duty to signify his Majesty's gracious pleasure vouchsafed in these words to us, verbatim, (viz.)"-quoting the declaration from the charter which is cited above.

At the session in May, 1665, in answer to certain propositions of the King's Commissioners, in which the King requires, that all the citizens shall enjoy equal civil and religious rights, without regard to their opinions, the Assembly say: "This Assembly do, with all gladness of heart, and humbleness of mind, acknowledge the great goodness of God and favor of his Majesty in that respect, declaring, that as it hath been a principle set forth and maintained in this colony, from the very beginning thereof, so it is much on their hearts to preserve the same liberty to all persons within this colony forever, as to the worship of God therein, taking care for the preservation of the civil government, to the doing of justice and preserving each other's privileges from wrong and violence to others."

Mr. Eddy accounts for the existence of the spurious words in the copy of the laws from which Mr. Chalmers quoted, by supposing, that they were inserted, without authority, at some period subsequent to 1719, by a revising committee, who might be desirous to please the government in England. Mr. Eddy says, in conclusion: "Thus you have positive and indubitable evidence, that the law excluding Roman Catholics from the privileges of freemen was not passed in 1663-4, but that they were by law, at this time, and long after, entitled to all the privileges of other citizens; and satisfactory evidence that these privileges were continued by law until 1719, when, or in one of the subsequent revisions, the words professing Christianity, and Roman Catholics only excepted, were inserted by the revising committee."

If, however, such an act had been passed, it would not necessarily impeach the character of Mr. Williams. He was an Assistant, only, in the Legislature of 1663-4, and could not be responsible for its acts. His own principles are on record. He contended for liberty of conscience to all men without any restriction. In his "Hireling Ministry none of Christ's," printed in 1652-only eleven years before he says: "All these consciences, (yea, the very conscience of Papists, Jews, &c. as I have proved at large in my answer to Mr. Cotton's washings) ought freely

and impartially to be permitted their several respective worships, their ministers of worships, and what way of maintaining them they please."

We proceed, now, to the other charge. It is contained in an article, in 1 His. Col. v. pp. 216-220, signed Francis Brinley, whose statement is repeated in Holmes' American Annals, vol. i. p. 341. Mr. Brinley says: "1665. The government and council of Rhode-Island, &c. passed an order for outlawing the people called Quakers, because they would not bear arms, and to seize their estates; but the people in general rose up against these severe orders, and would not suffer it."

We are again indebted to Mr. Eddy for the means of correcting a mistake. He says (2 His. Col. vii. p. 97,) that the account of Mr. Brinley "is incorrect and partial.” There was a difficulty, in which the Quakers, it seems, felt themselves aggrieved, but it was not the result of any acts aimed directly at them. The origin of it, as Mr. Eddy thinks, was this: The commissioners of the King required, in his name, "that all householders, inhabiting this colony, take the oath of allegiance." The Assembly, in reply, stated, that it had been the uniform practice of the colony, in pursuance of their great principles of religious liberty, to allow those who objected to take an oath, to make an engagement, under the penalty for false swearing. An engagement was accordingly drawn up, in which the individual promised to bear true allegiance to the King and his successors, and to yield "due obedience unto the laws established from time to time." The Quakers, it appears, objected to this part of the engagement, because it bound them to pay obedience to the militia laws. The Assembly had enacted, that those who did not take the engagement, should not be permitted to "vote for public officers or deputies, or enjoy any privilege of freemen." Those persons, consequently, who refused to take the engagement, were disfranchised; and to this effect, Mr. Brinley probably alludes, when he says that the Quakers were outlawed. If so, his statement is very loose and injurious, for it implies, that the act was expressly directed against them. But there was no design, apparently, on the part of the Assembly to affect them. The King commanded the General Assembly to require an oath of allegiance. They dis

pensed with the oath, but required an engagement, promising, in general terms, obedience to the laws. It would seem, that all the citizens might have safely taken the engagement, reserving their opposition to particular laws, to which they might be conscientiously opposed. An engagement to obey the laws would, of course, mean such laws only as were consistent with the laws of God and with the rights of conscience. The Assembly cannot, at any rate, be justly charged with an assault on the Quakers. engagement was mitigated, the very next year, to suit their views, and every disposition was manifested to consult their feelings and respect their rights. One of their number was, the next year, elected Deputy Governor.

The

28

CHAPTER XXIV.

Mr. Williams' public services-religious habits-efforts as a minister-Indians-private affairs-letter to John Whipple.

We are now approaching the close of Mr. Williams' life. Years were increasing upon him, and abating the vigor of his body and the ardor of his mind. Yet we find his name in the records both of the town and colony, so frequently, as to prove, that he retained his zeal for the public welfare, and that he enjoyed, to the end of his life, a large measure of public confidence. In the town meetings, he was often appointed moderator. He was appointed as a member of numerous committees, and was usually selected, when a skilful pen was needed for the public service.

After serving the colony for two years, as President, and repeatedly as Assistant, or Commissioner, under the first charter, he occupied a seat in the General Assembly, under the new charter, as an Assistant, in the years 1664, 1670, and 1671. He was chosen, in 1677, but he refused to serve, on account, probably, of his age. He was a Deputy from Providence, in May, 1667.

*

Of his religious habits we have little knowledge. We have satisfactory reasons, however, for believing, that he preserved the character of an upright Christian. His books and letters are distinguished by the language of piety, and his general conduct exhibited its influence. Even Cotton Mather confesses, that " in many things he acquitted himself so laudably, that many judicious persons judged him to have had the root of the matter in him, during the long winter of this retirement."* He had, it is true, no connection with any church; a circumstance, which we must regret, because it injured his reputation and his usefulness, while it diminished his personal enjoyment and spiritual growth. But we know that his reason for this course was, an erroneous idea, that the true church was, for

Magnalia, b. vii. c. ii. §8.

a time, lost. He did not undervalue the benefits of church fellowship, but ardently longed for the restoration of the church. In his reply to George Fox, written about 1672, he says, (p. 66,) "After all my search, and examinations, and considerations, I said, I do profess to believe, that some come nearer to the first primitive churches, and the institutions and appointments of Christ, than others; as in many respects, so in that gallant, and heavenly, and fundamental principle, of the true matter of a Christian congregation, flock or society, viz. actual believers, true disciples and converts, living stones, such as can give some account how the grace of God hath appeared unto them, and wrought that change in them. I professed, that if my soul could find rest, in joining unto any of the churches professing Christ Jesus now extant, I would readily and gladly do it, yea unto themselves, whom I now opposed."

As a minister of the Gospel, we have evidence that he did not wholly discontinue his labors; though he must, according to his principles, have confined himself to "prophecy," or a declaration of truth and witness against error. Mr. Callender says, (p. 57,) "Mr. Williams used to uphold a public worship, sometimes, though not weekly, as many now alive [1738] remember, and he used to go once a month, for many years, to Mr. Smith's, in the Narraganset, for the same end." If persons alive in 1738, were present at Mr. Williams' meetings, as Mr. Callender's expression seems to imply, those meetings must have been held towards the close of his life. His visits to Narraganset were designed, it has been supposed, for the benefit of the Indians; but this is doubtful. There is reason to believe, that his object was to instruct the whites, who either

*In thus living disconnected with any church, he followed the example of Milton and Cromwell. Of Milton, Toland says: "In his early days, he was a favorer of those Protestants, then opprobriously called by the name of Puritans. In his middle years, he was best pleased with the Independents and Anabaptists, as allowing of more liberty than others, and coming nearest, in his opinion, to the primitive practice; but in the latter part of his life, he was not a professed member of any particular sect among Christians; he frequented none of their assemblies, nor made use of their peculiar rites in his family." Ivirney's Life of Milton, p. 251.