THE Historical Society holds not itself "responsible for every thing," which appears in its COLLECTIONS. If any representation is not supported by good authorities, it is open to temperate discussion. Personal satire is here inadmissible. It is requisite that he, who combats any real or supposed error, give his reasons, or authorities, dispassionately; and thus prove that he is contending, not for victory, but for truth. This is the only becoming contest in the republic of letters. Quid verum atque decens curo et rogo, et omnis in hoc sum. The anonymous writer of the following article will, hence, perceive why some of his remarks are suppressed. REMARKS ON "A HISTORY OF SALEM." THE learning, the respectability, the known merits of the Historical Society, awe an individual, and command respect to what is published under their sanction. Yet as it may be doubtful whether they feel responsible for every thing, which particular members, or correspondents, may communicate, it becomes a duty to point out any exccptionable passages in their publications. If this be not done, the weight of their influence may tend to give authority to error and pervert public opinion. This, we hope, will apologize for a few remarks on “A History of Salem," published by the Historical Society. Passing over several other things, the character given of Mr. Roger Williams particularly provokes examination. The portrait of him, drawn in this history, is so unlike that, left by his contemporaries and acquaintance, that were it not for the name, no mortal would imagine it designed for the same person. If the learned historian have any authorities for what he asserts, it would have been kind in him, and satisfactory to his readers, had he admitted them to see the new discovery for themselves. No authority is quoted. But in page 246 he says, though "Mr. Williams blamed the administration, he did not oppose it." (iv) In the same page he says, he "could be persuaded, but not compelled, to renounce his opinions." In page 249 he says, that, "In Salem every person loved Mr. Williams; that he had no personal enemies under any pretence." In page 245 he says, that Mr. Williams, "throughout all his life, supported a high place in their affections, as a truly godly man." Again he says, that "kind treatment could win him; that he always had address enough, with his firmness, never to be forsaken by the friends he had ever gained; that he breathed the purest devotion." We will make no reflections, but appeal to several writers, who lived nearer the scene of action; some of whom saw this comet blazing in his eccentric orb. One of them, Morton, informs us that "Williams refused the oath of fidelity himself, and taught others so to do: that he also spake dangerous words against the patent, which was the foundation of the government." Mather tells us, that this "hot-headed man publicly and furiously preached against the patent;" that "he violently withstood the oath of fidelity." I might quote from Governor Winthrop, Hutchinson, and Hubbard, to prove the same fact. Was not here opposition to the administration, as powerful as he could make ? 66 Equally violent was his opposition to church administration. Morton says, that he procured the church of Salem's consent unto letters of admonition, which were written and sent by him in their name to the churches of Boston, Charlestown, and Newtown." What Pontiff at Rome would have done more? The same author informs us that Williams, " growing more violent, immured in his own house, sent a letter to his church, which was read in public, threatening that if they would not separate not only from the churches of Old England, but from the churches of New-England too, he would separate from them." The church did not comply with such a mad proposal, and therefore he did separate from them, and set up a meeting in "his own house, to which divers of the weaker sort repaired." Thus was he forsaken; yet the present historian asserts, "that he always had address enough-never to be forsaken by the v) friends, he had ever gained." he also asserts that "In Salem every person loved him." Stubborn facts repel these assertions, and other writers contradict them. The same remark will apply, when he says that Williams "could be persuaded, and that kind treatment could win him." Governor Hutchinson says, that "endeavours were used to reclaim him, but to no purpose." Mather says, that "before the court proceeded to banish this incendiary, they advised with the pastors of the neighbouring churches," who requested that they would forbear prosecuting him till they and their churches had in a church way endeavoured his conviction and repentance." Their proposal was allowed. "The church of Boston, and several other churches, took the best pains they could, and though they brought the church of Salem to join with them, the effect on Williams was, that he renounced them all as no churches." And though the church of Salem gave him up, and joined with those, who admonished him; yet this writer says, that "every person loved him, and that he had address enough never to be forsaken by the friends he had ever gained." With equal propriety he says, Williams "breathed the purest devotion." As he has not produced any sample of his devotion, the task is ours. Writers, who had at least as good opportunities as this historian, say, that after he separated from his people, "he never more came to the church assembly; he withdrew all private religious communion from any, who held communion with them"; "he would not pray with his own wife and family, nor ask a blessing at meals with them, because they went to the church assemblies." Finally, after his banishment as a pest of society, "he turned Anabaptist, (says Morton) then told his deluded followers, he was out of the way himself, and had misled them, for he did not find that there was any upon earth that could administer baptism, and therefore their last baptism was a nullity as well as their first, and therefore they must lay down all, and wait for the coming of new apostles; so they dissolved themselves." 1* CONTENTS. Page Review of the military operations in North-America, from the year 1753 to the surrender of Oswego, in 1756, Introduction.-American colonies too long neglected, though of general importance-More considered on the reduction of Louisbourg.-Character of Governor Shirley-His attention to colony affairs-Is rewarded with a regiment, and sent com- missary to Paris.—(1753.) The French encroach on Virginia.— Message to the commandant-It is answered.-(1754.) Virgin- ians apply for aid to the colonies-but they generally excuse themselves-Forces raised under Col. Washington-who had successful skirmishes with the enemy-but was afterwards sub- dued by numbers.-Consequences of his defeat.-Grand con- gress at Albany.-Indians delay attendance, and the reasons.— Commissioners and how ranked.-Indians pleased with the pre- sents, but blame our conduct.-Plan of union-Approved by all, except De Lancey.-His character and history.-His ap- pointment to the government, and system of politics-His speech to the council and assembly.-Assembly's evasive an- swer.-Observations on this address.-Numerous and fulsome addresses to the Lieut. Governor.-His jealousy-and universal influence.-Reflections on popular merit.-Character of Mr. Thomas Pownal.-Anecdotes respecting a piece he published. Shirley erects forts on Kennebec.-(1775.) He designs an expedition against Crown-Point.-De Lancey endeavours to |