as now give them trouble." They close with observing That Dr. Stillingstreet had already declared, in his Mischief of separation, that their rigorous course against congregationalists in England, was justified by the process of the rulers here, against dissenters from themselves; and pray that the governors of New-England would regard their brethren there, so much as to remit these proceedings. What was said in answer thereto, we shall see presently, after I have observed, that elder Russell was taken from his beloved [...]lock by death, Dec. 21, 1680: Upon which the church met the next day, and agreed that their brother Callender, should be helpful in earrying on their worship in Boston, on Lord's-days [Page 492]in the forenoon, and brother Drinker in the afternoon, in the absence of elder Hull. It is evident, that the gifts and graces of elder Russell were not small; and his memory is precious. His grand-daughter Brooks, married into Swanzey, whose sons, Job, ^* Russell, and John Mason have been, and the two latter still are useful gospel preachers in the second Baptist church in that town: Also Mess'rs Joseph, William and Jonathan Russell, now noted traders in Providence, are of his posterity.

IN 1681, a minister of the church in Boston, which was formed in a schismatical way, in 1669, published an answer to the Baptist's narrative; and though it's author was deceased, yet he intitled it, " Ne sutor ultra crepidam: ^† or brief animadversions upon the New-England anabaptists late fallacious narrative; wherein the notorious mistakes and falshoods by them published, are detected; by Samuel Willard, &c." To which he adds as a motto, Rom. 16, 17, 18. Dr. Increase Mather, wrote a preface to this work, wherein he says, "Many are of the mind, that it is not worth the while, to take notice of what is emitted, by men so obscure and inconsiderable.—It seems to me, that the reverend author of the following animad­versions, hath shewed much humility, in conde­scending to take persons in hand, between whom and himself there is such an impar congressus.—As for the brethren, that have thought good to prefix an epistle to such a narrative, and therein declare, that molestation is given and severity is exercised towards antipedobaptists in New-England, meerly for a supposed error about the subject of baptism, [Page 493]controverted amongst learned and holy men, they are marvelously deceived in that their sup­position. Protestants ought not to persecute any, yet, that protestants may punish protestants; and as the case may be circumstanced, a congregation of such as call themselves protestants, cannot ra­tionally be denied. Those of the congregational way, fully concur with the old puritan non-con­formists, such as Cartwright, Rainold, Whitaker, Bains, Parker, &c. in whose writings congrega­tional principles, about church government, are to be seen. ^* Now the old non-conformists (notwith­standing their sufferings from those that took de­light to smite their fellow servants) did believe that disorders in whole congregations were liable to the civil magistrates censure.—Our famous Cotton was another Moses, in respect of meekness and christian forbearance, as to dissenters from his judgment in matters of a lesser concernment, yet would he sometimes make a zealous protestation, that if magistrates in New-England should tolerate transgressors against the rules of godliness (as well as offences contrary to what the rules of honesty require) he believed that God would not long tolerate them.—I would intreat the brethren that [Page 494]have subscribed the epistles seriously to consider; 1. That the place may sometimes make a great alteration as to indulgence to be expected. It is evident, that that toleration is in one place, not only lawful; but a necessary duty, which in another place would be destructive; and the expectation of it irrational. That which is needful to ballast a great ship, will sink a small boat.—2. Let them consider, that those of their persuasion in this place have acted with so much irregularity and prophan­ness, that should men of any persuasion whatso­ever have done the like, the saine severity would have been used towards them." This hard sen­tence his son has propogated to posterity. ^*

BUT, search through all they have said against those people, and I am confident that the greatest real disorder they have produced, was the churches receiving Farnum as they did; which when they had proper knowledge of, they rectified. But is this comparable to the disorders at Hingham, 20 years before: Where Lieut. Eames was regularly chosen their captain, and presented to the court for a commission; but soon upon it, a notion was started to choose another man, related to the mi­nister, into that office, who accordingly was cho­sen and presented. And when the reason of it was asked for, they said Eames had resigned; but he said he had not. Hereupon the minister censured him for lying; and this cost three or four days tedious labors of a council, without being able to settle it; and occasioned the petition of Dr. Child and others, with much trouble to governor Winthrop and the assembly. Seep. 139, 140. Yet the issue of all was, that the minister of Hingham excommunicated captain Eames, contrary to the [Page 495]minds of other ministers, and by their advice, "Those that were without just cause cast out at Hingham, were received into the church of Weymouth, the next town, and the matter so continued through the stifness of their minds, and their selfwilled resolutions." ^*

IN the piece upon infant baptism, which Dr. Mather had published, he accused those baptists of the sin of Jeroboam, who made priests of the lowest of the people; in which says Mr. Russell, "we easily un­derstand" what he means; our evil in this re­spect, is our calling to office those who have not been bread up in colleges, and taught in other languages, but have been bread to other callings. It is not because we are against learning, for we esteem it, and honor it in its place; and if we had such among us and that they were together with that, otherways duly qualified for the work of the ministry, we should readily chuse them. But we do not think the spirit of God is locked up so in the narrow limits of college learning, that none are to be called to office in a church but such, nor that all such are fit for that work, be they never so great schollars; neither do we think that all those who have not that learning, are to be accounted the lowest of the people. Indeed the priesthood was bounded to the tribe of Levi by divine institution, but we cannot find that the Lord hath, by divine institution, given the work of the ministry to men of such learning only. Whom he will he fits and quallifies for that work; neither are we left without a plain rule in the new [Page 496]testament to direct us in this matter ^* In these plain gospel sentements have the baptists, on both sides of the Atlantic, persevered to this day. But his apponent said of the text refered to, "The Belgic and others read it, of both ends of the people. If a fit man would except it so; if not, to the other end, and take one unfit. The anabaptists would have a learned man if they could get one of their mind; if not, John Russell the shoe-maker— Truly, if goodman Russell was a fit man for a mi­nister, we have but fooled ourselves in building colleges, and instructing children in learing." ^† Here is a plain specimen of what many call learn­ing, though the truly learned apostle Paul, renounced it with abhorrance. 2 Cor. 4, 2. Either those who have a college education, are thereby made the head of the people, and the rest are to be ranked to the other end, or else this is a handling the word of God deceitfully; and God says. The pro­phet that teacheth lies, he is the tail.

AGAIN, the baptists had said in their confession of faith, that those who gladly receive the word and are baptized, are saints by calling, and fit mat­ter of a visible church. This Dr. Mather called a pernicious principle. But says Mr. Russell, "who dare deny this to be a sound truth? as for the conclusion he draws from thence, viz. that there are no visible believers but those that are baptized, is his own, not ours; the improvement he makes of it, not what we make of it. Far be it from us to judge all that are not baptized, not to be visible saints, for we judge that the Lord hath many precious people in the world that are not baptized, according to, or in the manner we bap­tize; and further we judge they should be visible [Page 497]saints, before baptized, or else they have no right to baptism, for it is not baptism that can make saints. And as for looking upon infant baptism as nothing, or a nullity, that is true; and we can look on it no otherwise, till we see right to own it to be that which he thinks of it, viz. of divine right, which we cannot see grown from the word to do; and as for not owning their churches— we never yet denied them to be churches of Christ. It is enough for every one to prove his own work; but we have owned them as such; for where there is true matter joined together in the bond of a holy covenant they may be looked at as a true church, though not in due order," ^* This was not enough for the other party, but their cry still was, "they say baptized persons are true matter of a visible church, and they say those that were only sprinkled in their infancy, were never bap­tized; and will not this undermine the founda­tion of all the churches in the world but theirs? and what more pernicious! they had even as good cry with Edom's sons, raise it, raise it to the foun­dation! —Experience tells us that such a rough thing as a New-England anabaptist is not to be handled over-tenderly; the spirit which they have at all times discovered under the greatest disad­vantages (and God grant that they may never have more advantage over us) easily tells us what they would have been if circumstanced as those whom they accuse." ^†

MR. Hubbard got the most out of temper upon this occasion that he ever did in a whole volume in folio, and said, "one John Russell, a wedder-drop'd shoe-maker—stiched up a small phamphet, [Page 498]wherein he endeavors to clear the innocency of those, commonly (though falsly he says) called anabaptists. Surely he was not well aware of the old adage, Ne sutor ultra crepidam, ^* or else he would not have made such botching work."—And goes on to recite what you may see of the simple cobler, in p, 183, 184, which he calls honest stitches used to much better purpose. But having taken the old round to Germany, he recovers his senses again, and then says, "To return to what was in hand, and give this gospel ordered church (as John Rus­sell terms them) what is their due, from an his­torian; as for the persons of those seven [first males of the church] he apologizes for, it may be more easily granted that they were good in the main, than that it was a good work for God, they were engaged in—Good men may be found to be ill employed; as Peter was▪ when Christ rebukes and calls satan, and bids him get behind him. Whether any of them did absolutely deserve to be delivered to satan, for their obstinacy in their opi­nions, or other miscarriages, which either through weakness of their judgments, or strength of their passions, which in defence of their opinions or practices they run into; or whether there were [Page 499]not more acrimony of the salt, than sweetness of the gospel spirit of peace, in those that managed the discipline of the church against some of them, must not be here discussed—Yet that can give no colour to a few giddy sectaries, that fondly con­ceit themselves to be an orderly church, when their very constitution is explicitly, not only with­out, but against the consent of all the rest of the churches in the places, as well as the order of the civil authority."

I LOVE to see honesty if persons are erronious; for then we have an advantage to judge for our­selves, and to know the better how to deal with them. And I must say that governor Winthrop, from whom Mr. Hubbard took many things, ex­ceeded him in that noble quality; and that Mr. H. exceeded all the historians I have seen who have copied from him, except the pious Mr. Prince. Others have often given us hard names without explaining what they ment by them; but Mr. Hubbard plainly tells us soon after Mr. Cotton's arrival at Boston, that the ministers, "used to meet once a fortnight at one of their houses in course, where some question of momeant was debated: Mr. Skilton, pastor of Salem, and Mr. Williams (as yet not ordained an officer there) out of a rigid seperation-jealousy, took exception at; prognosticating that it might in time bring forth a presbytery, or superintendancy, to the prejudice of the churches liberties. (A spirit of rigid sepa­ration had it seems so early fly-blown their under­standings) —the venum of which spirit had soon after infected so many of that church and peo­ple at Salem, as will appear in the next chapter. But this fear was without cause; nor did it spring from a godly jealousy, but from the bitter root of [Page 500]pride, that venteth itself above order, and against love and peace. No such spirit was ever observed to appear in Mr. Cotton's days, but a spirit of love and meekness, nor since his time, to the present year." And though the author of the Massachu­setts history, approves of Mr. William's opinion about liberty of conscience, and fixes upon his moving Mr. Endicot to cut the cross out of the training colours, as the best plea he could make for their banishing of him; yet Mr. Hubbard honestly says, "This essay did but tick at some of the upper branches, whereas Mr. Williams laid his ax at the very root of the magisterial power in mat­ters of the first table, which he drove on at such a [...]ate, so as many agitations were occasioned there­by, that pulled down ruin upon himself, friends and his poor family." Now if the reader will look back to p. 156—175, and compare that with their actings down to this time, he will have a fair opportunity to know the meaning of the terms, rigid-separation, turbulent anabaptists, giddy sectaries, &c. as they were often used by that party.

MR. Williams closed his second plea for religi­ous liberty, with an address to the popish, prela­tical presbyterian and independant clergy of the whole kingdom, wherein he makes use of the "fable or similitude of a wolf and a poor lamb coming down to drink at the same stream toge­ther: the wolf cruel and strong drinks above and aloft; the lamb innocent and weak, drinks upon the stream below: the wolf questions and quarrels the lamb for corrupting and defiling the waters: the lamb (not daring to plead how easily the wolf drinking higher might transfer defile­ment downward, but) pleads improbability and [Page 501]impossibility, that the waters descending could convey defilement upwards: this is the contro­versy, this the plea: but who shall judge? Be the lamb never so innocent, his plea never so just, his adversary the wolf, will be his judge, and being so cruel and so strong, soon tears the lamb in pieces. Thus the cruel beast, armed with the power of the kings. Rev. 17, fits judge in his own quarrels against the lamb, about the drinking at the waters. And thus (saith Mr. Cotton) the judgment ought to pass upon the heretic, not for matter of conscience but for sinning against his conscience."

"OBJECTION, methinks I hear, the great charge against the independent party to be great pleaders for liberty of conscience, &c. Answer, oh the hor­rible deceit of the hearts of the sons of men! And, what excellent physick can we prescribe to others, till, as Job said, our soul comes to be in their souls cases? What need have we to be more vile, with Job, before God, to walk in a holy sense of self-insufficiency, to cry for the blessed leadings of the holy spirit of God, to guide and lead our heads and hearts uprightly!' He then goes on to shew, that each of these denominations had been suf­ferers in their turns, and when so had always complained of it, and pleaded for liberty to their own consciences; and then says, "New-England laws, lately published in Mr. Clarke's narrative, tell how free it shall be for people together them­selves into church-estate, how free to choose their own ministers, how free to enjoy all the ordinances of Christ: but yet, provided (so and so) upon the point, that the civil state must judge of the spiritual, to wit, whether persons be fit for church-estate, whether the gathering be right, whether the peo­ple's [Page 502]choice be right, doctrines right, and what is this in truth, but to swear that blasphemous oath of supremacy again, to the king's and queen's and magistrates of this and other nations, instead of the pope! Into these prisons and cages, do those, otherwise excellent men, the independents, put the children of God, and all the children of men, and then bid them fly and walk at liberty (to wit within the conjured circle) so far as they please." ^*

TOWARD the close of this year Mr. Miles came again and ministered a while to his brethren in Boston. And Mr. Sprague, who in those times joined to the baptist church in Providence, in writing to the Massachusetts many years afters says, "Why do you strive to persuade the rising generation, that you never persecuted nor hurt the baptists, which is so apparantly false?—Did you not barbarously scourge Mr. Baker in Cam­bridge, the chief mate of a London ship? where also you imprisoned Mr. Thomas Gould, John Russell and Benjamin Sweetser, and many others, and fined them 50 l. a man.—And did you not nail up the baptist meeting-house doors, and fine Mr. John Miles, Mr. James Brown and Mr. Ni­cholas Tanner?" &c. I find also that a number of people from Kittery on Piscataqua river, in the province of Maine, were baptized this year, and in the beginning of the next sent their most gifted brother to Boston with a letter of recom­mendation and request; in consequence of which the church there wrote thus on Jan. 11, 1682. "To all whom it may concern; these are to cer­tify, that our beloved brother William Screven is a member in communion with us, and having had trial of his gifts among us, and finding [Page 503]him to be a man whom God hath qualified and fiurnished with the gifts of his holy spirit and grace, enabling him to open and apply the word of God, which through the blessing of the Lord Jesus may be useful in his hand, for the be­geting and building up of souls in the knowledge of God, do therefore appoint, approve and en­courage him, to exercise his gift in the place where he lives, or elsewhere as the providence of God may cast him; and so the Lord help him to eye his glory in all things, and to walk humbly in the fear of his name.

Signed by us in behalf of the reft.

Isaac Hull, John Farnum."

BUT no sooner was this design heard of in their town, than Mr. Woodbridge the minister, and Hucke the magistrate began to bestir themselves, and not only spread the slanders we have heard so much of against the baptists at Boston, but the magistrate repeatedly summoned those people be­fore him who had been to the baptist meetings, and threatened them with a fine of five shillings for every such offence for the future. On Jan. 23, he convented Humphrey Churchwood, a baptized member of Boston church, before him, where was the said minister, who after casting those old stories upon him, said, "Behold your great doctor, Mr. Miles of Swanzey, for he now leaves his profession and is come away, and will not teach his people any more, because he is like to perish for want, and his gathered church and people will not help him." Churchwood told them it was a great un­truth; and directly wrote to Boston upon it, which letter is now before me. Several others from that place were baptized soon after, but to [Page 504]hinder their proceedings, their general court took the matter in hand as follows, viz.

"WILLIAM SCREVEN, appearing before this court, and being convicted of the contempt of his majesty's authority, and refusing to submit him­self to the sentence of the court, prohibiting his public preaching, and upon examination before the court, declaring his resolution still to persist therein, the court tendered him liberty to return home to his family; in case he would forbear such turbulent practices and amend for the future; but he refusing, the court sentanced him to give bond for his good behaviour, and to forbear such con­tentious behaviour for the future, and the delin­quent to stand committed untill the judgment of this court be fulfilled.

VERA copia, transcribed, and with the records com­pared this 17th of August, 1682.

per EDWARD RISHWORTH, recorder."

To this is added a copy of the same date by the same hand, of an act of their executive court which says, "This court having considered the offensive speeches of William Screven, viz. his rash and inconsiderate words tending to blasphe­my do adjudge the delinquent, for his offence to pay ten pounds into the treasury of the county or province. And further, the court doth forbid and discharge the said Screven, under any pre­tence, to keep any private exercise at his own house or elsewhere, upon the Lord's-days, either in Kittery or any other place within the limits of this province, and is for the future enjoined to observe the public worship of God in our public assemblies upon the Lord's-days, according to the laws here established in this province, upon such penalties as the law requires upon such neglect of [Page 505]the promises." But he was so far from yielding to such sentences, that on Sept. 13, he with the rest sent a request to Boston that elder Hull and others might visit and form them into a church, which was granted, so that a covenant was so­lemnly signed on Sept. 25, 1682, by William Screven, elder, Humphrey Churchwood, deacon, Robert Williams, John Morgandy, Richard Cutt, Timothy Davis, Leonard Drown, William Adams, Humphrey Azell, and George Litten, and a num­ber of sisters. A baptist church was also formed this year from that of Boston, at Newbury, by William and John Sayer, Benjamin Morse, Ed­ward Woodman and others, to whom I find elder Hull and elder Emblen writing as a sister church, on March 25, 1689; though how much longer they continued a distinct church I do not find.

MR. Philip Edes, a member of the first baptist church in Newport, died this year on March, 16, of whom Mr. Samuel Hubbard says in a letter to governor Leete, "This friend of yours and mine, one in office in OLIVER's house, was for liberty of conscience; a merchant, a precious man, of a holy life and conversation, beloved of all sorts of men, his death much bewailed by all." Mr. Thomas Oleny, senior, also died this year. He was next to Mr. Williams in the pastoral office at Providence, and continued so to his death, over that part of the church who were called five prin­cipal baptists, in distinction from those who part­ed from their brethren about the year 1653, un­der the leading of elder Wickenden, holding to the laying on of hands upon every church member. The greatest fault that I find Mr. Olney charged with is, that he was for extending the first deed of Providence up to the head of the two great [Page 506]rivers it lay between, or at least as far as their charter reached, from the words without limits, in p. 90. In this he was opposed by our elders, Wickenden and Dexter, the latter of whom in­forms us that Mr Williams said, the only intent of the expression was to prevent the Indians hurt­ing their cattle if they wandered far into the woods. Their writings on both sides are yet ex­tant in their town-clerks office. They tell me at Swanzey that elder Miles permitted Mr. Brown's wife, who was not a baptist, to commune with their church, till by elder Olney's influence [...]he was dismissed to Mr. Angier's church in Reho­both. It is very evident that Mr. Olney was a capable and very useful man, both in church and state for forty four years after he left the Massa­chusetts; as his son also was for many years; and his posterity are respectable in that town and state to this day. Mr. Holmes, of whom much has been said, who wrote the account of himself in 16 [...]5, that you have p. 208—212, 256, &c. and succeeded Mr. Clarke in the pastoral office at Newport, died there October 15, 1682, aged 76. He has a large posterity now remaining in New-England and New-Jersey.

The learned and pious Mr. Miles having return­ed to his flock in Swanzey, fell asleep in Jesus on Feb. 3, 1683; and his memory is still precious among us. We are told that being once brought before the magistrates he requested a bible, and upon obtaining it he turned to those words, ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me. Job 19, 28. which having read he sat down; and the word had a good effect upon their minds, and moved them to treat him with moderation if not kindness. His son went [Page 507]back to England, and his grandson Mr. Samuel Miles was an episcopal minister at our Boston in 1724. Though Mr. Willard, and the Magnalia from him, accused the baptists of Boston, of se­parating because they wanted to be teachers, yet that was so far from truth, that on June 27, 1681, they wrote to London for a minister, giving this as one reason for it that, "our minister is very aged and feeble, and often incapable of his mini­sterial work;" and as another motive they say, "We conceive there is a prospect of good encou­ragment for an able man to come over, in that there seems to be an apparant and general apostacy among the churches who have professed them­selves congregational in this land; whereby many have their eyes opened, by seeing the de­clention and confusion that is among them." A kind answer hereto was retured by eleven baptist minsters, which is before me.

AND now as some singular and curious things are generally expected from a new country, I shall re­late the closing part of one of the greatest curiosities I have met with in modern history; the sum whereof is this. A large number of people fled out of the old world into this wilderness for reli­gious liberty; but had not been here long before some put in high claims for power, under the name of orthodoxy; to whom others made fierce opposition professedly from the light within; and their clashings were so great that several lives were lost in the fray. This made a terrible noise on the other side of the water. But as self-defence is a natural principal, each party wrote volume after volume to clear themselves from blame; and they both conspired to cast a great part of it upon one singular man, whom they called a weather cock, [Page 508]and a wind-mill. Now let the curious find out if they can, First, how men of university-learning, or of divine inspiration, came to write great vo­lumes against a wind-mill and a weather-cock? Secondly, how such a strange creature came to be an over-match for them all, and to carry his point against the arts of pr [...]est-cra [...]t, the intrigues of court, the slights or enthuseasm and the power of factions, so as after he had pulled down ruin upon himself and his friends, yet to be able, in the midst of heathen savages, to erect the best form of civil government that the world had soen in 1600 years? Thirdly, how he and his ruined friends came to lie under those reproaches for a hundred years, and yet that their plan should then be adopted by thirteen colonies, to whom these dispised people could afford SENATORS of principal note, as well as COMMANDERS by sea and land? The excellency of this scene above those which many are bewitch­ed with, consists in its being founded upon facts and not fictions; being not the creature of dis­tempered brains, but of an unerring Pro­vidence

ACCORDING to Mr. Williams's own testimony, (p. 143) his soul was renewed by divine grace when he was not more than ten or twelve years old. And the mystery of his being rigidly set in his way, and yet given to change, is to be explain­ed thus. Neither frowns nor flatteries could move him to part with what he judged to be truth, or to assent to any thing contrary thereto. As he scrupled the exactness of the kalender then in use, so he discovered it in all his dates. Even when dedicating his quaker dispute to the King, he dated it March 10, 1672, 3, (ut vulgo.) On the other hand he was ever ready to change, when [Page 509]he could obtain light for it from any quarter. While he ministered to his brethren at Plymouth, he objected against their custom of giving their neighbours the tittle of goodman, if they were not judged to be godly persons. When governor Winthrop paid them a visit in 1632, (p, 56,) and his advice was asked upon it, he shewed them that they ought to distinguish betwixt theological and moral goodness, and observed that when trials by jury was first introduced in England, after the names of fit persons for the purpose were called over, the crier called them to attend, good men and true, from whence proceeded the custom then in question; and he thought it a pity to make a stir about a custom so innocently intro­duced. ^* Mr. Williams readily embraced this ad­vice, and made a very good use of it afterward, in exposing the mischiefs that arose from a con­founding of those two sorts of goodness together, as Mr. Cotton and many others had done. And because he was earnestly looking for a better church-establishment than he had then seen, they imposed the name of seeker upon him. The great Mr. Baxter calls him The father of the seekers in London. ^† When he went there in 1643, and published his testimony against the bloody tenet, Mr. Cotton, among other reflections said, "Thus men that have time and leisure at will, will set up images of clouts, and then shoot at them." ^‡ In answer to which Mr. Williams appealed to the people of Plymouth, Salem and Providence, that he had not lead such a life in this country; and as to the other he says, "I can tell that when [Page 510]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 coal from Newcastle, and the mutinies of the poor for sir [...]ing—these meditations were fitted for public view in change of rooms and cor­ners, yea, in a variety of strange houses, sometimes in the fields in the midst of travel;—for which service, through the hurry of the times, and the necessity of his departure he lost his recompence to this day—Well, notwithstanding master Cotton's bitter censure, some persons of no contemptable note nor intelligence, have by letters from Eng­land, informed the discusser, that by these images of clouts it hath pleased God to stop no small leaks of persecution, that lately began to flow in upon dissenting consciences, and, among others, to master Cotton's own, and to the peace and quietness of the independants, which they have so long, and so wonderfully enjoyed." ^* See p. 155, 174, 175, 187, &c.

AND as to his later services, he was so far from being meanly hired, as they said, for a piece of bread, to write against the quakers, that after he had done it, he wrote thus to Newport. "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 [Page 511]merciful dispensation to you. I rejoice also to read your heavenly desires and endeavours, 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. 2. 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 conquerer 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.—Mine 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 Obediah Holmes, who sent me a message to the same purpose. At present I pray salute respectivly Mr. John Clarke and his brothers, Mr. Tory, Mr. Edes, Edward [Page 512]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."

IF the reader reviews Dr. Chamberlain's first letter, and is informed that he with his brethren he wrote to, took the whole of the ten com­mendments to be moral and immutable, and held that it was the little horn that changed the time from the seventh to the first day: but that Mr. Olney and his church observed to their brethren, that Paul speaks of a glory which was done away that was written and engraven in stones, 2 Cor. 3, 7, com­pared with this letter, he will then have a plain idea of the nature of that controversy on both sides, as it was managed in that day. And to go on; it is to be remembered, that some persons in different parts of that colony had such a conceit of liberty, as that officers should manage the go­vernment without any reward from them; by which means Mr. Clarke received but part of his pay for procuring their charter as long as he lived; and occasioned a remonstrance from his executors to the assembly upon it soon after his death. And a clause from Mr. Williams upon it, I have already recited; to which I now add the follow­ing. In August 1678, he was appointed to assist Mr. Daniel Abbot in setting their town records in order, the latter being then chosen their clerk. Three years after Mr. Williams wrote to him thus. "My good friend, loving remembrance to you. It hath 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 well able to come to you, present you with a [Page 513]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 Arno [...]d 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 recom­pence; but I am persuaded you shall find cause to say, the Most High God of recompence, 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 naught. 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 elswhere, 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 in 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. [Page 514]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 Barbados, 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, favour or charges. Our first cost an 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 excells all in New-England, or in the world, as to the souls of men. 14. It pleas­eth 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 makeing the rates by himself or his de­puties. 17. In our colony the general assembly, governor, magistrates, deputies, towns, town­clerks, 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 herauld from heaven de­nounceth [Page 515]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 last act that I have found upon record, performed by this eminent peace-maker, was on January 16, 1683, when he, with Mr. Carpenter, and the heirs or assigns of the other eleven origi­nal proprietors, signed a full settlement of the long-continued controversy about Pawtuxet lands. On the 10th of May following Mr. John Thorton, wrote to Mr. Hubbard and said, "Dear brother, you gave me an account of the death of divers of our ancient friends; since that time the Lord hath arrested by death our ancient and approved friend Mr. ROGER WILLIAMS, with divers others here. The good Lord grant that we may be stirred up, with the wise virgins, to be triming our lamps, and getting them full of the spiritual oil, and standing with wise Habbakuk upon our watch­towers till our appointed change." Thus lived and thus died the first baptist minister in New-England, and the first founder and supporter of any truly free civil government upon earth, since the rise of antichrist; "and he was buried with all the solemnity the colony was able to shew." ^† This was in the 84th year of his age, being 52 years after his arrival in this country.

His wife, whose name was Mary, came with him from England; their children were

• 1 Mary, born at Plymouth the first week in August 1633.
• 2. Freeborn, at Salem in October 16 [...]5.
• 3. Pro­vidence, born at the place he so called in Septem­ber 1638, said to be the first English male born there.
• 4. M [...]rcy, born July 15, 1640.
• 5. Daniel, born Feb. 13, 1642.
• 6. Joseph, born in Dec. 1643.

The last of these, and a grandson of the same name, were magistrates in the colony and some of great knowledge, compute his present posterity at near 2000. Thomas Ward, Esq who was a baptist before he came out of Cromwell's [...]my, and was a very useful man in this colony, was ancestor to two late governors, and to the present secretary of it, in the male line, as Mr. Williams was in the female; one of them was the honorable SAMUEL WARD, Esq who died a mem­ber of the Continental Congress at Philadelphia, on March 26, 1776, aged 52. The family o [...] HOP­KINS in Providence, which has afforded an hono­rable member of that assembly, and two comman­ders for the continental flee [...], descended in the male line from Mr. Thomas Hopkins, who follow­ed Mr Williams from Plymouth, and in the fe­male from Mr. Wickend [...]n, an early member, and long a teacher of the baptist church there. The noted family of BROWN, in Providence, sprung from Mr. Chad Brown on the one side, and from Mr. Williams on the other. And our generals, GREENE and ARNOLD, sprang from two of the twelve first proprietors of those lands, which were given for a place of refuge for such as were DIS­TRESSED FOR CONSCIENCE SAKE ELSEWHERE; and may that great design never be forgotton by us or ours! Some have been ready to make those religious [Page 517]contentions and oppressions an argument against all revealed religion, but if they duly consider the following things, compared with the forgoing, perhaps it may alter their minds. To guard a­gainst evil biases in our dealings, the great AU­THOR of our religion said, With what judgment ye judge [...]y shall be judged; and with what meas [...]r [...] ye m [...]e, it shall be measured to you again. And was not his word verified in the following instances?

1. The ruling party in the Massachusetts, had not only ra [...]ed up the real faults of the baptists, and exposed them in their worst colours, but also slande [...]ed them in many particulars. And now Edward R [...]ndolph went eight vo [...]ages to England in nine years, and treated them in the same man­ner at the British court, on purpose to get away their charter, ^* 2 Ly [...] plea from the kings grant in [...]at charter, they had cruelly oppressed their brethren and neighbours in many instances: now in 1684 the charter was vacated by a decree in chauncery, without giving them opportunity to answer for themselves; "and those who were in condfederacy with Sir Edmund And [...]os, for the enriching themselves on the spoils of New-Eng­land, did invade the property as well as liberty of the subject; and gave out, that now their char­ter wa [...] gone all their lands were the king's; that themselves did represent the king, and therefore men that would have any legal title to their lands must take patents of them, on such terms as they should see mete to impose. What people that had the spirits of Englishmen could endure this?" ^† 3. Their charter never gave them any right to [Page 518]establish their mode of worship by force; but in order to do it they presumed to leave the word lawful out of their oaths. p. 61, 63; and Ipswich gave an early example of seizing their neighbours property in that illegal way, against the weighty arguments of judge Symonds. Now the scale was turned, so that an arbitary governor and council made laws and imposed taxes upon all, without any house of representatives; and for refusing to carry an order for such a tax into execution in Ipswich, Mr. John Wise a minister who spake upon it in their town-meeting was imprisoned, and de­nied the benefit of the Habus Corpus act; and when he upon his trial plead the Magna Charta, and laws of England, he was told by one of the judges, that "he must not think the laws of Eng­land followed them to the ends of the earth— Mr. Wise, you have no more privilege left you, than not to be sold for slaves" The honorable John Appleton, Esq was treated in the same man­ner; and both were put from office, sined 50 l. a piece, and ordered to give bonds of 1000 l. each, for their good behavior for one year. Four o­ther men of that town received like sentences, on­ly in less sums. ^* Was not this a teaching by cudgel instead of argument! p. 100. To justify or excuse their making the law against the baptists in 1644, Mr. Hubbard said, "It were well if those who cannot comply with the religion of the state or place where they live, yet had so much manners as not to justle against, nor openly practice that that is inconsistant therewith, as if they would bid a kind of defiance thereunto. Moses would not do that in Egypt, upon account of religious worship, that might seem a matter of abomination to them [Page 519]who were lords of the place." And Dr. Mather had lately said, "If a considerable number of an­tipedobaptists should (as our fathers here did) ob­tain liberty from the state, to transport themselves and families, into a waste American wilderness, that so they might be a peculiar people by them­selves; practising all, and only the institutions of Christ: if now pedobaptists should come after them, and intrude themselves upon them—surely they would desire such persons, either to walk orderly with them, or to return to the place from whence they came. Let them then do as they would be done by." ^* Now John Palmer, one of Andros's council, to vindicate their conduct said, "It is a fundamental point, consented to by all christian nations, that the first discoverer of a country in­habited by infidels, gives right and dominion of that country to the prince in whose service the discoverers were sent." But the Massachusetts say, "we affirm that this fundamental point, as he calls it, is not a christian, but an unchristian principle" ^† Yes, and it was as much so when they banished Mr. Williams as it is now. 4. We have seen how Dr. Mather treated the characters of the baptists; now a letter is forged in his name, full of ridiculous and treasonable expressions, which being pretendedly detected in its way to Holland, was laid before the British ministry, and then was printed and spread through the nation to expose him. When he came to know it he said, "That which troubled me was, that I was like to suffer as an evil-doer, through the malice and falshood of wicked men. Might I have suffered for any truth [Page 520]which I had born witness to, I could have rejoiced in it." ^* Yes; but his persecutors were as little inclin­ed to give him that honor, as he was the baptist. 5. Governor Bradstreet who helped to banish Mr. Williams, for opposing an oath that was contrary to his conscience, lived to feel and see what such impossitions ment upon themselves. For refusing to swear on the book, many were not only put by from serving on jurys, but were fined and imprisoned, and says the Historian, "the faithful of New-England chose rather to suffer affliction, than to use a rite in the worship of God, which they sus­pected sinful." ^† And Dr. Increase Mather took pains to publish a discourse upon "The unlawfulness of using common prayer; and of swearing on the book." 6. Andros carried his episcopal worship into Mr. Williard's meeting-house, after their ex­ercise was over, and threatened, "To shut up their doors if he was refused, and to punish any man [...]ho gave two pence towards the support of nonconformist ministers; and that public worship in the congregational way, should not be tolerated." This felt so to them, that when king James sent over his proclamation, of indulgence and [...]iberty, of conscience, "The ministers of Boston proposed unto their congregations to keep a day of thangs­giving, to bless God for what they enjoyed; [but the governor assured them] that if they did, he would clap [...] a guard on their persons and their churches too," and so prevented it. Hereupon they thought proper to send Dr. Mather as their agent to England. He had accused Randolph or his brother, of forging the aforesaid letter to ex­pose him; upon which Randolph prosecuted him for defamation: and though he was acquitted [Page 521]upon trial, yet to prevent his going to England Ruadolph designed by another writ to seize, and clap him up in prison; to avoid which Dr. Mather escaped out of town in disguise, and was carried on board a ship in the night, April 7, 1688; and upon his arrival at London, he with others peti­tioned the king, "That there might be liberty of conscience in matters of religion,—and that all their meeting houses may be sett free to them, according to the intention of the builders thereof, but this application met with no success: ^*

Do not these things verify the truth of the christian reveration? They brought Dr. Mather over to acknowlege, that the parable of the fares was a declaration of our Saviour's will for a tolera­tion; and that, a good neighbour and a good sub­ject has a claim to all his temporal enjoyments before he is a christian; and he thought it very odd, that the man should lose his claim, from his embracing of christianity, because he does not happen to be a christian of the uppermost party among the subdivisions. For an uppermost party of christians, to punish men, it then temporal en­joyments, because in some religious opinions they dissent from them, or with an exclusion from the temporal enjoyments, which would justly belong unto them, is a robbery. ^† And how were the baptists treated after this?

THEIR church at Boston had received elder John Emblen from England, July 20, 1684. Mr Richard Dingley was received a member there the same year, and soon after succeeded Mr. Holmes in the pastoral office at Newport, where he continued about ten years, and then went to Carolina, [Page 522]Mr. Samuel Luther succeeded Mr. Miles at Swanzey, where he was ordained by our elders, Hull and Emblen, on July 22, 1685, and he was continued a great blessing to them 32 years. But elder Emblen dying about 1699, that church remained in destitute circumstances for some years, and then chose Mr. Callender in his room; to whom the following letter was directed, the original of which is now before me.

To my worthy friend, Mr. Ellis Callender, elder of a church of Christ in Boston.

HIS son Elisha had joined to that church the 10th of August preceeding, and he gave him an education at Cambridge; and Dr. Increase Mather [Page 523]having signified his willingness for such a thing, the church called him, his son, and Mr. John Webb to assist in ordaining the said Mr. Elisha Callender then pastor on May 21, 1718; and in the preface to that ordination Sermon, the old gentlemen says, "It was a grateful surprise to me, when several of the brethren of the antipedo­baptist persuasion came to me, desiring that I would give them the right-hand of fellowship in ordaining one whom they had chosen to be their pastor. I did (as I believe it was my duty) readily consent to what they proposed: considering the young man to be ordained is serious and pious, and of a candid spirit, and has been educated in the college at Cambridge; and that all of the bre­thren of that church with whom I have any ac­quaintance (I hope the like concerning others of them) are in the judgment of rational charity god­ly persons." Two of whom were old elder Cal­lender and deacon Sweester, who were principal members when their meeting-house was formerly nailed up. Dr. Cotton Mather preached the Ser­mon, which he intitled Good men united. And af­ter opening the nature and importance of such a union he says, "It is very sadly true, that many ecclesiastical communities, wherein piety has its votaries, yet are guilty of this evil, that they im­pose terms of communion which many that have the fear of God, are by just exceptions kept from complying withal. Now in this unhappy case what is to be done? do this, let good men go as far as they can without sin in holding communion with one another. But where sinful terms are imposed, there let them make their stops; there a separation becomes a duty; there the injunction of heaven upon them is, Be ye separate saith the [Page 524]Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will re­ceive you. The imp [...]rs are the schismatics.—The unity which beautifies the true people of God, is ca [...]ed the unity of the spirit. Eph. 4, 3. The right basis for an union among us, is the holy Spirit inclining us to glorify God, with an obedience to his will revealed in his word; and to glorify our Saviour with a dependance on him for all the blessings goodness; and to love our neighbour as ourselves. There have been many attempts to unite people in forms and terms, that are not the pure maxims of living unto God; and so to build the tower of Zion, on a foundation which is not the tr [...]ed stone and the precious, and so not the su [...]e foundation. There has hitherto been a blast from heaven upon all those attempts; they have mis­carried, as being rather calculated for the tower of Babel.—We are sometimes fearful of paying the respects which we really owe to a people of true piety (such a people as we this day meet withal) for­sooth, lest we confirm them in what we take to be an error, or mislead others into it; I hope it is needless fear—O you who cannot but own your­selves brethren to one another, and bound up in one bundle of life; how is it possible for you to re­quire of one another submission to terms which you cannot but think, that men may be good men, and have the evident tokens of salvation upon them, whithout submitting to! And the terms which you have so pitched upon, how can you proceed so far, as not only to with­draw your fellowship from the good men to whom they do not appear so necessary, but also inflict un­easy circumstances upon them, under the wretched notion of wholsome severities! Cursed the anger, for it is fierce; and the wrath, for it is cruel! good for nothing but only to make divisions in Jacob, and [Page 525] dispersions in Israel. Good men, alass! good men have done [...]uen ill things as these; yea, few churches of the reformation have been wholly clear of these iniquities. New-England also has in some former times done something of this as­pect, which would not now be so well approved of; in which, in the brethren, in whose house we are [...]y convened, met with any thing too unbrother­ly, they now with [...]atisfaction hear us expressing our dislike of every thing that has looked like per­secution in the days that have passed over us." ^*

I THOUGHT it best thus to collect these passages into one view, which may remind us of the apostles words, Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. After the v [...]a [...]on of the Massachusetts charter, Mr. Joseph D [...]dley was appoined president of the colony, till governor Andros arrived in December 1686, who had all New-England and New-York in­cluded in his commission. Randolph brought a quo warranto against Rhode-Island charter, June 22 1680, upon which the freemen met, and gave their opinion to the general assembly, and then lest the affair with them, who on June 29 conclud­ed not to stand suit with his Majesty, but sent a humble address to him, "to continue their privi­leges according to charter." Andros's commission was published among them the 12th of January following and he with a few mandamous counsel­lers, tyra [...]ised over all these colonies, till John Winslow brought a copy of King William's pro­clamation to Boston, and Andros imprisoned him therefor; upon which the people arose April 18, 1689, and seized him and his council, and resumed their former order of government; which being heard of in Rhode-Island colony, their freemen met at [Page 526]Newport May 1, and voted to resume their char­ter, and to have their former rulers take their places again. They met again Feb. 20, 1690, and elected new rulers in the place of some who declined serving, and they with Connecticut have enjoyed their privileges to the present times.

I SHALL close this chapter with a list of New-England rulers, and a few remarks thereon. Ply­mouth never had any charter but only from the council for New-England that was established at Plymouth in Dovenshire. Their form of govern­ment was settled by voluntary agreement among themselves. At first they only chose a governor; the next year, one assistant with him; in 1624, they chose five, and in 1633, seven assistants, and kept to that number to the end of their colony. Mr. Bradford was always an assistant when he was not governor, as long as he lived: his son was assistant and then deputy governor till the revolu­tion; and he and several of his posterity have been counsellors in this province; and one of his descendants is now deputy governor of the state of Rhode-Island. In 1639, they began to have a house of deputies in their general court; and about 1662, they agreed that their eldest assi­stant should have the power of a deputy governor, to act in the governor's place when he was absent. This continued till 1680, when by reason of Mr. Alden's age, though they continued him an assistant, they began to choose other deputy governors.

A list of PLYMOUTH GOVERNORS, the years they ruled, and the time of their deaths.

• 1 John Carver, 1620, died April 1621.
• 2 William Bradford, 1621 —33, 35, 37 39,—43, 45—57 died, May 9, 1657, aet. 69.
• 3 Edward Winslow, 1633 36, 44, died May 8, 1655, aet. 61.
• 4 Thomas Prince, 1634, [Page 527]38, 57—73, died Mar. 29, 1673, aet. 73.
• 5 Josiah Winslow, 1673, —30, died Dec. 18, 1680 aet. 52.
• 6 Thomas Hinckley, 1681 —86, 89—92, died 1705, aet. 74.

• 1 William Collim, 1662, —66.
• 2 John [...]en. 1666—80.
• 3 Thomas Hinckley 1 [...]0,
• 4 James Cudworth, 1681 he went their agent to England, and di [...] here the same year.
• 5 William Bradford, 1682 —86, 89—92.

• Isaac Allerton, 1621.
• Edward Winslow,
• Miles Standish,
• John Howland,
• John Alden,
• John Doane,
• Stephen Hopkins,
• William Gilson, 1633
• William Colliar, 1634
• Thomas Prince, 1635
• Timothy Hatherly, 1636
• John Brown, 1636
• John Jenny, 1637
• John Atwood, 1638
• Edmund Freeman, 1640
• William Thomas, 1642
• Thomas Willet, 1651
• Tho's Southworth, 1652
• James Cudworth, 1656
• Josiah Winslow, 1657
• William Bradford, 1658
• Thomas Hinckley, 1658
• James Bawn, 1665
• John Freeman, 1666
• [...]athaniel Bacon, 1667
• Const. Southworth, 1670
• Daniel Smith, 1 [...]79
• Barnabas Lothrop, 1681
• John Thatcher, 1682
• John Walley, 1684
• John Cushing, 1690

Note, the Appendix to Morton mistakes in plac­ing the first choice of Cudworth and Brown, after 1670; and the Mag­liana sets Smith too early.

• 1 Matthew Cradock, 1628
• 2 John Winthrop, 1629, —34, 37—40, 42—44, 46—49, died Mar. 26 1649, aet. 62.
• 3 Thomas Dudley 1934 40, 45, 50, died July 31, 1653, aet. 77.
• [Page 528]4 John Haines, 1635
• 5 Henry Vane, 1636 died, 1662, aet 50,
• 6 Richard Bellingham. 1641, 54, 65—72, died 1672, aet, 81.
• 7 John Endicot, 1644. 49, 51—53, 55—65 died March 23, 166 [...]
• 8 John Leveret, 1673—7 [...] died March 16, 167 [...]
• 9 Simon Bradstreet, 1671 —86, 89—92, died Mar. 27, 1697, aet, 94.

• 1 Thomas Goff, 1628
• 2 John Humfrey, 162 [...]
• 3 John Endicot, 1629 41—43, 50, 54.
• 4 Thomas Dudley, 1630 —34, 37—40, 46—49, 51.
• 5 Roger Ludlow, 1634
• 6 Richard Bellingham, 1635, 40, 55—65.
• 7 John Winthrop, 1636, 44, 45.
• 8 Francis Willoughby, 1665—71.
• 9 John Leveret, 1671—73
• 10 Samuel Symonds, 167 [...]—77.
• 11 Simon Bradstreet. 1677, 78.
• 12 Thomas Danforth, 1678—80, 89— [...]2.

• Sir Richard Saltonsiall,
• [...]saac Johnson.
• John Endicot.
• Increase Newel.
• William Vassel.
• William Pinchop.
• Edward F [...]er.
• Roger [...]a [...]ow.
• Thomas Sharp.
• John Revel.
• William Coddington.
• [...]imon Bradstreet. ^*
• John Humfrey, 1632
• John Winthrop, jun. 1632
• John Haines, 1634
• Atherton Hough, 1633
• Richard Dummer, 1635
• Rich. Bellingham, 1636
• Roger Harlakendon 1636
• Israel Stoughton, 1637
• Richard Saltonstall, 1637
• Thomas Flint, 1642
• Samuel Symonds, 1643
• Will Hib [...]ens, 1643
• Herbert Pelham, 1645
• Robert Bridges 1647
• Francis Willoughby 1650
• Thomas Wiggan, 1650
• Edward Gibbons, 1651
• [Page 529]John Glover, 1652
• Daniel Gookin, 1652
• Daniel Denison, 1653
• Simon Willard, 1654
• H. Atherton, 1654
• Richard Russell, 1659
• Thomas Danforth, 1659
• William Hawthorn, 1662
• Eleazar Lusher, 1662
• John Leveret, 1665
• John Pinchon, 1665
• Edward Tyng, 1668
• William Stoughton, 1671
• Thomas Clark, 1673
• Joseph Dudley, 1676
• Peter Bulkley, 1677
• N. Saltonstall, 1679
• Humfrey Davy, 1679
• James Russell, 1680
• Samuel Nowel, 1680
• Peter Tilton, 1680
• John Richards, 1680
• John Hull, 1680
• B. Gidney. 1680
• Thomas Savage. 1680
• William Brown, 1680
• Samuel Appleton, 1681
• Robert Pike, 1682
• Daniel Fisher, 1683
• John Woodbridge, 1683
• Elisha Cooke, 1684
• William Johnson, 1684
• John Hawthorn, 1684
• Elisha Hutchinson, 1684
• Isaac Addington, 1686
• John Smith, 1686

THEIR charter appoint­ed 18 assistants, but they had scarce ever chosen above half so many, till by the King's order they chose the full number in 1680.

RHODE-ISLAND Rulers.

ROGER WILLIAMS, was truly the founder of that Colony, and a principal ruler among them, as we have seen, from the beginning. Those who began upon the island a different notion about govern­ment from him at first, and as their covenant p. 96, was printed from an imperfect copy, I shall here insert it exactly from their records as follows:

THEY then chose the elders named in p. 97, and went on as is there mentioned, till March 16, 1641, when they distranc [...]ed Carder, Holden, S [...]atton and Potter, and suspended from voteing George Parks, John Briggs, and Mr. Lentha [...], who was gone for England; and then said, "It is 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 and laws established." And in September following they said, "The law concerning liberty of conscience in point of doctrine is perpetuated." After they received their charter, their rulers were as follows:

• John Coggshall, 1647.
• Roger Williams, 1648 54—57, died 1683 aet. 84.
• John Smith, 1649, 52.
• Nicholas Easton, 1650, 51, 72, 73, died 1675.
• Gregory exter, 1653 died aet. 91.
• Benedict Arnold, 1657, —60.62—65, 69—72, 7 [...] 78, died June 19 1678
• William Brenton, 1660 —62.66—69. died 1674
• William Coddington 1674 75, 78, died Nov. 1, 1678, aet 78.
• Walter Clarke, 1676, 86, 96, 97, died June 1714.
• John Cranston, 1678 —30, died Mar. 12, 1680
• Peleg Sanford, 1680—82
• William Coddington, 1683—85, died 1688,
• Henry Bull, 1685, 90.
• John Easton, 1690—95 died 1705, aet 85.
• Caleb Carr, 1695
• Samuel Cranston, 16 [...]8 —1727, died April 26, 1727.
• Joseph Jencks, 1727— 32, died June 15, 1740, aged 84.
• Wm. Wanton, 1732—34.
• John Wanton, 1734—41
• Richard Ward, 1741—43
• William Greene, 1743— 45, 46, 48—55, 57.
• Gideon Wanton, 1745, 47
• Stephen Hopkins, 1755 —57, 58—62, 64, 67 —69.
• [Page 532]Samuel Ward, 1762— 64, 65—67.
• Josias Lyndon, 1769
• Joseph Wanton, 1770—75
• Nich. Cooke, 1775—77.

• William Brenton, 1663—66.
• Nicholas Easton, 1666— 69, 70.
• John Clarke, 1669, 71.
• John Cranston, 1672, 76 —78.
• John Easton, 1675.
• James Barker, 1678, 79.
• Walter Clarke, 1679— 85, 1701—14.
• John Cogshall, 1668, 90.
• John Greene 1690—1701
• Henry Tew, 1714,
• Joseph Jencks, 1715—20, 23—27.
• John Wanton, 1721— 23 29—34
• Jonathan Nichols, 1727,
• Thomas Fry, 1727—29.
• Ge [...]. Hazard, 1734—38.
• Daniel Abbot, 1738—40.
• Richard Ward, 1740.
• Wm. Greene. 1741—43.
• Joseph Whipple, 1743— 45, 46, 52—54.
• Wm. Robinson, 1745, 47
• Wm. Ellery, 1748—50.
• Ro'rt Hazard, 1750—52.
• J. Gardner, 1754, 56—64
• Jonathan Nichols, 1755.
• Joseph Wanton, jun. 1764, 67—69.
• Elisha Brown, 1765—67
• Nicholas Cooke, 1769, 75
• Darius Session, 1770—75
• Wm Bradford, 1775—77

• Roger Williams, 1647
• John Sanford, 1647
• W. Coddington, 1647
• Randal Holden, 1647
• Jeremiah Clarke, 1948
• John Smith, 1648
• Thomas Olney, 1649
• John Clarke, 1649
• Samuel Gorton, 1649
• William Field, 1650
• John Porter, 1650
• John Wickes, 1650
• John Sayles, 1653
• Stukely Wescoat, 1653
• Thomas Harris, 1654
• John Roome, 1654
• Benedict Arnold, 1654
• William Baulston, 1656
• John Coggshall, 1656
• Arthur Venner, 1657
• Richard Tew, 1657
• Joseph Clarke, 1658
• John Greene, 1650
• James Barker, 1663 ^*
• [Page 533]Walter, Todd, 1664
• John Gardner, 1665
• Edward Smith, 1665
• William Carpenter, 1665
• John Brown, 1665
• Samuel Wilbore, 1665
• John Easton, 1666
• William Harris, 1666
• Richard Cardner, 1666
• Benjamin Smith, 1666
• Peleg Sanford, 1667
• William Reape, 1667
• Stephen Arnold, 1667
• John Cranston, 1668
• Thomas Olney, jun. 1669
• Joshua Coggshall, 1669
• John Tripp, 1670
• James Greene, 1670
• John Albro 1671
• Richard Smith, 1672
• Francis Brinley, 1672
• Henry Brown, 1672
• Walter Clarke, 1673
• Daniel Gould, 1673
• Job Almey, 1673
• Henry Bull, 1674
• Benjamin Barton, 1674
• Edward Thurston, 1675
• Thomas Barden, 1675
• William Codman, 1676
• Sam [...]l Gorton jun. 1676
• John Whipple, 1677
• Thomas Greene, 1678
• Caleb Carr, 1679
• Thomas Ward, 1679
• Wm. Coddington, 1680
• Joseph Jencks, 1680
• George Lawton, 1680
• Richard Arnold, 1681
• John Potter, 1685
• Walter Newbury, 1686
• Benedict Arnold, 1690
• Christo. Almey, 1690

• Edward Hopkins, 1636 died in England 1657
• John Haines,
• George Wyllys,
• Thomas Wells,
• John Webster,
• J. Winthrop, 1662—76 died April 5, 1676, aet. 71
• William Leete,
• Robert Treat,
• J. Winthrop died 1707
• G. Saltonsta [...]l, 1707—24
• J. Talcot, 1724—41 died October 1741
• Jona. Law, 1741—50 died 1750
• R. Woolcot, 1750—54
• Tho. Fitch, 1754—66
• Wm. Pitkin, 1769—69 died 1766.
• Jona Trumbull 1769—77

• Theo. Eaton, 1637—57 died 1657.
• F. Newman, 1657—60 died 1660
• Wm. Leete, 1660—62.

BRIEF REMARKS.

1 THESE facts may teach us what to think of the exclamations that have often been made a­gainst a free government, whose each freeman may have a voice in choosing their chief rulers. Plymouth had this liberty in its full extent: hav­ing full power to lay the plan of their govern­ment as they pleased, and to elect whom they would into office. Each freeman in that colony had their equal vote in the annual choice of their governor; and had not governor Bradford requested them sometimes to elect others into that office, it is probable that in the whole 73 years of their continuance as a distinct colony, they would never have changed it into any more hands than death obliged them to; and in fact they never did but five times in all those years; and [...] New-Haven made no such change whit [...] they [...] a dis­tinct government. And we have [...] evidence that even a sergant in Plymouth [...] treat­ed with more honorable [...] captains have now been for these many years past. In Connecticut where their governors have always been elected annually, by votes of the [...]ce­men sent in from every town in the colony, they have chosen but to men in 140 years, and but ten in a hundred years, only two or three of whom were left out of office till they died. And the Massachusetts chose but eight governors in 63 years. But since this fickle popularity (as some call such government) was taken away, and the power was vested in a crowned head, to fix, governors over us by a steady commission, in which the people had no voice, the province in 82 years has had a Phips, Stoughton, Bellamont, Dudley, Tailor, Shute, Dummer, Burnet, Belcher, [Page 535]Shirley, Phips, Pownal, Bernard, Hutchinson, and Gage, for commanders in chief, who have each in their turns been invested with power, to negative our councellors when elected, and to ne­gative any and every act that our assembly could pass, and to dissolve them when they pleased. All these in a space when Connecticut had but about half so many governors, and in 34 years of the time Rhode-Island had but two. And the evil effects afterward of a depreciating currency, and of party influence in elections, all need to beware of at this day. Hence, 2 Learn the importance of viewing persons and actions in their distinct light, so as not to confound good and evil, truth and fals­hood together. God says, only by pride cometh con­tention; but with the [...]-advised is wisdom Pride caused a contention about who should be greatest, even among the apostles, and made them think of call­ing for fire from heaven to consume such as would not receive them. And Dr. Owen well says, "Gospel constitutions, in the case of heresy or error, seem not to favour any course of violence, I mean of civil penalties. Fortold it is, that heresies must be, 1 Cor. 11, 19, but this for the manifesting of those who are approved, not the destroying of those that are not.—Perhaps those who call for the sword on earth, are as unacquainted with their own spirits, as those that called for fire from heaven, Luk. 11. And perhaps the parable of the tares gives in a positive rule as to this whole busi­ness." ^* These sentiments were inculcated upon our Plymouth fathers before they came to this country, see p. 26—32. And governor bradford was the owner of the book which contained them that I am now favoured with; and while he con­tinued [Page 536]governor Mr. Williams could be comfor­table at Plymouth; but when Mr. Winslow came into that office in 163 [...], he requested a submission to Salem. And the second time Mr. Winslow was governor he wrote to Mr. Williams to re­move out of that jurisdiction, p. 72, and a law was made that year to forbid the gathering of any church therein without the rulers leave. He and Mr. Colliar were the commissioners for Ply­mouth who on Sept. 7, 1643, signed the articles of confederation that the other three colonies had entered into the May before; and who then con­cured in the delivery of Miantinomo to Uncas to be slain (though without torture) and in advising the Massachusetts to send an armed force to War­wick. He was again a commissioner in their meet­ing at Hartford Sept. 1, 1644, when they wrote to each colony, to enter upon a method of rating all persons by authority, that refused or neglected to give what the rulers judged to be their meet pro­portion toward ministers maintenance; against which Mr. John Brown, the other Plymouth commissio­ner, entered his dissent. In October 1645, in a thin assembly at Plymouth, Mr. Winslow pro­pounded, "and after a whole days agitation" got something of this nature allowed and entered up­on their waste book: but when a full assembly met the next week Mr. Brown and other magis­trates, "excepted against the entry of that order, as pernicious and destructive to the weal of the government, and tendered a proposition, to al­low and maintain full and free tollerance of reli­gion, to all men that would preserve the civil peace, and submit to government." But Mr. Winslow had influence enough to prevent the putting of that matter to vote. When the commissioners [Page 537]met at New-Haven Sept. 9, 1646, they said, "up­on information of what petitions have been lately put up in some of the colonies against the good and straight ways of Christ, both in the churches and in the common-wealth, the commissioners, re­membering that these colonies, for themselves and their posterity, did unite into this form of perpetual league, as for other respects, so for mutual advice, that the truth and liberties of the gospel might be preserved and perpetuated, thought it their duty seriously to commend it to the care and jurisdiction of each general court within these united colonies, that as they have laid their foundations and mea­sured the house of God, the worship and wor­shippers, by the rod God hath put into their hands, so they would walk on and build up (all discour­agements and difficulties notwithstanding) with an undaunted heart and unwearied hand, according to the sure rules and patterns—That anabaptism, familism, antinomianism, and generally all errors of like nature, which oppose, undermine and slight either the scriptures, the sabbath or other ordinances of God and bring in and cry up un­warrantable revelations, inventions of men, or any carnal liberty, under a deceitful colour of liberty of conscience, may be seasonably and duly supprest; though they wish as much forbearance and re­spect may be had of tender consciences, seeking light, as may stand with the purity of religion and peace of the churches." The commissioners for Plymouth, Brown and Hatherly, did not concur with this. ^*

MR. Winslow was then gone to England, from whence he never returned; and not having his [Page 538]influence, all the ministers in Plymouth colony, and the Massachusetts court to help them, could not prevail in 1650, with governor Bradford, and his court, to inflict so much as a fine upon Mr. Holmes; who was most cruelly whipt at Boston the next year, p. 213, &c. Said ministers were not of the original planters of Plymouth colony, and because their court would not be governed by them, the most of them left it, and carried their complaints to Boston, from whence fresh exertions were made, which then in a measure introduced a state-worship, and state-ways of maintenance into Plymouth colony. Though the bloody work that followed at Boston, gave such a shock to it as turned them back again in a great measure. Mr. John Brown had been a magistrate 17 years, and a commissioner for his colony 11 years, even down to 1656. And we are told that he was, "well accomplished with abilities both civil and religious, and attained, through grace, unto a comfortable persuasion of the love and favour of God to him; he falling sick of a fever, with much serenity and spiritual comfort fell asleep in the Lord, at Wan­namoiset near Rehoboth, in the spring of the year 1662." ^* His son James joined the next year in­forming a baptist church there, and both in 1665, and 1666, the freemen through the colony elected him for one of their magistrates, at the same time that the Massachusetts court disfranchised two of their ancient freemen, for no worse crime than Mr. Brown then lived in. And though he did not see cause then to accept of that office, yet be­ing chosen again in 1673, he accepted it, and serv­ed his colony therein eleven years; in the midst of which time persecution was again revived at Boston, and Mr. Brown and his minister were [Page 539]fined for visiting their afflicted brethren there. With what face then can any man reproach New-England in general, with the persecutions which its first founders, and many of its best members afterward abhorred! And of all men how inex­cusable are episcopalians in so doing, when it was the errors the Massachusetts brought out of their church that produced all those mischiefs, of which they were then, and have been ever since, much more guilty than those they complain of here! In England and Scotland they in that day destroy­ed more hundreds of lives, in trying to establish their supremacy over the consciences of men, than the Massachusetts hanged persons. And they have not only always taxed dissenters to their ministers wherever they could get power to do it, but also in Virginia they have sined and imprisoned our ministers only for preaching without their li­cence; and continued this cruel trade till the present rapture put a stop to it. 3. Hence see the pernicious evil of using carnal weapons in re­ligious affairs. Papists, episcopalians, presbyteri­ans and congregationalists have all tried it in their turns; but instead of giving up the root of this mischief, they have each of them tried to cast all the reproach of it, upon the bad dispositions of their neighbours; and so it has been a con­stant source of raillarly and slander. But where can a better set of men be found upon earth, since Constantine first brought the carnal weapon into the church, who concured in using of it there, than the fathers of the Massachusetts? Look back to p. 138—141, and then tell me where you can find a more excellent ruler than governor Win­throp, that ever travelled in that path? And Mr. Shepard of Cambridge, who died five months af­ter [Page 540]him, said, "Surely all the persons, whose hearts the Lord stirred up in this business, were not rash, weak-spirited, inconsiderate of what they left behind, or what it was to go into a wil­derness. But if we were able to recount the sin­gular workings of divine providence, for the bringing on this work, to what it is come unto, it would stop the mouths of all. Whatever many may say or think, we believe after times will ad­mire and adore the Lord herein, when all his holy ends, and the ways he has used to bring them about shall appear.—What shall we say of the sin­gular providence of God, in bringing so many ship-load of his people through so many dangers, with so much safety from year to year ^* The fatherly care of our God, in feeding and cloathing so many in a wilderness, giving such healthiness and great increase of posterity?—But above all we must acknowledge the singular pity and mer­cies of our God, that hath done all this, and much more, for a people so unworthy, so sinful, that by murmurings of many, unfaithfulness in promises, oppressions, and other evils that are found among us, have so dishonored his majesty, exposed his work here, to much scandal and obliquy, for which we have cause forever to be as [...]med, that the Lord should yet own us, and rather correct us in measure, than cast us off in displeasure, and [Page 541]scatter us in this wilderness." ^* We are informed that when governor Winthrop lay on his death bed, Mr. Dudley requested him to sign a warrant to banish Mr. Mathews a Welch minister, but that he refused, saying, "I have had my hand too much in such things already." ^†

CAPTAIN Roger Clap, one of the first planters of Dorchester, the commander of Castle-William for 20 years, and who bore several other offices in the state with honor, and died in Boston in 1691, in such esteem that the whole general assembly attend his funeral, wrote some memorials of those early times, with his fatherly advice to his chil­dren. And observing that their straits were some­times so great that the very crusts of his father's table in England would have been as a dainty in this wilderness he says, "I took notice of it, as a great favour of God unto me, not only to pre­serve my life, but to give me contentedness in all these straits: insomuch that I do not remember that I ever wished in my heart that I had not come into this country, nor wished myself back again. Yea, I was so far from that, that I wished and advised some of my dear brethren to come hi­ther also; which accordingly one of my brothers, and those who married my two sisters, sold their means, and came hither. The Lord Jesus Christ was so plainly held out in the preaching of the gospel unto poor lost sinners, and the absolute ne­cessity of the new birth, and God's holy spirit in those days accompanied the word with such efficacy upon the hearts of many, that our hearts were taken off from Old-England, and set upon HEAVEN. Many were converted, and others established in believing. Many joined unto the several churches [Page 542]where they lived, confessing their faith publickly, and shewing before all the assembly, their experiences of the workings of God's spirit in their hearts, to bring them to Christ; which many hearers found very much good by, to help them to try their own hearts, and to consider how it was with them;— Oh the many tears that have been shed in Dor­chester meeting-house at such times, both by those that have declared God's work on their souls, and also by those who heard them! in those days God, even our own God, did bless New-England." ^*

ANOTHER of their Captains who came over in 1630, says, "Those honored persons who were now in place of government, having the propaga­tion of the churches of Christ in their eye, labored by all means to make room for inhabitants, knowing well that where the carcass is, thither will the eagle resort. But herein they were op­posed by certain persons, whose greedy desire for land, much hindred the work for a time; as in­deed such persons do to this day; and let such take notice how these were cured of this distem­per. Some were taken away by death, and then besure they had land enough. Others fearing poverty and famishment, supposing the present scarcity would never be turned into plenty, re­moved themselves away, and so never beheld the great good the Lord hath done for his people. But the valiant of the Lord waited with patience, and in the miss of beer, supplied themselves with water; even the most honored as well as others, contentedly rejoicing in a cup of cold water; blessing the Lord that had given them to taste of that living water, and that they had not the water that slakes the thirst of their natural bodies, given [Page 543]them by measure, but might drink to the full; as also in the absence of bread, they pleased them­selves with fish. The women once a day, as the tide served, resorted to the muscles and clam-banks, where they daily gathered their families food, with much heavenly discouse of the provisions Christ formerly made for many thousands of his followers in the wilderness. Quoth one, my husband hath traveled as far as Plymouth, [about 40 miles] and hath with great toil brought a little corn home, and before that is spent the Lord will assuredly provide: quoth the other, Our last peck of meal is in the oven at home a baking, and many of our godly neighbours have quite spent all, and we owe one loaf of that little we have. Then spake a third, My husband hath ventered himself among the Indians for corn, and can get none, as also our honored governor hath distributed his so far, that a day or two more will put an end to his store and all the rest; and yet methink our children are cheerful, fat and lusty, with feeding upon these muscles, clams and other fish, as they were in Eng­land, with their fill of bread, which makes me cheerful in the Lord's providing for us; being further confirmed by the exortation of our pastor to trust in the Lord, whose is the earth, and the fulness thereof. As they were encouraging one another in Christ's careful providing for them, they lift up their eyes and saw two ships coming in, and presently this news comes to their cars, that they were come from Ireland full of victuals." ^*

Oh! how gloriously do they shine, and how manfully do they talk, when exercising themselves in the gospel armour, to what they do when they come down to the use of earthly weapons in hea­venly concernments! In 1645 they compared the baptists opposition to such conduct, to what Ame­lek did to Israel when they were weak. And the erecting of a small baptist church in 1665, was called a strong attempt against them from the spi­rit of anabaptism; the permission of which among them they said, manifestly tended to the destruc­tion of their churches, though they had above forty of them then in their colony, in joint communion with about as many more in neighbouring colo­nies. ^* And in 1681 they compared their ecclesi­astical establishment to a small boat, and those few illetirate baptists to the ballast of a great ship, which was like to sink it. Hence it was their weakness, and not their strength, that caused them to treat the baptists so cruelly. The extending of the gos­pel ordinance of baptism to subjects who are in a state of nature; the limitting the church of Christ to human schools for ministers, and compelling all to support such and only such, are points which had but a weak bottom to stand upon in that day, when the power of godliness was so well known in the country.