the Arbella,' April 7, 1630," and addressed "To the rest of their brethren, in and of the Church of England," they say:

"We desire you would be pleased to take notice of the principals and body of our Company, as those who esteem it our honor to call the Church of England, from whence we rise, our dear mother; and cannot part from our native country where she specially resideth, without much sadness of heart and many tears in our eyes, ever acknowledging that such hope and part as we have obtained in the common salvation, we have received in her bosom and sucked in 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, and unfeignedly grieve for any sorrows that shall ever betide her, and while we have breath, sincerely desire and endeavour the continuance and abundance of her welfare, with the enlargement of her bounds in the kingdom of Christ Jesus."

Other parts of this remarkable letters were intended to remove suspicions or misconstruction and to ask the prayers of their brethren of the Church of England.*

[Roger Williams] was born in Wales, A. D. 1599.5

(1)“Arabella" in the manuscript. The name is thus misspelled by Hutchinson, Neal, Holmes, and others. The vessel was named for Lady Arbella Johnson. See Savage's note, in Winthrop's Journal, I. 2.

(2) Compare with this the language of Rev. Francis Higginson, on leaving England, in 1628, (quoted in Mather's "Magnalia," book III, part II, chap. 1).

(3) It was signed by Winthrop, Coddington, and others.

(4) Senator Foster, in a passage omitted above, draws from this letter the conclusion, unwarranted, as it is now seen to be,-that the "first settlers of Massachusetts contemplated a uniformity in religion when they left England, which ended in the Congregationalism of the Cambridge Platform." The truth is, that the colonists were unaware of the influences and tendencies at work in their own minds, nor did they know how rapidly, when once the Atlantic rolled between them and the mother church, their latent separatism would manifest itself. John and Samuel Browne, in this very year, were the unwitting means of committing the puritan leaders to their final policy. (See Morton's "New England's memorial," ed., 1826, p. 148).

(5) 1599 is not certainly known to be the date. See the comparison of authorities, in Dexter's "As to Roger Williams," p. 3.

*

He had a good education,' and acquired some knowlege of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages.2 He was sometime a pupil of the famous English lawyer, [and] Lord Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke.3 Embittered against the Church of England and her bishops, on account of their persecution of the puritans, whose religious sentiments he had imbibed and preached as a minister, he determined to come to New England, to settle here in that character. He embarked with his wife, accompanied by Messrs Throg

5

(1) "He was elected," says Professor Diman, "a scholar of the Charter-house, June 25, 1621, and was matriculated a pensioner of Pembroke College, Cambridge, July 7, 1625. He took the degree of Bachelor of Arts, January, 1627. His signature is still preserved in the subscription book of the University." (Diman's "Orations and essays,” p. 136).

(2) Mr. Williams, in a letter to John Winthrop, the younger, in 1654, speaks of his studies in "the Hebrew, the Greek, Latin, French, and Dutch. The Secretary of the Council, (Mr. Milton), for my Dutch I read him, read me many more languages." (Narragansett Club Pub., VI. 261-62). See page 51.

(3) Compare the Sadleir papers, printed in Narragansett Club Pub., VI. 252-53. There is in the library of the Rhode Island Historical Society, a copy of Coke's "Institutes of the laws of England," which shows the signatures of many successive owners. The earliest of these is "Richard Smith, Narragansett," at whose house Williams wrote many of his letters. It is not known that Smith had pursued any legal studies, and it is by no means impossible that the book was a gift to him from Williams himself.

(4) Williams's own "religious sentiments" were characterized by a most unusual individuality. "Admitted to orders, in the Church of England," (see Elton's "Roger Williams," p. 12), he "separated" successively, from that body; from the non-conformist organizations which he found in the Massachusetts Bay Colony: from his own church at Salem; from the church at Providence, organized on Baptist principles, with which he was apparently connected for a few months only; and finally from the small body of "Seekers," who for a time worshipped with him thereafter. (5) Although he is stated to have been "admitted to orders, in the Church of England," it is not known with certainty over what parish he was placed. A passage in his "Bloody tenent yet more bloody," gives the suggestion that it was in Lincolnshire, and possibly Sempringham. (See Narragansett Club Pub., IV. 65). A letter to the editor, however, from the Rev. T. C. L. Layton, the present vicar of Sempringham, states that Williams's name nowhere occurs on the records of the parish.

2

morton,' Ong, Perkins,' &c., with their wives and families, to the number of 20 passengers, in the ship Lyon, Capt. Wm. Peirce, and sailed from Bristol in England, Dec. 1, 1630, and after a tempestuous passage arrived at Boston, Feby. 5, 1631-2.

Mr. Williams had become the assistant minister of the church of Salem, on the 12th day of April, 1631;5 sixty-six days after his arrival in the country. But [he] was displeased with the language of affection to the Church of England which he heard in America, and expressed himself with warmth on the occasion. His ideas of religious liberty, which he was fond of promoting, suited ill with those then prevalent in the country, and soon excited prejudice against him in Boston and the other towns, except Salem."

He was firmly tenacious of his opinions, which he thought correct, and nothing would compel him to renounce or conceal them. This excited an opposition against him that "before the close of summer," [says Bentley], obliged him "to retire to Plymouth." [Senator Foster here quotes from Bentley](1)One of those who followed Roger Williams to Providence. See p. 19. (2) "Augre" in the 1st edition of Savage's Winthrop, and in Senator Foster's manuscript. Compare 3d edition of Savage's Winthrop, I. 51.

(3) Savage's doubt as to his identity, (Savage's Winthrop, 1st ed., I. 40), has since been solved. See Essex Institute "Historical collections,” XIX. 217-23.

(4) The next two paragraphs were misplaced, in the manuscript.

(5) Senator Foster's statement is here based on Dr. Bentley's, (Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 1st series, VI. 246). That this was the date of a "call," and not of his settlement, appears from Winthrop's Journal, I. 63, and also that some opposition intervened. (Winthrop's Journal, I. 63). Compare also Felt's "Annals of Salem," II. 569; and Dexter's "As to Roger Williams," p. 5, 36-37. See page 16, ante.

(6) Senator Foster here quotes from Dr. Bentley, as being the ruling considerations in Mr. Williams's voluntary retirement to Plymouth in 1631:"the patent, the freeman's oath, the power of the magistrate in religion, and the laws for the worship of God." (Mass. Hist. Soc. Collections, 1st series, VI. 246). This is is certainly worth remembering in considering his later retirement to Narragansett Bay in 1636. See also Appendix I. (7) Williams undoubtedly left Salem for Plymouth sometime between August 1, and Sept. 1, 1631. Bentley says: "before the close of the summer." (p. 246). Compare also Dr. T. M. Harris's note, (Mass. Hist. Soc.

["He there occasionally assisted Mr. Ralph Smith, their pastor, and inspired the same conviction of his piety. But he still fixed his eyes upon Salem, where he had received proofs of undissembled friendship. On the next year he had an opportunity in" October "of joining in the communion of the church at Plymouth, with Governor Winthrop, who had uniformly opposed him, and before the close of 1632, he was again in Salem. His daughter [Mary], was born to him by his wife in

3

Coll., 2d series, V. 203, note 2.) He was at Plymouth, Oct. 25, 1632. (Winthrop's Journal, I. 109). Bentley says: "Before the close of 1632 he was again in Salem." (p. 247). Backus cites the Records of the town of Providence, to prove that he was still in Plymouth in August, 1633, and that his daughter was born there. ("History," I. 57, 516.) Compare also Knowles's "Roger Williams," p. 54. Cotton, who arrived at Boston, Sept. 3, 1633, says that Mr. Williams was "in the Bay, [Salem], not long before my coming." ("Reply to Mr. Williams his examination," in Narragansett Club. Pub. II. 13). Morton, ("New England's memorial," ed. 1826, p. 150-51) says that Williams lived at Plymouth "about three years." This would postpone his return to Salem to about August, 1634. Morton is apparently followed by Hubbard, Baylies, Hutchinson, and others. But from the statements made by those who have most recently investigated the matter, (Professor Diman, Dr. Dexter, and Dr. Guild), it would appear that he was living at Plymouth until after August, 1633, but returned to Salem before the winter of that year. See p. 16, ante.

(1) Governor Bradford's language is worth quoting. He says that Mr. Williams "exercised his gifts amongst them, and after some time was admitted a member of ye church; and his teaching well approved, for ye benefite wherof I still blesse God, and am thankfull to him, even for his sharpest admonitions & reproufs, so farr as they agreed with truth." (Bradford's "Plymouth plantation,” p. 310).

(2) Bentley is wrong in saying "in August." Mr. Foster has written "October," which is correct. He doubtless took this from Winthrop, (I. 108-10). (3) This language (which it will be observed, is Bentley's), would appear to be somewhat gratuitous. Governor Winthrop's relations to Mr. Williams throughout show him to be a most consistent and determined opponent so far as his projects concerned the established order of the colony; and an equally consistent and devoted friend to him personally. "Through life," says Professor Diman, "his most trusted counselor was the wise, the discriminating, the magnanimous Winthrop, who, he declares, 'tenderly loved him to his last breath.'" ("Orations and essays," p. 132). There is no evidence to show that Governor Winthrop's attitude at this particular time was opposed to that which was characteristic of him.

August, 1633. Mr. Skelton's sickness gave him an opportunity to renew his public labours in the pulpit, for the pastoral relation had not been dissolved and before 1633 was finished, his former difficulties returned."

[Gov. Endicott belonged to this church, and had great influence over Mr. Skelton. They had, before Mr. Williams's arrival "embraced the doctrine of veils for the women in the church; and if he [Gov. Endicott] worshipped in the beauty of holiness he was determined that human beauty should form no part of his pleasure."

Mr. Williams, [says Bentley],["disapproved the connexion of the churches in Old and New England; yet he was prudent enough not to offer violence to the established forms. But all his hearers could not make the same distinctions. Endicott ventured to apply his doctrine, and cut the cross from the military standard. Endicott did it without advice; but the resentment of the magistrate spent itself upon Williams, who, though the innocent, was the real cause of it."] For he was considered as influencing Mr. Endicott, one of the magistrates, and a member of his church, to cut the cross out of the King's colors, as being a relique of antichristian superstition; and this was said to be a sufficient cause for the court to interpose. the court of assistants in November, 1634,5 Richard Brown, of Watertown, for himself and others, complained that the ensign of Salem was defaced by having one part of the red cross taken out. The ensign-bearer, Richard Davenport, was attached to answer at the next court and before the business was

At

(1) "A child was born to him at Salem in August, 1633," says Bentley, p. 247, but he cites no records to substantiate the statement, as to the place of birth. (2) In the manuscript the passages ending here were in an incorrect chronological order.

(3) BENTLEY, p. 245.

(4) Bentley, p. 246.

(5) Nov. 5, 1634. See Winthrop, I. 174-75. See also p. 179, where Winthrop states a doubt in his mind as to "the lawful use of the cross in an ensign."

(6) This account is based on Winthrop's Journal, I. 174–75.