BAPTISM or

ROGER WILLIAMS

';^ s^

^^ ^ ]^i^'^go,^^\y:rl

t:.:;W;y;.^':,::,i:i;:v>^<:;,;
pi^i:;V ■ v'S'v ;-:;;;:V: ■

HnNRY MEIVILLE KING

e<H

1 # ^>*

"l^i-V^sPM?^-

*v*.

/2. //. 3V
LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

► >:,

PRINCETON, N. J.

BX 6A95 .W55 K5
King, Henry Melville.
The baptism of Roger
Williams

\

■ JFak-"^' i-:i¥^

t^^*^^

MHfi

t».

.•■*^#

> ■>. . *5^

• THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

Historical Discourse at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Dudley
Street Baptist Church, Boston, Mass. {Boston, 1S71).

Early Baptists Defended : a Review of Rev. Dr. Henry M. Dex
ter's account of the Visit to William Witter in "As to Roger
Williams." {Boston, ISSO).

History of the Baptists in Boston, in Memorial Hist, of Boston,
Vol. III. {Boston, 1881).

Memorial Discourse at the Semi-Centennial Celebration of the
First Baptist Church of Fitchburg, Mass. {Fitdiburg, 1881).

Historical Discourse at the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Emman-
uel Baptist Church, Albany, N.Y. {Albany, 188U).

A Century of National Life : a Thanksgiving Discourse. {Albany,

1888).

The Baptists and Religious Liberty in this Country : an Address
at the Dedication of the Backus Monument at North Middle-
boro', Mass. {Boston, 189ii).

Religious Liberty the Trophy of the Baptists : an Address deliv-
ered at Indianapolis before the Baptist Young People's Union
of America. {Chicago, 189U).

Historical Address at the Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the First
Baptist Sunday School in Providence, R. I. {Providence, 18'jk).

A Summer Visit of Three Rhode Islanders to the Massachusetts
Bay in 1651 : a new edition of " Early Baptists Defended,"
enlarged by the addition of valuable matter. {Providence,
1891}).

The Mother Church : a brief Account of the Origin and early
History of the First Baptist Church in Providence, R. I.

{Philadelphia, 189(!).

V

'^v

THE

■OGlStiL BVf'

\\.=-

■^

BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

A KEVIEW

OF REV. DR. IV. 11. WHITSITT'S INFERENCE

BY

^

HENRY MELVILLE KING

PA&TOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
PROVIDENCE

WITH AN LNir.ODrCTlON BY REV. JESSE B. THOMAS, D D.

PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE NEWTON
THEOI.OcaCAL INSTITUTION

PKOYIDENCE

PRESTON & ROUNDS CO.

1897

COPYUIGHT, 1K97'
BY

II E N R Y M . KIN G

PUESS OF
E. I.. FUEEMAN & SONS, PROVIDENCE, R. I.

Zo

TUE SACRED MEMORY
OF

IRcv. Samuel Xunt GalC)\vell, H).2).

FOR FIFTEEN YEARS PASTOR OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
IN PROVIDENCE, ^VHOSE FRIENDSHIP ENRICHED MY EARLY
MINISTRY AND INTO WHOSE LABORS I HAVE NOW ENTERED :
WHO, AS PASTOR, THEOLOGICAL PROFESSOR AND COLLECiE
PRESIDENT, GAVE TO HIS THREEFOLD SERVICE IN LIFE A
HEART OF XTNQUESTIONEt) DEVOTION, A SPIRIT OF BROAD
CATHOLICITY AND A MIND OF RARE Cl'LTlKE : AND WHO,
BY HIS CAKEFrL HISTORICAL RESEARCHES, DID MICH TO
ELl'CIDATE AND PRESERVE THE HISTORY OF
'"THE MOTHER CHURCH."

JAMES S, SLATER,
SLATERSTILLE,

RHODE ISLAND.

INTEODUCTION

" Eternal vigilance is the price " of truth
as well as " liberty." An uncorrected mis-
statement of historic detail, even as to cir-
cumstances apparently of minor sig-nificance,
may prove like a trifling- crevice in the levee
which, neglected, rapidly swells to a devas-
tating crevasse.

. It is, therefore, a sagacious as well as
honorable instinct that prompts suspicion
and challenge of every proposed re-inter-
pretation of the facts or documents of the
past which involves a radical reversal of
wide -spread and supposedly authoritative
opinion. Especially ought Ave to be sen-
sitive to the proposal of any novel and
eccentric theory as to the acts or words of
our spiritual ancestors where it may, even
inferentially or remotely, bring into ques-
tion their long established reputation for

Vlll INTRODUCTION

sagacity, sincerity, and unHincliing loyalty
to conviction. A people not zealous to
clierisli and jealons to protect the good
name of their fathers have already ceased
to appreciate the legacy transmitted to
them at so great cost, and will soon cease
to imitate the virtues they have undervalued.
It is a cherished opinion of the Baptists
that when men have been brought face to
face with the Word of God, unhindered by
the perversions of priests and the fogs of
tradition, they have inevitably recognized
not only tliat they ought, but Iloid they
ought, to be baptized : for the one is as
unequivocally clear in the language of the
New Testament as the other. Noticing
Christ's test of loyalty, " If a man love me
he will keep my words,'' it is not to be
lightly presumed that they would ignore or
toy with an express command in the one
case more readily than in the other. Ac-
cordingly it turns out as was to be expected,
that the departure froui the rule and prac-
tice of the New Testament, the immersion
of believers, in the history of the church.

INTRODUCTION ix

was slow and liesitatiDg, and long recog-
nized as justifiable only in exceptional c(3n-
ditions and Avlien artificially buttressed by
specific ecclesiastical authority. The sub-
stitution of pouring or sprinkling as the
normal type of baptism was never hinted
at until the sixteenth century. In England
the belief in the necessity of immersion,
save in extraordinary cases, was uniform up
to the date of the Westminster Assembly in
1G44. It seems an extravagant assumption,
therefore, that while all the rest of the Avorld
had steadily maintained the priority of im-
mersion as the Gospel type, the anti-Pedo-
baptists alone had first voluntarily repu-
diated it. Yet this is, substantially, the
proposition to which Dr. AVhitsitt has com-
mitted himself, and to which Dr. King has
here convincingly replied. The whole set-
ting of the case, as well as the undisturbed
and unquestioned belief of the community
among whom the facts occurred, are hostile
to Dr. Whitsitt's view, and there is little
reason to 1 eheve that it can ultimately jus-
tify itself.

X INTRODUCTION

As to the case of Roger Williams, in
which Dr. King and his i3eople are pecu-
liarly and properly concerned, there is, as
is here made manifest, still less reason
shown for the reversal of hitherto unques-
tioned opinion. To contradict the positive
testimony in the case, buttressed by an im-
mense body of preliminary i3resumption,
under so slender pretexts, is to attempt
the substitution of fancy for fact, and to
turn back the whole sweep of historic judg-
ment.

I symx)athize heartily with the feeling
that the maintenance of historic truth in
the particulars here discussed is of high
importance to us and to all Christians, and
well worthy of the industry and sagacity
l)estowed ujDon it, and esteem it a privilege
heartily to commend so careful, courteous,
candid, and thorough a presentation of the
subject to the impartial inquirer.

J. B. THOMAS.

Newton Theologicaij Institution,
May 20, 1897.

JAMES S. SLATER,
SLATERSVILLE,

RHODE ISLAND.

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS.

President William H. Whitsitt of tlie
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
in his recent v^olume entitled '^ A Ques-
tion in Baptist History," in which he
has undertaken to prove that immersion
was not introduced among the English
Baptists until the year 1641, has an ap-
pendix upon the "Baptism of Roger
Williams." The addition of this ap-
pendix to the body of the book reveals
conclusively the mental process of the
author. Having first established, as he
believed, the late introduction of immer-
sion among the Baptists in England, he
infers that Roger AVilliams, whose bap-
tism occurred two or three years before

2 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS

1641, could not have been in advance of
the English Baptists, that is, could not
have been immersed. He would attach
it as a corollary to his main proposition.

It is an inferential kind of history,
which is of the most uncertain and un-
trustworthy nature. The author has
indeed ransacked the pages of history to
find something to support his inference,
and has brought the results of his search
together in the appendix of his book.
But it is safe to say that had he not
first accepted the theory in reference to
the English Baptists, he would never
have called in question the belief in the
immersion of Roger Williams, Avliich
has been accepted without the suspicion
of a dissent for two hundred and fifty
years.

It should be stated that in the sum-
mer of 1880 there appeared in Tlie In-

THE BAPTISM OF EOGER ^yILLIAMS 3

dependent t^vo articles advocating the
views ^vhicll Di\ AVhitsitt has promul-
gated ill his book. They appeared an-
onymously in the form of editorials, and
were supposed by most persons to liave
come from tlie editor's pen. Some sus-
pected that Dr. Henry ]\r. Dexter, editor
of llie Co7}gr€gationalist^ might be the
author of them, as he was publishing
about that time- similar views in his own
paper. The vie^vs were vigorously called
in question at the time by Baptist papers,
especially by the Zion's Advocate of
Portland, Me., edited by the accom-
plished historian of Baptist and Ana-
baptist history, Dr. Henry S. Burrage.
The discussion, however, soon ended,
and the inference as to the non-immer-
sion of Roger AVilliams was so unwar-
ranted and unreasonable, so contrary to
the testimony of his contemporaries and

4 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

all the known facts in the case, that it
had no influence whatever, and was re-
gai'ded by most persons as not worthy
of serious consideration.

It was not until April, 1896, that Dr.
Whitsitt acknowledged the paternity of
the articles in The Independent^ greatly
to the surprise of Baptists North and
South. This he did in an article in The
Examiner^ called out by a criticism of
ours upon two articles by him which
appeared in Johnson'' s New Universal
Gyclopcedia^ published in January, 1893,
upon the Anabaptists and the Baptists.
Our criticism was published in The Ex-
aminer in the previous month, very soon
after our attention had been called to
the Cyclopaedia, and proved to be the
match that kindled an extended confla-
gration, which has raged with special
fierceness in the South. In the Cyclo-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 5

pteclia Dr. Wliitsitt published bis views
for the first time over his own signature.
Speaking of the Baptism of Eoger Wil-
Mains, he says : '' The ceremony was
most likely performed by sprinkling ;
the Baptists of England had not yet
adopted immersion, and there is no
reason which renders it prol^able that
AVilliams was in advance of them in
that regard." The heated discussion
which followed, compelled Dr. AVhitsitt
in self -justification to issue his book —
"A Question in Baptist History." This
is a l)rief account of the controversy into
wliich the denomination has been forced
by the publication of these novel views
of Baptist history in a Cyclopaedia which,
it would seem, should have opened its
pages to those historic facts only, wliich
are generally accepted, and not to novel
views and alleged probabilities.

2

G THE BArnSM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

The aroiimeiits which Dr. Whitsitt
has brought for\\ ard in the appendix to
substantiate his inference, are of a
shadowy, unsubstantial character, which
in themselves would not have suggested
the inference, but have rather been sug-
gested by the inference, which was
searching in every direction, and was
quick to avail itself of anything that
could be made to appear to support it
in its weakness. The most that Dr.
Whitsitt has been able to do, even in
his own judgment, by the use of his in-
ference and arguments combined, is to
establish a probability, a probability
however which, so far as we are in-
formed, has not commended itself to
the judgment of any other historian.
After a discussion covering eighteen
pages, in which the reasoning is in part
purely hypothetical, and in no small

THE BAPTISM OF ItOGEK WILLIAMS 7

part utterly irrelevant, lie coucliicles tlie
appendix with tliese cautious words:
" In the present state of information it
Avould be un^\'ise to pronounce with
certainty any conchision regarding this
question. HoAvever, ^vithill tlie limits
of the uncertainty whicli is freely ac-
knowledged, the weight of evidence
appears to incline very clearly towards
the view that Kop-er AVillianis was
sprinkled and not immersed at Provi-
dence in 1639."

This somewhat contradictory utter-
ance, in which the author at first freely
acknowledc^es the o'reat uncertaintv^ of
the question, and confesses it to be un-
wise to pronounce any conclusion, and
then, remembering that he must justify
liimself in such circumstances in raising
the question at all, declares that the
weight of evidence appears to incline

8 ^ THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS

very clearly towai'ds tlie view that
Roger Williams was sprinkled, (that is,
very clearly "witliiii the limits of the
uncertainty"), is the conclusicm of the
^vhole matter, and the largest result
that the most pei'sistent investigation
has been able to secure. It may be
doubted whether a probability, seriously
modified by the limits of a great uncer-
tainty, is w^ortli the prodigious effort
that has been put forth. Indeed it may
be asked is a historian justified in pub-
licly assailing a belief which has been
established for eight generations, unless
he has been able to reach in his ow^n
mind a conclusion more positive than
an opposite probability which is still
surrounded by the limits of a great un-
certainty ? Such an assault demands
for its justification evidence of a nature
sufficiently positive, at least, to go far

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEK WILLIAMS 9

to disprove the belief universally lielil,
and such conduct has a tendency to cast
a suspicion upon all matters of faith,
however sacred. Life is too sliort to
])e ^vasted in trying to establish prob-
al)ilities, when tlie prol)ability is of no
conceivable value, and life is too short
to be compelled to use it in defending
the truth ao^ainst those whose onlv
weapon Avhich they have been able to
forge, is an alleged probability confess-
edly weakened l)y a great uncertainty.
It is not the purpose of this review
to discuss fully the main question of
Dr. Whitsitt's book, viz. the time of tlie
introduction of immersion among the
English Anabaptists. It may be said,
however, in passing, tliat in the judg-
ment of many scholars. Dr. Whitsitt
has been no more successful than was
the late Dr. Henry M. Dexter in his

10 THE BAPTISM OF KOGER ^^TLLIAMS

volume entitled ''The True Story of
John 8m} th, tlie Se-Baptist," published
in 1881, in proving that prior to 1641
immersion was not practiced among the
Baptists in England. Dr. AVhitsitt has
produced little testimony beyond what
Dr. Dexter had presented, indeed he
has drawn largely from Dr. Dexter's
documents, and has failed to examine
carefully tlie originals, in some instances
quoting Dr. Dexter's personal, paren-
thetical comments as if they were a part
of the original documents.

Three remarks may be made in refer-
ence to Dr. Whitsitt's treatment of the
English question.

Eirst, he has failed utterly to present
an accurate picture of the time. His
historic setting is faulty and misleading,
and the impression which it makes is
erroneous. He gives no adequate re-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 11

cognition to the prevalence of ininier-
sioii on the continent of Europe for a
lumdred years and more, in Switzerland,
Poland, Silesia, Lithuania, Pomerania
and Holland. Indeed, he virtnally
denies it, saying " few Anabaptists any-
where were imniersionists," and " none
of the Anabaptists of Holland or of the
adjacent sections of Germany were im-
mersionists." In the judgment of lead-
ing historians his statements are far
from correct. He also fails to re2:>resent
fairly the condition of thouo'ht in Eno^-
land on tlie question of immersion, as
disclosed in the lancyuaofe of the Prayer
Book of Edward YL, in the long con-
tinuance of the immersion of infants in
the Church of England, even doAvn to
the middle of the seventeenth century,"^

*It is a fact well known, as stated by Dean Stanley
in "Christian Institutions," p. 18, that "Edward the

12 THE BArXISM OF EOGEK WILLIAMS

and in tlie action of the Westminster
Assembly in 1644, wliich thongli it re-
jected immersion, rejected it b}' a major-
ity vote of only one. This was not
only " radical action a^-ainst immervsion,"
as Dr. Whitsitt says, but it revealed the
siofnificant fact that the Assembly, and
probably the denomination which it re-
presented, were al)ont e(jiially divided
in sentiment as to the validity of im-
mersion as scriptural baptism. And
this was three years after the time of
the alleo-ed introduction of immersion

o

among the English Baptists. It should

SixUi and Elizabeth were both immersed." It is a
fact, perhaps not so well knpwn, that infant innnersion
was practiced in England not infrequently for a hun-
dred years longer. A clergyman of the Church of
England, named Blake, who was rector at Tamworth,
writing in 1644, said: "I have been an eye-witness
of many infants dipped, and I know it to have been
the constant practice of many ministers in their places
for many years together."

THE BAPTISM OF llOGER WILLIAMS 13

l)e added that the "Confession of the
Seven Churches" in London, which dis-
tinctly declared that the only true l)ap-
tism was immersion, was issued in 1643,
a fact NN'hich requires us to believe that,
if immersion had l)een unknown until
1641, within the brief period of two
years these churches had abandoned a
custom which they had always observed,
and entered upon a ne\v ^\ ay. A mar-
vellously rapid change of sentiment and
practice ! And there is, ample proof
tliat these seven churches constituted
l)ut a small fraction of the wliole num-
ber of churches in England, ^vliich prac-
ticed immersion at tlie time when the
Confession was published.''

*Prof. J. B. Thomas, D. D., Professor of Church
History hi the Newton Theological lustitutiou, in an
article in the Western Recorder of Dec. 17, 1896, says :
"Let it be noted that the first edition of tlie ' Confession

14 THE 13APTI8M OF EOGER WILLIAMS

Indeed so widespread ^vas the Baptist
sentiment in England in the first half
of the seventeenth centnry that its seeds
were brought to this country among the
first settlers in Plymouth and the Massa-
chusetts Bay, there being those among
them who favored not only infant im-
mersion, but also adult immersion, a
fact which Dr. Whitsitt has overlooked.

of the Seven Cliiirclies' was issued in 1648, affirming
immersion to be the only true baptism. Now Baillie,
a jealous and sagacious contemporary witness, affirms
that this Confession expressed the already matured
faith of forty -six churches, ' as I take it, in and about
London.' Featley, an important figure in this discus-
sion, reckoned them, as I remember, at fifty -two, and
Neal distinctly affirms that there were at that date,
' 54 congregations of English Baptists in England who
confined Baptism to dipping,' their illiterate preachers
going about the country, and ' making proselytes of
all who would submit to their immersion.' We are re-
quired then to believe, either that out of one congrega-
tion of 'imnierscrs' organized in 1641, there had
grown this great company in two j'cars, or that in the

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS -15

Secondly, Dr. Wliitsltt has made an
unjustifiable use of the authorities from
whicli he has (quoted. Following Dr.
Dexter closely he has quoted docu-
ments as favoring the late introduction
of immersion as " a neAV baptism," which
had no reference whatever to immei'sion.

same time fifty or more existing Baptist congregations
had simultaneously repudiated a custom to which they
were traditionally attached and which was in universal
use, in behalf of another custom which nobody among
them had ever practiced or even heard of : they with-
out any newly assigned or intelligible motive, sud-
denly ceased wholly to do what they had always and
uniformly been accustomed to do, and began exclu-
sively to do what they had never done at all. So top-
pling a hypothesis surely needs massive support.

I am not persuaded that this support has been fur-
nished or can be furnished. I recognize no important
evidence that was not apparently accessible to Crosby
in his day, and see no satisfactory reason for abandon-
ing his opinion that immersion in England long pre-
ceded the date named by Ncal. and now [that is in
1643] reaffirmed."

16 -• THE BAPTISM OF KOGER ^\TLLIAMS

Both of these authors seem to be ignor-
ant of the fact that at that time the bap-
tismal controversy \vas hottest around
the validity and sacredness of infant
baptism, and many of the publications
were prepared by Pedobaptist ministers
acrainst members of their own cong^reo^a-
tions ^\ ho were distrusting and rejjudi-
ating their infant baptism, and seeking
a new baptism. A careful examination
of these documents would have shown
that they had no reference to the gen-
uine Baptist question, and no bearing
upon it whatever. The ''new l)aptism"
to which frequent reference was made,
'was not immersion, but a new adminis-
tration of their early baptism. Immer-
sion could be tolerated, indeed it had
been practiced by themselves or tlieir
fathers of the inmiediately preceding
generation, but the repudiation of in-

THE BAPTISM OF IlOGEri WILLIAMS 17

ft

fant l)aptism could not he tolerated. A
similar condition of things existed in
this country. Dunster, the first Presi-
dent of Harvard College, rejected infant
baptism, and Avas set aside. Chauncy
])elieved in infant innnersion as recpiired
by the Scriptures, and practiced it, im-
mersing his own children, and it appears,
believed also in adult immersion, but
tliis ^vas no obstacle to his election as
Dunster*'s successor.

Dr. S. L. Caldwell (Historical Dis-
course on the Two Hundred and Fiftieth
Anniversary of .the First Baptist Church
in Providence, p. 29) says: ''The first
president of Harvard College, Henry
Dunster, denied the baptism of infants,
asserting that, 'All instituted Gospel
worship hath some express word of
Scripture, but Pedobaptism hath none,'
and for this heresy was obliged to re-

18 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

sign. Charles Cbaiincy was elected
his successor^ but he was as bad a her-
etic the other way, for he held that
'baptism ought to be only by dipping
or plunging the whole body under
water, whether in the case of children
or adults.' Quincy Hist. Harv. Coll. I.
18. Mather Magnolia I. 367." It is
hardly correct to say that Chauncy
was "as bad a heretic" as Dunster in
Puritan esteem. The head and front of
Dunster's offending was the rejection of
infant baptism. That, not belief in im-
mersion, was the chief heresy of the
time.

Moreover Dr. Whitsitt's treatment
of such documents as Dr. Featley's
"Epistle Dedicatory," and "Dippers
Dipt," and the " Jessey Church Records,"
upon which he relies as his main sup-
port, does not commend itself as defen-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 19

sible. Sentences omitted from Featley,
and from other authors, not only destroy
the force of the sentences quoted, but
array the entire documents against Dr.
AVhitsitt's position. His quotations are
terminated sometimes where they need
to be in order to serve and not defeat
liis purpose. Dr. Whitsitt refuses to
accept the statement of Dr. Featley that
for twenty years prior to 1644 the Bap-
tists had " defiled the rivers in his vicin-
ity with their impure washings," because
the statement is contradicted by his in-
terpretation of the '' Jessey Church
Records.'' It would have been more
reasonable to infer from the explicit
statement of Dr. Featley that his inter-
pretation of the '' Jessey Church Re-
cords " was erroneous, and needed to be
revised and rectified.

The "Jessey Church Records," in

20 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

whicli Dr. AVliitsitt thinks that Gould,
who first published them, included what
appears to be a part of the so-called
" Kift'en Manuscript," have yet to be
authenticated. The Records without
the manuscript have no l^earing what-
ever upon the question under discus-
sion. The '^ Kiffen Manuscript " is of
such doubtful character that it may
prove to be of no more value than the
so-cjalled '' Ep worth and Crowle Re-
cords," ^^'hich are now generally be-
lieved to have been forgeries. If the
"Jessey Church Records" are set aside
as untrustworthy, the central pillar of
Dr. Whitsitt's structure falls to the
ground.* If they are allowed to ^and,

* Since these pages were written the expected has
happened. It has been ascertained that the supposed
extracts from the so-called " Jessey Church Records,"
which are the corner stone of Dr. Whitsitt's theory, to
which he has devoted one entire chapter, and referred

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER AVILLIAMS 21

Dr. AVliitsitt builds upon tliem a super-
structure, wliioli tliey are utterly unable
to bear, wlien tliey are rightly analyzed
and understood.

Tliirdl}, Dr. Wliitsitt lias passed 1)\
documents, the existence and character
of which are well known, wliicli dis-
prove his position and declare as plainly
and unmistakably as words can declare
it, that tlie immersion of believers ^va8
recognized as scriptural baptism, and
practiced in England by those Nvho
were called Anabaptists for a ^vhole
century and more prior to KUl. It

elsewhere between twenty and' thirty times in liis
small volume, are not in the " Jessey Church Recor.ls
The quotations are from " An Old MSS., giving some
Acco. of those Baptists who tirst formed themselves
into distinct Congregations or Churches in London,
found among certain Papers given me by Mr. Adams."
It is certain that it is not a contemporaneous record,
but was written later, at some unknown date, by some
unknown author, and is of very uncertain value.
8

22 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS

should be remembered that the year
1641 was " the j^ear of jubilee" in Eng-
land to dissenting bodies. In that year
the Court of the Star Chamber, and the
Court of High Commission were abol-
ished, and the persecuted Christians who
had been compelled to worship and ad-
niinister their rites and give expression
to their religious sentiments in secret,
" covered," as Dr. Featley says, "like
iire under the ashes," now broke out
into visible existence, and into open
and abundant publications expressive of
their views, so that it is recorded " the
presses did groan and s^veat under their
burden." Dr. Featley describes in
'' Dippers Dipt," this changed condition
of things in these words : " But of late
the unhappy distractions which our
sins have brought upon us, the Tem-
poral Sword being other ways em})loyed,

THE BAI»TISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 23

and the Spiritual locked up fast in the
scabbard, tliis sect, among others, hath
so far presumed upon the patience of
the state, that it hath held weekly Con-
ventions, rel)aptized hundreds of men
and women too^ether in the tAsiliirht in
the rivulets, and some arms of the
Thames, and elsewhere, dipping them
over head and ears." The dippings of
these people were no moi'e ne\v than the
meetings, but lieretofore they had Ijeen
under the ban of the civil and ecclesias-
tical authorities, which had striven in
every way to suppress them, and their
worship and publications.

But such publications relating to the
practice of immersion by the Anabap-
tists, are not \vantinu\ The follow^no'
publications are specimens, or prove the
fact of the existence of such genuine
Baptist publications.

24 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER AVILLIAMS

III 1523 the Anabaptists in Holland
published a book, under the title : " The
Sum of the Holy Scriptures/' which was
translated and circulated in England.
On the sal^ject of baptism it says : " So
we are dipped under a sign that we are,
as it ^vere, dead and buried, as Paul
writes (Kom. 6 and Col. 2). The pledge
is given Avhen we are plunged under the
water."

Dr. W. II. Pinnock, speaking of the
Anabaptists in England in 1521 and
subsequently, says : " They rebaptized
their disciples, Avhence their name ;
and taught that the baptism of infants
was invalid ; they also rejected aspersion,
holding immersion to be the only valid
form of baptism." (Hist. Reform, of the
Eog. Cli., p. 153). This is indeed the tes-
timony of a later hi8t(^)rian, but he would
not have given it, had he not believed

THE BAPTISM OF HOGER WILLIAMS 25

that it rested upon conclusive, contem-
pomneous evidence.

Leonard Buslier, " a citizen of London
and a Baptist/' who is l)elieved to have
piil)lished the earliest known tract in
the Euo:lish lanixiia^^e in favor of aljso-
lute liberty of conscience (See Masson's
Life of Milton, IIL 102), ^vas an o[)en
advocate of innnersion as early as 1614,
and undoubtedly practiced what he be-
lieved. He said : " And such as shall
willingly and gladly receive it, (/. e. the
Gospel) He has commanded to be l)a[)-
tized in the water; that is, dipped for
dead in the w ater." This testimony can
not be discredited.

Thomas Grantham, writing in 1()78,
when it is acknowledged by all that the
English Baptists practiced innnersion,
said : " That many of the learned have
much alnised this aue in tellinof them

26 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

that the Anabaptists (i. e. the Baptized
churches) are of a Late edition, a new
sect, etc., when from their writings the
clean contrary is so evident." (Christian-
ismiis Primitivus, pp. 92, 93.)

Dr. Thomas Fuller (Church Hist, of
Britain, 1656, Vol. II., p. 97), speaking
of the marriage of Henry YIII and Anne
of Cleves in 1589, says: "Dutchmen
flocked faster than formerly into Eng-
land. ^'' ^* ^' * These Anabaptists, for
the main, ai'e but ' Donatists new
dipped.^ " Dr. Whitsitt does indeed
allude to this testimony, but only to
brush it aside with the remark, " Mr.
Fuller was fond of the alliteration ' Don-
atists new dipped,' and employed the
expression for no other purpose than
to indicate that the Anabaptists were
but Donatists with a new name." But
the phrase as used l)y Fuller is in quota-

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEll ^V1LLIAMS 27

tion marks, whicli sliows that it was a
common designation applied to tlie Ana-
baptists, and was undoubtedly so ap-
plied l)ecause indicative of the practice
of l)()tli sects.

In Edward Barber's " Small Treatise
of Baptisme or Dipping : Wherein is
Clearly Slnnved that the Lord Clirist
Ordained Dipping for those only that
professe Eepentance and Faith," a treat-
ise published in 1041, and which Dr.
Whitsitt pronounces the first treatise
published in pjiglish in favor of adult
immersion, the author I'efers to ''A
Treatise of tlie two Sacraments of the
Gospel : Baptism and the Lord's Sup-
per," by Daniel Bogers, printed in 1635,
which had then reached its third edi-
tion. This book, which is a quarto
volume, lias recently Ijeen found in the
li1)rary of the Bi'itisli Museum l)y Bev.

28 THE BAI'TIHM OF liOGEll WILLIAMS

Dr. AY. H. King, of London, and is not
included in the so-called Kino; Geor^re
Pamphlets. The fact that the book had
come to a third edition, indicates that it
had probably been before the public for
several years, and had had a wide cir-
culation. The author was a minister of
the estal)lished church, and an intense
Pedobaptist. But he Avas also a firm
and outspoken believer in immersion as
scriptural baptism, defending it by the
same arguments that are used by Bap-
tists at the present time. The rite of
baptism is, he says, '' To dippe the in-
fant in water. And this I so averre,
as thinking it exceeding material to the
ordinance, yea, Avhich both antiquitie
(though with some additions of a three-
fold dipping, for the preserving of the
doctrine of the impugned Trinity entire)
constantly and without exception of

THE BAPTISM OF llOGER WILLIAMS 2i>

countries, hot or cold, ^vitnesseth unto ;
and especially the constant Word of the
Holy Ghost, first and last, appro veth, as
a learned critique upon Matth., chap. 8,
verse 11, hath noted that the Greeke
tongue wants not an ords to express any
other act as well as dipping, if the insti-
tution could bear it. And sure it is, if
the Lord meant not as (he saitli) that
the infant should be dived to the l^ot-
torn, yet He much less meant he should
be sprinkled only upon the surface.
But rather betweene both extremes, he
should be baptized, which Avord signifi-
eth the true act of the minister, to dip or
dop the body, or some part of it, under
water. And the essence of Baptism in
the very symbolicallness of it urgeth no
less. For what resemblance of ingraft-
ing, of putting on of Christ, is there in
sprinkling i What typicallness is there

30 THE BAPTISM OF KOGEE WILLIAMS

I that is in sprinkling ] of our descending
into, and ascending out of the water,
both which are expressly spoken of
Christ in Ilis Baptisme of Jordan ?
What resemblance of our buriall or re-
surrection with ChiTst is there in it ? "
p. 70.

Here we have an admiral)le defence
of immersion, reference being made to
the uniform teaching of the Sci'iptures
and the custom of antiquity, including
the peculiar trine baptism of the Greek
church, the example of Christ, the mean-
ing of the word itself, and the ability of
the Greek language to express any other
idea, if necessary, and in addition, the
full symbolical meaning of the sacred
rite, which is essential to its proper ad-
ministration. Moreover the author re-
fers to an eminent commentator for
confirmatory evidence of the correctness

THE BArXISM OF ROGEK WILLLOIS 31

of his position. And all this is found
in a volume which in 1635 had readied
its third edition.

But the special value of this l)ook is
the testimony which it bears to the ^vell
lvno\vn attitude and practice of the Ana-
baptists at that time. The author has
no contention with them as to the rite
of l^aptism, for in that there was perfect
agreement. The only contention was as
to the proper candidates. He says :
" But the truth is, the exercise of the
churches' baptism is upon infants.
Here the Anabaptists rise up, pleading
the cori'uption of such baptism and
urging the first baptism of catechised
ones, and confessors of sinne, and crav-
ers of the seal upon the work of the
ministry foregoing in knowledge and
faith, which can be incident only to
adultes, or groAvne ones ; the}' allege

32 THE BAPTISM OF KOGER AYILLIAMS

that Ave seale to a blank, to no cove-
nant, and therefore it is a nnllitie."
p. 71.

It should be remembered that this
testimony is from the pen of an enemy ;
but it is none tlie less valuable. It mav
be of greater value on that account.
The views of the Anabaptists in the
matter of faith and religious liberty
were often disclosed by the arguments
which Avere published against them, and
the enactments which Avere passed for
their punishment and suppression.

We have dwelt longer upon the gen-
eral historical question than we intended.
But it seemed necessary to present facts
enough to show that Dr. Whitsitt's basis
for his inference as to the baptism of
Roger Williams is without any warrant,
and has l^een presented to the public
upon an incomplete investigation, and

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 33

an improper use of authorities, ^vhieli
lias undoubtedly been the result in part
of a too l)]ind dependence upon (]Uota-
tions culled 1)y Dr. Dexter. Further
investigation ^v\\l unijuestionably bring
to light additional evidence of the fact
that immersion was pi'acticed l)y the
English Baptists long before the year
1641, so that it \vi\\ be to all historians,
as it is now to most, not a probability
within the limits of some nncertainty,
but an established and accredited his-
torical fact.

But upon the supposition that Dr.
AV^hitsitt had proved beyond a perad-
venture his theory in reference to the
late introduction of immersion among
Baptists in England, his inference as to
the non-inunersion of Boo'er AMUiams
would by no means follow, and such
arguments as he has been aljle to adduce

34 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

do not give the appearance of plausibil-
ity to his inference.

Roofer Williams has liiven to the
Avorld abundant evidence that he was
not dependent upon human precedent,
that he was conscientious in his convic-
tions and that lie had the courage of
them in the face of persistent and violent
opposition, that he had in him the stuff
out of which pioneers are made, and re-
foi'mers, the inti'oducers of new customs
and principles or the recoverers of old
truths and customs which had been lost
sight of and fallen into disuse. If im-
mersion was to be restored to the church
of Christ, after years of neglect, as the
outward symbol of a spiritual faith and
the initial rite of Christianity, forever
sacred and binding, Roger A\'illiams was
pre-eminently the man to assist or to
lead in such a movement.

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 35

No man in modeni history has been
(juicker tliaii lie to detect the " new oc-
casions " which 'Heach new duties."
To say, as Dr. \\ hitsitt says, that he
was the child of his age, as Luther and
Zwingli were the product of their age,
and because they with preferences at
first for immersion, " yiehled to circum-
stances which they were j)^^verless to
control," and abandoned their prefer-
ences, that therefoie lioger \\ illiams,
who though " likewise a very important
])ersonage, was not great enough to stand
above the common lot of humanity," did
not probably act out any convictions in
reference to immersion which he may
have had, is an attempt to prejudge the
whole question, and prejudice the deci-
sion in favor of Dr. Whitsitt's theory.

Indeed' it proves too much, if it
proves anything, for it proves that Ed-

36 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

ward Barber, and Richard Blount, and
Mark Lucar, and all the other Baptists
contemporaneous with Williams, men
confessedly inferior and less conspicious
than he, were less the product of their
age, and stronger than he to break away
from prevailing tendencies and customs.
Such a position carries its absurdity on
its face. Any man who has made him-
self familiar with the life of Roger Wil-
liams, and has studied his character, and
estimated his achievements, will feel
that such treatment of him shows an
utter failure to • appreciate the man
whose principles of civil and religious
liberty, courageously proclaimed and
successfully illustrated, have been the
supreme moulding influence in making
this nation what it is.

It is not necessary to repeat the oft
quoted encomiums which statesmen and

THE BAPTISM OF PiOGEK WILLIAMS 7,1

liistorians have paid to the memon- and
services of the 2:reat founder of the first
civil government in the world whose
corner stone was absolute soul liberty.
To infer that such a man, the independ-
ent thinker, the conscientious actor, the
courageous pioneer, could not have in-
terpreted the Scriptures for himself, and
reached a conclusion independently of
other meirs thinking or practice, in a
Avord, to infer that he couhl not have
been in advance by the little period of
two or tliree years of a few liunible,
almost unknown men in London, is the
height of unwisdom. Any inference
from their alleged practice to A\^illiams'
non-immersion is a palpable no/i seqnittir.
Moreover, Avhatever may have been
the condition in England, when Dr.
AYliitsitt aims to create the impression
that belief in the immersion even of

4

38 THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS

adults was a thing iinknown in tliis
country at tbat very time, he must have
overlooked certain clear and positive
evidence, with which he shouhl have
been familiar. Having (quoted from
Gov. Winthrop the account of the
arrival of Rev. Charles Chauncy (sub-
sequently President of Harvard College)
at Plymouth in 1688, and of the dispute
Avhich arose between him and the church
as to the baptism of infants, be claiming
that they " ought to be dipped and not
sprinkled," Dr. Whitsitt adds : '^ The
immersion of adults was practically a
lost art in England and America at this
time, and it is cbnceiv^able that Mr.
Chauncy did not contemplate the im-
mersion of adults." (It may be said, in
a parenthesis, that a minister who l)e-
lieved in the immersion of children can-
not be conceived of as not belie vini^: in

THE UAl'TISM U¥ liUGEli WILLIA^MS ^'J

the iniiiiersioii of adults, if anv \A-ere
foimcl wlio liad not been baptized. If
his conscience compelled him to immerse
children, he wouh.l l)e little likely to
alter the rite for converted parents.)
Dr. A\ hitsitt continues: "If the record
can be depended upon, his contention
related to the dipping of infants exclu-
sively, and not to the dipping of adults.
The baptism of adults for Avliich Mi*.
AMlliams began to contend in the spring
of 1G39 was so widely different from the
baptism of infants, for which Chauncy
^vas strivino- that the act of immersion
in the one case need not to have sui!;-
gested the . act oi inunersion in the
other."

This is Dr. AMiitsitt's interpretation
of Chauncy 's positi(>n and all he has to
say about that suggestive incident at
Plymouth in 1 ().H8. An educated man,

ttO THE BAPTISM OF ROGEli WILLIAMS

who had just arrived from Eiighiiid, and
was fit to hid the President of a College,
someho^^■ had come to Ijelieve in the
immersion of infants ; but that contained
no suii^o-estion of the immersion of adults,
and it is implied that it was an excep-
tional case, and had no significance and
no bearing whatever on the (piestion
under discussion ! Indeed, Dr. Whitsitt
imagines that Ivoger ^^'illia•ms "may
have felt a prejudice both against the
man and his contention," which is purely
a gratuitous imagination, for Dr. Wliit-
sitt knows nothino; about it. Some one
else would be equally justified in imag-
ining that " for aught we know to the
contrary " Roger Williams may have r,e-
joiced in Mi*. Chauncy\s contention as a
step in the riglit direction, as a move-
ment to brino^ about the restoration of
the primitive baptism iu ^vhich we

THE BAPTISM OF EOGER AYILLIAMS 41

know he conscientiously believed. But
imaginations, i>vo or con^ are not liistor}^
Dr. AVhitsitt terminates Lis quotation
from Gov. Wintlirop in the middle of a
sentence, as follows: "The magistrates
and (^thei- elders there, and the most of
the people, Avithstood the receiving of
that practice." Whatever may have
been Dr. AVhitsitt's motive in thus dis-
membering the sentence, his action is
most unfortunate for the truth, for he
omits to (piote language which discloses
the nature and reason of their opposi-
tion. The complete sentence reads as
follo\\-s: " The mamstrates and the other
elders there, and the most of the people,
withstood the receiving of that practice,
not for itself so much, as for fear of
worse consequences, as the annihilating
our baptism." (Winthrop's History of
New England from 10:>o to 1649, \'ol.

42 THE BAPTISM OF ROGEri WILLIAMS

L, [). ^^)98). In other words, tlie opposi-
tion was not so mucli against tlie rite of
infant immersion in itself considered.
That wonhi have been tolerated, if
Chauncy desired to practice it, and
others desired to have him do so. But
Channcy declared that " sprinkling was
unlawful," and not to l)e tolerated, and
therefore his contention was a denial of
the validity of their baptism, and if
yielded to would have put an end to
infant sprinkling among them. That
this is the true understanding of the
matter is evident from the moi'e ex-
plicit account of Gov. Bradford, which
Dr. Whitsitt has overlooked. He says
(History, pp. 882, 883) : '' But ther fell
out some difference about baptising, he
holding it ought only to be by diping,
and putting y^ whole bod}^ under water,
and tliat sprinkling was unlaw full. The

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 43

church yeelded that iriimersion or dip-
ping was lawful!, but in this could | cold |
country not so conveniente. But they
could not, nor durst not yeeld to him
in this, that sprinkling (which all y^
churches of Christ doe for y^ most parte
use at this day) was unlawfull, tfe an
liumane invention, as y*^ same was prest ;
luit they were ^villing to yeeld to him
as far as v^^' could tt to y® utmost ; and
Avere contented to suifer him to prac-
tice as he was perswaded ; and when
he came to minister that ordinance, he
miofht so doe it to anv \^ did desire it
in y^ way, provided he could peaceably
suffer Mr. Eeinor | the pastor with whom
he \vas associated] and such as desired
to have theii's otherwise baptised b}^
him, by sprinkling or powering on of
water upon them ; so as ther might l)e
no disturl)ance in v*^ church hereaboute.

44 THE liAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

But lie said he could not yeeld her-
nnto."

We submit that this account of the
Plymouth (Tovernor, which in no way
contradicts, l)ut only explains the ac-
count of the Massachusetts Governor
^vhen fully given, presents an entirely
diiferent aspect of the dispute between
Mr. Chauncy and the church in Ply-
mouth from the one Dr. Whitsitt has
given, and reveals a condition of things
which he has failed to present. The
Plymouth church was not opposed to
the practice of immersion. Indeed, it
ackno\\'ledged that it was lawful bap-
tism, l)ut on account of the climate was
not so ^'convenient" as sprinkling. It
confessed that there Avere some churches
that still practiced it, and was ^silling
that Mr. CUiauncy should practice it,
provided that sprinkling could l)e re-

THE BAPTISM OF ROQEll WILLIAMS 45

ttiiiied l)y tliose persons who desired it.
Those \vh(> resisted Mr. Chaiiney''s con-
tention Avere actuated by the fear of the
conse(|nenees wliich might ensue — viz.,
that their own Ijaptisni might ])econie
null and void, or, in tlieir hmguage,
" annihilated.''

Dr. AVIiitsitt in his summary disposi-
tion of tlie matter implies that that Avas
the l)eo'innino' and the end of it, and
that the little flurry Avas confined to
the Plymouth church, and A\'as hardly
thouo'ht of in all the rest of the colo-
nies ; indeed, he says that ]\[r. (1ianncy''s
"sentiments were (piite extraordinary
among persons of the Puritan school."
The facts were altoo'ether different.
Rev. ^Tr. Partridge of Duxl)ury and
other neighl)oring ministers Avere called
in to argue the points in disjmte Avith
Mr. Chauncy. AVhen they liad failed

46 THE BArnSM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

to convince liini, the (|uestion was 8u1)-
niittecl to all the churches, not only in
the Massachnsetts Bay, but in the Con-
necticat and New Haven colonies. The
little flurry swept over all New Eng-
land, and although the answers returned
from the churches are reported to have
been confirmatory of the position of the
Plymouth church, the whole ecclesiasti-
cal structure of the New Woi'ld was
agitated by the discussion of the ([ues-
tion of the validity of immersion as
scriptural baptism.

It is true that, so far as the records
show, the discussion thus far was limited
to infant immersion. But, if it was, it
did not long remain so ; indeed, there
Avere neigh])()rs then Avho took broader
and inoi-e sci'iptural views. Mr. Chauii-
cy remained at Plymouth nearly three
years, and tlien l)ecame pastor of the

THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS 47

cliurch ill Scitiuite in KUl. Gov. AVin-
tlirop says (History of New England,
Vol. IL, p. 86) : " Mr. Cliauncy of Scitn-
ate persevered in his opinion of dipping
in baptism, and practiced accordingly,
first upon two of Lis o^vn, which l)eing
in very cold ^veather, one of them
swooned away." Here he remained as
pastor until 1054, when he was called
to the Presidency of Harvard College —
jMr. Dnnster, the retired President, tak-
ing his place as ])astor of the church in
Scituate. This church had ali*eady had
a noteworthy history. The first pastor,
John Lothrop, was pastor of the fa-
mous Southwark Conf^reffiitional Church
in London, from which the first Pai'tic-
ular Baptist Church under John Spils-
burv had seceded in lB3o. The year
following, he and about thirty members
emigrated to this conntry and planted

48 THE BAPTISM OF ROaER WILLIAMS

themselves at Scitiiate. Here they were
again divided on the subject of baptism,
the Baptist leaven not having all seceded
in London. In 1639 the pastor and a
portion of the cluirch withdrew and
settled in Barnstable, ^vhere it is re-
corded there were subsequently "great
divisions " on the question of baj^tism.
The crossing of the ocean, and the
changing of habitations in the New
World, did not destro}^ the indestruct-
ible Baptist leaven. Mr. Chauncy be-
came Mr. Lothrop's successor as pastor
of that part of the church remaining at
Scituate. In this church the sentiments
of tlie members Avere far from being
harmonious, and all views seem to have
been tolerated. It is reported that
" many members held to immersion,
some to adult immersion only, and
some to immersion of infants as well

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEIl WILLIAMS 49

as adults."" Whatever may have been
Mr. Chaiiucy's exact views at Plynioutli
he seems to have been at Scituate in
1641 an (►})en advocate of adult immer-
sion as well as infant. The followinir
(juotation is from the history of the
town : " There seemed to be three par-
ties in Scituate at this time ; one of
Avhich held to infant sprinkling, another
to adult immersion exclusively, and a
third (of Avhich was Mr. Chauncy) to
immersion of infants as Avell as adults."
A\ e have dwelt at length upon this
Pl\ni()uth dis[)ute and what followed,
because of the proof which is furnished
therel)y of the conditi(ni of faith and
practice on both sides of the Atlantic.
A belief in immersion as scriptural bap-
tism .was not sucli a new thing under
the sun as Dr. Whitsitt would have us
think, nor was adult immersion an un-

50 ■ THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

heard of tiling, "a lost art in England
and America " at that time. Well has
Dr. H. 8. Bui-rage asked, '' How came
Mr. Chauncy to hold such an opinion, if
immersion was unkno^vn among the
Baptists of England until 1641? And
certainly if Mr. Chauncy in 1638 re-
jected sprinkling and insisted upon im-
mersion as scriptural baptism, why ma^^
not Roarer Williams and his associates
at Providence have done the same in
the following year ?"

But it is more to our pi*esent purpose
to limit our thought to this country, and
to say that here a belief in immersion
was held not by one person alone, as
Dr. AMiitsitt would have us think, but
by many, and that belief in adult im-
mersion was accepted by not a fe\v per-
sons in the Plymonth Colony at about
the same time that Roger Williams and

THE BAPTISM OF IIOGER WILLIA3IS 51

his companions are believed to have car-
ried that belief into practice at Provi-
dence. Indeed, it may be said that if
there were no ad nit immersions at
Scitnate at that early date it nuist have
Ijeen becanse there were no candidates,
and certainly not because of any lack of
faith in the scriptural ness of the rite, or
reluctance of disposition to administer
it.

A correct view of the historic set tin 2f,
of the known condition of thing's, will
make the immersion of Roger AMlliams
appear the most natural and probable
thino- in the world. The thouo;hts of
the new ^\■orld were all alive on Baptist
cjuestions, and its literature was satura-
ted with tlieir discussion. The whole
atmosphere was iilled with Baptist ozone.
Baptist sentiments were imported with
almost every ship from England, (lov-

52 THE BAPTISM OF llOGEH AVILLIAMS

ernor Winslow, speaking of the Anabap-
tists in 1646 said, '^ AVe have some livini>;
among lis, nay, some in our churches of
that judgment." Cotton Mather con-
fessed " Some few of these people have
been among the planters of New Eng-
land from the beginning." Not only
did all the churches consider and respond
to the appeal of the Plymouth Church
as to its position on the (juestion of im-
mersion, as we have seen, but almost
every man who could wield a pen, seems
to have drawn it against the prevailing
Anabaptistic eiTors. John Lothro^), in
1644, published "A short Form of Cate-
cliisme of the Doctrine of Baptisme.
In use in these Times that are so full of
Questions." In the same year, Thomas
Shepard ^vent to press, urged by '' the
increase of Anabaptists, rigid Separa-
tists, Antinomians and Familists." In

THE BArTISM OF IIOGER WILLIAMS 53

1()45, George Philips, of AVatertowii,
in 1647, John Cotton, of Boston, and
Nathaniel Ward, of Ipswich, in 1648,
Thomas Cobbet, of Lynn, and in 1649,
Thomas Hooker, all pnblished treatises
dealing Avith the question of baptism
and its proper candidates, and aimed at
the Anabaptists, in which the severest
epithets were freely employed. And
these are but samples which have l)een
preserved of a vigorous literature, called
forth by the supposed exigencies of the
time.

It is true that Anabaptism was a thing
of degrees, and did not always mean the
same thing, and in no instance meant
the horrible and dangerous things which
many then supposed it, and some still
suppose it, to mean. Sometimes it meant
simply belief in religious libei'ty, the
separation of Church and State, a prin-

54 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

ciple which originated with the x\iiabap-
tists, and characterized them always and
everywhere ; most frequently it meant
anti-pedo-l)aptism ; then it came to mean,
and that very early, in Switzerland and
Germany, in Holland and England and
America, re-baptism in the form of adult
immersion. It was of the nature of an
evolution. All great movements are
born by natural or supernatural pro-
cesses. They have their antecedents,
their ancestry. They come " in the ful-
ness of time." It is impossible to account
for the great Hame of Baptist principles
and practice that bui'st into view in
England on and after 1641, when the
civil and ecclesiastical restrictions were
removed, without believing that the
same principles and practice had been
slumbering beneath the ashes for years
before. It is im])ossible to account for

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 55

the origin of distinctive Baptist clmrclies
in this country without taking into
consideration the sluinl)erini>: embers
^^'lnch were transported from England
and Wales, and the increasing Baptist
sentiment ^vhich manifested itself from
the beginning of our colonies. It should
not be forgotten that the authorities,
again and again, proceeded against men
and women who \vere accused of holding:
Baptist sentiments, and we have the
record of their arrests, imprisonments,
fines and Avhippings. These persecu-
tions began as early as 1635, and \vere
inHicted under the name of law in
many places, in Dorchester, Weymouth,
Rehoboth, Salem, WatertoAvn, Hing-
ham, Dover, X. H., and S^vampscott.
So numerous were these offenders that
in 1644, the well known intolerant law
against the Anabaptists was enacted.

JAMES S. SLATER,

8LATERSVILLE,

RHODE ISLAND.

56 THE BAPTI8M OF EOGER WILLIAMS

The woods of the new \\'orld ^vere ap-
parently full of them.

In proof of the dilfusion of Anabap-
tist sentiments, and the increasing num-
ber of those who hehl tliem, may be
quoted the language of Thomas Hooker
of Connecticut to Thomas Shepard of
Cambridg^e in 1646: ''I like those Ana-
baptists and ther opinion every day
worse than other .... unlesse you be
very watchful you will have an army
in the field before you know how to
prepare or oppose." It may be added
that when John Wilson, who was the
colleague of John Cotton for twenty
years, was near his end, he was asked
for what sins this land ^n as being vis-
ited by God'S judgments, and his an-
swer was, ^' Separatism, Anabaptism and
Korahism." A contemporary eulogist
characterized AA^ilson in these ^vords :

THE BAPTISM OF EUGER WILLIAMS 57

" Firm stood be 'gainst familist,
And Antinomian spirit strong :
He never loved the Sep'ratist,

Nor yet the xlnabaptists' throng."

Ivoo^er Williains was in some true
sense the eliilcl of his age — tlie product
of many influences; and we refer not
now to his great achievement as tlje
founder of relio-ious ]i])ertv in this
country, altliough this was true of liim
in that respect, but to liis j^osition as an
avowed Baptist and the founder of the
first churcli of that denomination in
America. He Avas first a Puritan, then
a Separatist, then one of the first fruits
of tlie Baptist liai'vest. He liad known
Bev. Samuel Howe, a Baptist pastor in
London, and his acquaintance with him
must have been before he came to this
country, for Mr. Howe died in 1641,
and to him he paid in his ''Hireling

58 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

Ministry " a glowing and affectionate
tribute as " an excellent textnaiy or
Scripture learned man," of which he
must have had abundant evidence in
his expositions of the truth and the
ordinances of the gospel, to which lie
had listened. Mr. AVilliams was also
acquainted with the Dutch language,
which for well nigh a century had been
consecrated to liberty and liberal ideas,
and whose possessors were the first
modern promulgators of Baptist doc-
trine and practice, in the sixteen century,
throughout the eastern counties of
England. When he reached Boston in
1681 he was found to be too rigid a
Separatist to be allowed to remain there.
At Plymouth, two years later, his con-
duct and teachings aroused the appre-
hension that he was running '' the same
course of rigid sepai'ation and anabap-

THE BAPTISM OF ItOGl^l WILLIAMS 51)

tistiy wliicli Mr. Joliii Smyth, the se-
Baptist at Amsterdam, liad done.'' And
when, three years later still, he was driven
out of Massachusetts, and found freedom
in Rhode Island, it is not to be wondered
at that his growing Baptist tendencies
should I'ipen into the visible fruit of a
formal profession, and his conscientious
convictions should lead him to desire
for himself, and to re-establish for those
of like faith in this Xew AVorld, the
primitive Christian rite, ^vhich Christ
intended should be observed in all
lands and a^'es. Indeed, in view of
his associations and progressive devel-
opment along Baptist lines, in view of
his personal characteristics and eminent
fitness to l)e a leader of men and
founder of institutions, in view of his
acknowledo-ed convictions as to the
nature and place of Christian Ijaptism,

60 THE BAPTISM OF KOGEll AVILLIAMS

it would have been occasion for the
greatest wonder, if Roger Williams had
not been immersed.

It should be remarked at this point
that, after all, Roger Williams was only
a very little in advance of his contem-
poraries in this country, men less con-
spicuous and forceful in character than
he, and AN'ith whose mental development
we are less familiar. According: to the
statement of Benedict, several persons
attempted in the year 1639, "to found
a Baptist church " in AVeymouth, with
Robert Lenthall, as pastor. This move-
ment, it is said, was suppressed by
imprisonment, Avhippiiig and 1)anisli-
ment. If the statement is to be ac-
cepted, (it rests on the authority of
AVinthrop I. 346) the movement in
Weymouth ^^'as almost exactl}^ syn-
chronous w^ith the movement i]i Provi-

THE ]iAPTISM OF llOGEK AVILLIAMS Gl

deuce. There is some doubt as to the
trustworthiness of the statement, but it
has never been disproved, and is not so
improbable as that the Providence move-
ment was not a Baptist movement at
the be^innino'. The traditional date
of the origin of the First Baptist church
in XcAvport is only five or six years later
tlian that of the Providence church, and
if it is true, as has been generally l)e-
lieved, tliat Dr. John Clarke became a
Baptist through the example and teach-
ing, of Roger Williams, it only shows
that his mind and tlie minds of his
associates were ri[)ening for the decisive
step of complete separation from their
ohi ecclesiastical affiliations, and entrance
upon a new church life. It is not nec-
essarv to connect the origin oi the Xew-
port church ^\ ith the arrival of Mark
Lucar, who had been a mendjer of the

62 THE liAPTISM OF KOGEK >YILLIAMS

First Particular Baptist Chureli in Lon-
don, unless a man is a slave to the fis:-
nient of a Baptist succession, and is
determined to dispute at all cost tlie
reality or the validity of the baptism of
Roger Williams and his companions.
Tlie date of the arrival of Lucar is
absolutel}^ unknown. The first positive
record we have of his presence, notwith-
standing the most persistent searching,
is in 1648. There w^ere influences enough
at work, and material enongh at hand,
Avithout Lucar, to organize a Baptist
chui'ch at Newport.

Only live years later, in UU9, there
Avere found at Behoboth or Seekonk,
thirteen or fourteen persons who wei'e
\vaiting to receive New Testament bap-
tism on profession of their faith in
Christ, and when baptized, constituted
a Baptist society in that place, \yithin

THE BAPTISM OF ItOGEIl AVILLIAMS 63

the limits of the same town in 1662, at
Wannamoiset, afterward called Swansea,
Elder John Miles and liis .companions
settled. They were a company of Welsh
Baptists who had been driven from tlieir
o^V'n land by persecntion, and sought
freedom in this new world. They
formed the hrst Baptist chnrch in Avhat
is now the State of Massachusetts. Mr.
Miles had studied at Brasenose College,
Oxford, and ^^as highly respected and
useful in the new community, though
bitterly opposed by the authorities. He
not only preached in tlie wJiole region,
but in 1674, he was appointed school-
master for the town at a salary of forty
pounds per annum, '' for teaching gram-
mar, rhetoric, arithmetic, and the tongues
of Latin, Greek and Hebre^v, also to
read Eno^lish and to write." And in
1665, but little more than twentv-five

BJ: THE BAPTISM OF KOGEK WILLIAMS

years after the Providence niovement,
a Baptist cliurcli ^vas oi'gaiiized in Bos-
ton itself. . Here in the very heart of
tlie Massachusetts Bay, and at tlie head-
quarters of the most violent opposition
and legislation, those who held Baptist
sentiments had slowly increased in num-
bers, and gathered strength for outward
organized action. To be sure they were
compelled for a time to worship in tlie
suburbs, and were lined, imprisoned, dis-
franchised and banished, and when their
meeting house was l^uilt within the city
limits, its doors were nailed up against
them by the authority of the court; but
the cdiurch had in it that sti'eniiih of
faith and maturity of conviction that
enabled it to live and thrive.

All these movements, following each
other in rapid succession, and harmonious
in all essential features, prove that the

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 65

time had come for the open avowal and
defence of Baptist practice and princi-
ples. The genuineness of the baptism
of one church can be questioned no
more tlian that of tlie others. No one
of them has ever modified or questioned
its own baptism, or questioned that of
its neio'hbors. They were all parts of
that great religious uprising; in the seven-
teenth century, ^\ hicli burst through tlie
iron walls of old creeds and customs, and
the solid masonry of ecclesiastical pol-
ities and governments, and planted itself
squarely and fully upon the principle of
loyalty to the supreme authority of
Christ and his Word. Xo man of that
time acce[)ted this principle more heart-
ilv and intellio^entlv than the founder of
the First Baptist Church in Providence.
So much for the probabilities or the
improbal)ilities, as gro^ving out of the

6G THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

actual condition of the times, and the
associations, the tendencies, the known
characteristics of Roger Williams.

We proceed now to consider the
early accounts of Williams' baptism,
and the numerous and convincino;
proofs that it was an immersion.

Dr. Whitsitt quotes from Governor
Winthrop, and also from Rev. Hugli
Peters of Salem, their accounts of the
baptism, in both of which it is spoken
of as a '^ rebaptism." He confesses that
this word does " not positively settle the
question regarding the act employed";
but he thinks that in the mouths of
these men " that word could hardly
point to anything else than to the act
of sprinkling or pouring." If Dr.
AVhitsitt had pursued his investiga-
tions a little further, he would have
]:>een saved from making such an in-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 67

ference. Mr. Xatliaiiiel Morton of Plv-
moutli, ill liis " Xew England Memo-
riaV published in 1()()9, also gives an
account of AMI Hams' Ijaptisni, in Avliich
lie speaks of it as '' another baptism,"
and also as " a new baptism/' If Dr.
AVhitsitt's position is correct with ref-
erence to the English publications, viz.,
that "new baptism'' invariably refers to
immersion, here is convincing proof of
his own kind that Roger A\'illiams' bap-
tism \vas immersion.

It is enouoh for us to remember that
at that time, as we have shown, the
opposition was against the KE-baptism,
rather than ao-iinst immersion, for that
involved the repudiation of infant bap-
tism. This was the point about Avhicli
the controversy raged, as Ave have said.
Immersion was not so strano-e a tliino-.
Its hiAvfulness was recognized, at least

68 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER AYILLIAMS

in some quarters, and the immersion of
children ^vas tolerated and practiced,
and adult immersion accepted by some.
The churches were up in arms in de-
fence of infant baptism. The RE-bap-
tism Avas the hete noir. The Baptists
were sometimes called, and sometimes
called themselves anti-Pedobaptists. In
the ease of Mr. Chauncy the word ''im-
mersion" needed to be used, otherwise
the point of difference between him
and the church at Plymouth could not
be expressed.

But conclusive proof of the irrele-
vancy of Dr. Whitsitt's ai'gument from
the use of the word " rebaptism " is
found in the fact that Avhen the bap-
tism of the little group of persons at
Seekonk by Dr. John Clarke and Mark
Lucar in 1(3 J:9 is described^ — a baptism
which Ave knoAv uoav, and which every-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS ()9

body knew then, was an immersion —
it is called simply a " rebaptism." The
follo\\'inc^ extract is taken from the com-
plaint and remonstrance which the Gen-
eral Court of Massachusetts sent to the
General Court of Plymouth, l^ecause the
latter had l)een treating the religious of-
fenders within its borders too leniently :
'^ AVee have heard heeretofore of diverse
Annabaptists, arisen up in your jurisdic-
con, and connived at ; but being but
few, wee well hoped that it might have
pleased God, by the endeavors of your-
selves and the faithfull elders w^'^ you,
to have reduced such erring men againe
into the right way. But now, to our
great griefe, wee are credibly informed
that your patient bearing ^v^^' such men
hath pVluced another eifect, namely, the
nuiltiplying and encreasing of the same
errors, and wee feare maybe of other

70 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER ^YILLIAMS

errors also, if timely care be not taken
to siippresse the same. Perticulerly wee
understand that within this few Aveekes
there have Ijinn at Sea Chincke thirteene
or foAverteene p'sons rebaptized (a sa\ if te
progresse in one tonne;) }'ett wee heare
not of any effect nail restriecon is inten-
ded thereabonts.*" (Mass. Col. Records,
Vol. Ill, p. 173).

The Avord " rebaptism," therefore, had
nothino^ in it bv which to determine the
manner in which the act ^vas performed.
It meant simply that persons who had
previously been baptized, submitted at
that time to a rite called baptism, not
necessarily to the same rite ^vhich they
had received before, but to some rite
which bore that name. Baptism had
already acquired a use similar to its use
to-day. In enactments passed l)y the
colonial legislatures the immersion of

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 71

Ba[)tists was spoken of as " baptisin,"
and their ministers were accnsed of hav-
ing "presnnied to take upon them to
administer the saci'ament of l)aptisni/'
and tliat ^\'as at a date when there was
no possible uncertainty as to what they
did. A\dien Dj'. Whitsitt cites Winthrop
and Peters as furnishino^ evidence in
favor of the non-immersion of Roger
Williams, his witnesses are utterly worth-
less ; and ^^hen he calls them contempo-
rary witnesses, and places them over and
above William Coddington who, although
a contemporary, uttered his testimony a
iew years later, he is simply arraying
nothing against something, and that
something is sufficient in itself alone to
demolish Dr. Whitsitt's theory, to dis-
prove his inference and nullify all his
reasoning.

There are three lines of evidence,

72 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER AVILLIAMS

eitlier one of which seems sufficient to
establish the fact of the immersion of
Koger Williams, in the absence of posi-
tive testimony to the contrary, and all
taken t(^2:ethei' make that immersion as
certain and trustworthy as any- fact of
colonial history.

There is, first, the evidence from Wil-
liams' expressed convictions as to the
nature of the rite enjoined l)y Christ and
practiced by his apostles. His views
found clear expression in liis writings,
published soon after his baptism, and
were adhered to as long as he lived, that
is, so far as their scriptural ness was con-
cerned. Plis only doubt, as is well known,
was whether the power to administer
Christian rites had not been lost by
reason of the corruption of the church
and its ministry, and whether there was
not needed for its restoration a ne^v apos-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER ^YILLIAMS 73

tolate. But Ills views, both as to the
rite of baptism and its proper candidates,
w ere unmistakably in harmony witli the
Baptist position, and no fair interpreta-
tion can weaken the force of their testi-
mony in favor of his immersion.

In liis tract entitled ''Christenings
make not Chi'istians,'' published in Lon-
don in 10-1:5, he says: "For our New
England parts, I can speak uprightly
and confidently. I kno\v it to have been
easy for myself, l(>ng ere this, to liave
])rouo:ht manv thousands of these natives,
yea, tlie w hole country, to a far greater
antichristian conversion than ever was
yet heard of in America. I have re-
ported scanething in the chapter of their
religion | in his Key | how readily I could
have broug:ht tlie \\ hole country to have
observed one day in seven; I add, to
have received a baptism (or washing),

74 THE BAPTISM OF llOGEll AYILLIAMS

though it were in rivers (as the first
Christians and the Lord Jesus himself
did), to have come to a stated eliurch
meeting, maintained priests and forms of
prayer, and the whole form of antichris-
tian worship in life and death."

He was discussing the conversion of
the Indians, and condemning the method
which he declared had been practiced by
false Christians among the heathen, the
method of outward submission to rites
and ceremonies, whereby they had made
'• monstrous and most inhuman conver-
sions, yea, ten thousands of the poor
natives, sometimes by wiles and subtile
devices, sometimes l)y force, compelling
them to submit to that which they under-
stood not, neither before nor after such
their monstrous christening of them."
He could easily have carried out this
Roman Catholic method successfully

THE BAPTISM OF liOGEll WILLIAMS 75

with the American Indians, he said, had
he cliosen to (h) so, and persuaded them
to accept not simply a christening, l)ut
even a New Testament baptism, and all
the outward forms of obedience and
worship, ^vhich ^vould have Ijeeu still an
" antichristian worship."

Here is a distinct acknow ledgment of
his belief in immersion as tlie primitive
baptism, with no intimation tliat it was
to him a matter of doubt or uncertainty,
or even a fresh discovery, or that it had
not been the mode of his own baptism
six or seven years before. Indeed it
seems altogether certain tliat he was ex-
pressing the l)elief which he had reached
and carried into practice Avhen his sepa-
ratism culminated, and lie l)roke away
completely from his old ecclesiastical
atliliations, and openly yielded obedience
to the authoritative example of "the

76 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

first Christians and the Lord Jesus him-
self." The phrase '' Baptism (or wash-
ing) though it were in rivers/' has no
reference to the " nnusualness of im-
mersion " as Dr. Whitsitt insists, but it
rather draws a contrast bet\veen tlie
New Testament rite and the practice of
the church of Home. He dechired that
he could have persuaded tlie Indians to
accept even immersion, a rite of fuller
and richer spiritual meaning than a
christening, but it would only have been
" a far greater antichristian conversion,"
had tliere been wanting the inward ex-
ercises of faith and repentance.

Proceeding to speak of the true method
of Christianizing the Indians, Williams
declared '^ First, it must be by the free
j^rocl aiming and preaching of repentance
and forgiveness of sins (Luke XXIV) by
such messengers as can prove their law-

THE BAPTISM OF ItOGEK WILLIAMS 77

f«il sending and commission from the
Lord Jesus to make disciples out of all
nations, and so to l)aptize or wash tliem,
Et:; TO o><>fj.a, into the name or profession of
tlie Holy Trinity. Matt. XXVIII, 19 ;
Kom. X, 14, 15. Secondly, such a con-
version, so far as man's judgment can
reach, which is fallible, as was the judg-
ment of the first messengers, as in Simon
Magus, ttc, as in the turning of the
wdiole man from the power of Satan
unto (rod. Acts XXVI. Such a chan<j^e
as if an ohl man l)ecame a new babe
(John IV.) ; yea, as amounts to God's
new creation in the soul. Eph. II, 10."
In this extract it is said — "baptize or
wash them, J^'-^ -'> (>>"//a". Tlie candid
reader will say at once that these words
must he interpreted in harmony with the
definition of l)a])tisni given by the
writer in the previous part of the tract.

78 THE BAPTISM OF llOGEIl WILLIAMS

Not SO, says Dr. Wliitsitt. Because
AVilliams does not say " in rivers/' and
again define the meaning of baptism as
he did before, therefore '' he ignores im-
mersion entirely. It is sufficient to
' wash them into the name or profession
of tlie Holy Trinity/ and is not necessary
to ' wash them in rivers ', as ^^as indicated
above. I'his second citation appears to
prove that Mr. Williams did not regard
immersion as essential to Christian bap-
tism."

It is difficult to l^elieve that Dr. Whit-
sitt is serious in offering this explanation
of Roger Williams' language. It is the
refinement of ingenuity in an attempt
to interpret away Roger Williams from
liis own definition of baptism, and make
him change his mind, and contradict him-
self within the limits of a l)rief tract.
Because h'e did not use '' in I'ivers " in

THE BAPTISM OF KOGEK WILLIAMS 79

the second instance, it is claimed that lie
not only " ignored immersion entirely/'
but he actnall y '' decided against it." Dr.
AYhitsitt croes so far as to sav that the
omission was made " apparently of set
purpose."

Such reasonino; emiiloyed to-day would
make Pedobaptists of all of ns. It is
donbtful if Dr. Whitsitt himself could
stand the test of his own astounding
logic. A man may define baptism neyer
so clearly at the beginning of a discourse,
Init if he does not say in each allusion
to it afterward, ])aptism is an act ^^'hich
is performed " in rivers,'' he has changed
his mind, he has "ignored immersion
entirely", he made the omission " of set
purpose," and must be regarded as haying
" decided ac^ainst it " ! I !

Moreover, lest any one should think
that the words "wash them into the

80 THE BAPTISM OF EOGEE WILLIAMS

name or profession of the Hol}^ Trinity,"
as used l_)y Williams, suggest the idea of
an immersion, Dr. Whitsitt cites the
language of the Larger and Shorter
Catechisms, in answer to the (juestion
'' What is baptism ? " viz. : " The wash-
ing ^vitli water in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." This language, says Dr. Whit-
sitt, " indisputably points to sprink-
ling or pouring." It is "parallel to the
language of Eoger Williams," (hardly
so, l)ut let that pass) and as this "pro-
vides for sprinlvling oi' pouring," so
must his language "just as certainly"
provide for sprinkling or pouring. In
other words, because the Westminster
divines used language with unwarranted
liberty so that " washing " meant to
the^in only sprinkling or pouring, there-
fore Eoger Williams must have taken

THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS 81

the same liberty, and intended the same
tliini'- !

Again, lest any one should be misled
and suppose that Roger Williams in
(juoting the Greek phrase £";? -o o-M,>,.a
knew anything of its correct Jiieaning
and sug:oi;estiv^eness in connection with
luj-z'/Uo, Dr. Whitsitt has discovered, by
the timely aid of Dr. Dexter, a BroAvn-
ist writer who defined baptism as a
'' washins: with water into the name of
the Father, <fec.," and even '' the sprink-
ling witli water into the name of the
Father, ifec." From this instance Dr.
Whitsitt draws this remarkable infer-
ence, viz. : " The circumstance that the
preposition 'into' is employed in the
same way after the ^vord ' sprinkling '
as after the Avord * washino; ' renders it
clear that in neither case is immersion
the necessary or natural meaning." In

82 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS

other words, — because an unknown
BroAvnist blundered in his knowledge
of Greek and in liis use of English,
therefore the scholarly Ro<>:er Williams
must have done the same ; and, more-
over, he nuist have escaped '' the nec-
essary and natural meaning " of the
baptismal formula ; and, still more, we
are prohi])ited from ascribing to his
language its '' necessary and natui'al

meanms:

We feel like apologizing for dw.ell-
ing so long upon Dr. Whitsitt's method
of explaining away the plain confes-
sion of faith, which Roger Williams
has left, as to the lite of baptism.
It reminds one of nothing so much as
the attempts which are sometimes made
to nullify the obvious teachings of the
New Testament in reference to this in-
itial Christian rite. It may be ingenious.

THE BAPTISM OF ROCIEK WILLIAMS 83

])ut it does not seem to be ingenuous.
The language of Roger Williams should
be allowed to Jiave its natural and nec-
essary meaning. lie should l)e interpre-
ted by himself — not by the AYestminster
divines in their a^\k^vard attempt to jus-
tify an unscriptural practice — not by an
ii2:norant Brownist, whose io:norance of
the Greek language seems to be equaled
by his inability to use the English lan-
guage correctly — and not by Dr.Whitsitt.
A second statement made by Eo£!;er
Williams, four years later, of his view of
baptism, is equally clear and explicit,
and has received similar treatment at the
hands of Dr. Whitsitt. In a letter to
Gov. Winthrop under the date of Xov.
10, 1649, he gave an account of the ])ap-
tism which had recently taken place at
Seekonk, to which allusion has already
been made.

84 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

" At Seekonk a great many have lately
concurred with Mr. Clarke and our Prov-
idence men about the point of a new
baptism and the manner of dipping,
and Mr. Clarke hath been there lately,
and Mr. Lucar, and hath dipped them.
I believe their practice comes nearer the
first practice of our great founder, Jesus
Christ, than other practices of religion
do, and yet I have not satisfaction neither
in the authority by which it is done, nor
in the manner."

Nothing could be plainer than this
statement in its testimony to tlie belief
of Roger Williams in immersion as the
baptism instituted by Christ, and at this
time practiced by the Providence and
Newport churches. There is no intima-
tion that the Providence and Ne^vport
churches had differed in their practice
from the beginning, or that they had not

THE liAl'TISM OF liOGEli WILLIAMS 85

l)een immersing for several years, more
or less. Dr. Wliitsitt strangely perverts
the obvious meaning of the entire pas-
sage to make it lit in to his theory. The
plirase " a ne^v Ijaptism " does not refer
to the practice of the Providence and
Newport men particularly (although
since immersion had Ijeen revived in
this country for only about ten years, it
miglit ^vitli propriety have been called
"a new baptism ■'), but it refers to the
candidates at Seekonk, who desired a
new and different baptism from that
which thev had received in cliildhood.
It was a new baptism to them in the
sense of being both a second Ijaptism
and administered in a different manner.
When Dr. Whitsitt says that ^'Before
1649 both Mr. Jolm Clarke and the Prov-
idence men had ^concurred about the
point of a new ])aptism,' " implying that

86 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER >YILLIAMS

there had been a time when tlie t\vo
Baptist churehes had not concurred, lie
says AN'hat lioger AVillianis' language
does not say or hint. It \vas the 8ee-
konk people who had lately concurred
with Mr. John Clarke and our Provi-
dence men, that is, who had come to the
position occupied by these two churches.
Such a mistake on the part of Dr. AVhit-
sitt is unaccountable. The little com.
pany of Separatists at Seekonk had been
led to accept the views held and prac-
ticed in both Providence and Ne^v^port,
and sought opportunity to be immersed
in like manner on profession of their
faith in Christ.

It was perfectly natural that Roger
Williams should speak of it as " their
practice,'' for having withdra\vn from
the fellowship of the Providence church,
though in no particular from its faith,

THE BAPTISM OF liOGEll WILLIAMS 87

he C(Hil(l not justly claim that its bap-
tism ^vas still liis ; indeed, he proceeds
to sho\\ \\ hy he had withdrawn, and
n<)\v disclaimed that to ^vhich a few
}'ears before he had openly submitted.
" I have not satisfaction," he says, that
is, his mind could not remain satisfied,
"neither in the authority by which it
is done, nor in the manner." The au-
thority to administer the rite had been
lost through the desreneracv of the
church, he Ijelieved, and he could not
now approve tlie manner in ^vhich the
practice of immersion had been revived
in this land. That " manner '' does not
refer at all to the mode of baptism, as
Dr. AMiitsitt asserts, is evident from the
fact that AYilliams had declared with
the previous l)reath that he did approve
of that. It is hardly reasonable to make
him iiatly contradict himself ^vithin the

88 THE BAPTISM OF liOGEE WILLIAMS

compass of four short lines. It was tlie
validity of baptism as now administered,
and the manner in which it had been re-
established, that he found himself now
unable to endorse. This interpretation
is the perfectly natural and obvious one.
It makes his language consistent with
itself, and entirely consistent with his
known position. Any other interpreta-
tion is a painful wrench of the language
to make it appear to say what it ^vas
never intended to say. This linguistic
distortion and this astonishing misinter-
pretation reach their climax ^vdien Dr.
AVhitsitt ventures to suggest the hypo-
thesis : '' It is possible that he [that is,
Williams] could not find satisfaction in
the manner, for the reason that while he
admitted that immersion was scriptural
and apostolical he could not convince
himself that it was essential to baptism."

THE BAPTISM OF liOUEli WLLLIAMS 89

There is not the slightest oppovtunity
here to make a place for Mark Liicar as
"the first genuine Baptist on the continent
of America,"and when Dr. AVhitsitt en-
endeavors to do so, and so twists tlie lan-
guage of Williams as to make it appear
that he " yields that honor " to Lucar,
he maA^ l^e exhihitino; an amazin£r skill
and coui'age as an interpreter, but he is
putting a tremendous tax upon human
credulity.

It is true tliat when Williams with-
drew from the Providence church, with
two or three others, for the reason given,
there remained in the church a solici-
tude al)out the validity of its baptism.
It shared to some extent the view of its
pastor, and it contemplated sending a
representative to the Anabaptists of the
Ohl World to receive wliat it mioht re-
gard as apostolic baptism, that is, bap-

90 THE BAPTISM OF HOGEH WILLIAMS

tism by an unbroken line of descent.
This solicitude, however, soon disap-
peared. But when Dr. Whitsitt im-
plies that the solicitude was in refer-
ence to the mode of baptism and not
its v^alidity, and that it prompted them
to seek immersion from Europe, and
then adds, " but they finally concurred
with Mr. John Clarke, and they were
all immersed, as is supposed, by Lucar,"
he misinterprets the true condition of
things in Providence, he again misap-
plies the language of Williams about
'^ concurring," and offers to the public
a piece of conjectural history as un-
substantial as any that was ever spun
by a fertile imagination e,c niliilo.

To sum up what has been said on this
point, we have the plain and unecpiivo-
cal confession of Roo-er Williams of liis
l)elief in the scriptural ness of immersion

THE BAPTISJ\r OF llOGER WILLIAMS 91

as baptism, given first in 1045 and re-
peated in 1649, witli no intimation tliat
there liad Ijeen anv c*liani''e of view,
eitlier in himself or in liis companions
(so far as the mode of ba[)tism is con-
cerned) since the time, six or seven years
before, when he <^penly confessed his
faith in Christ and complete snbmission
to his commands, and inaugurated what
has l)eeii called from the first the Baptist
movement in America. For lioo-er Wil-
liams, with his well-known conscientious-
ness and unswervinii' lovaltv to his con-
victions, to reach sucli a belief, was for
him to act upon it, and to adhere to it
only as a ne\v and equally conscientious
belief came in shortly to disturb his out-
ward relations. From his sympathy
with the Providence church and its
characteristic views and practices he
never departed. In 1()72, in his reply

92 • THE BAPTISM OF ROGEll WILLIAMS

to George Fox, he wrote : '' After all my
searcli and examinations and considera-
tions, I do profess to believe that some
come nearer to the first primitive churches
and the institutions and appointment of
Jesus Christ than others; as in many re-
spects, so in that gallant and lieavenly
and fundamental principle of the true
matter of a Christian congregation, flock,
or society ; namely, actual believers, true
disciples and converts, living stones, such
as can give some account how the grace
of God hath appeared unto them.""

A second line of evidence in favor
of the immersion of Roger Williams is
found in the testimony of his contem-
poraries which has been preserved. As
we have seen, the testimony of Winthrop
and Peters, cited by Dr. Whitsitt in
favor of his theory, is irrelevant and
worthless. There is, however, positive

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEK WILLIAMS 93

contemporary testimony, Avhicli estab-
lishes the nature of AVilliams' baptism
beyond a (piestion. In a letter (^f
Thomas Hooker of Connecticut, to
Thomas Shepard of Cambridge, bearing
date of Xovember 2, 1640, there is evi-
dence tliat immersion was undoid)te<lly
practiced at Providence at that time.
Dr. Wliitsitt has undertaken to show
til at the first baptism in Providence was
prohahlij not an immersion, and that im-
mersion ^)/'6>/^r^/>/// ^^•as not introduced in
Providence until the arrival of Mark
Lucar from England, which event pos-
sihJy took place in 1644. Of that event
liowever we know absolutely nothing.
In 164U, Ilookei-, writing to Shepard,
alludes to an invitation which had l>een
extended to Tie\ . Charles Chauncy of
Plymouth, with whose immersionist
views we are already accpuiinted, to re-

94 THE BAPTISM OF llOdEll WILLIAMS

move on that account to Providence, and
says "That coast is more meet for his
opinion and practice." The character of
tlie church in Providence as an immer-
sionist chnrcii seems to have been well
known in 1640, and it was suj^posed that
Chauncy would find a welcome there
for "his opinion and practice," or at
least that it ^vas a more fitting place for
him to proclaim his vie^vs and find sym-
pathizers with them. This letter of
Hooker's was probably written at the
time when the discussions in the Ply-
mouth church wei'e sul)mitted for con-
sideration and counsel to all the churches
in the colonies. Gov. Winthrop says
that at that time those " who were of the
I'igid se2)aration and favored Anabap-
tism " were removing to Providence,
which offered a moi'e congenial atnios-
pliere, and evidently the inhabitants of

THE BArXISM OF llOGER WILLIAMS 95

tlie Bay and of Plyjiioiitli ^^e^e not
averse to tlieir iyoins^.

Further and indubitable testimony in
favor of Williams^ immersion is fcnind in
the statement of ^Ir. Richard Scott, who
was undoubtedly a constituent member
of the Providence church with Roger
Williams. His wife was sister to the
celebrated ^Irs. xVnne Hutchinson, and
it was through her influence, according
to Gov. Winthrop, being ^'infected
with Anabaptistry," that ]Mr. AVilliams
was led " to make open profession there-
of." This opinion of Gov. AVinthrop,
^vhich Avas probably prompted by charity
for his friend Rosfer Williams and dis-
like of the Hutchinson family, may be
taken for what it is ^vorth. Richard
Scott, writing tliirty-eight yearsafter the
Providence l)aptism and the origin of
the church, (at that time he had ])ecome

96 THE BAPTISM OF liOGEIl WILLIAMS

a Quaker), says of Mr. Williams — " I
walked with him in the Baptists' wa}"
al^oiit three or four months, ....
in ^^■hich time he Ijroke from his societ}^,
and declared at large the ground and
reason for it ; that tlieir baptism could
not be right because it was not admin-
istered by an apostle. After that lie set
upon a way of seeking, with t^v o or three
of them that had dissented ^^ith him,
by way of preaching and praying ; and
there he continued a year or two till
two of the tliree left him. . . . After
his society and he in a Church way were
parted, he then went to England,"

This statement is in exact harmony
with the kno^vn facts of Koger Wil-
liams' life at that time, viz. : his identi-
fication AA'ith the Baptist church, which
is called '' his society," implying that he
liad been prominent in its organization,

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 97

his \vitlulra\val from it after a few
months and tlie reason for it, his becom-
infc a Seeker, and tlie time of his first
visit to England. Moreover, this state-
ment is from the pen of one who was
not only a contemporaiy of AVilliams,
bnt ^vas one of those wdio w^ere baptized
]jy him, and associated with him in
church felh>wship, '' walking Avitli him
in the Baptists' ^vay/' Yet tliere is no
intimation that there liad Ijeen any
change in tlie practice of the church
from the be^'innino;, when he and Wil-
Hams ^valked too-ether in it, until the
time of his Avritino; no intimation that
" the Bai)tists' ^vav " inauo-urated \)\ '\\\\-
Hams and his companions in 1639 or
1638, had been in any essential feature
modified or departed from in 1677. It
is incredible, if the church had practiced
sprinkling at the beginning (and Scott's

98 THE BAPTISM OF EOGEK WILLIAMS

statement goes back to the initial move-
ment), and then sul)se(]ently changed the
rite to immersion, tliat he did not know
it, and if so great a change had been
introduced in the life and practice of
the church, it is incredible that he
should use the phrase " the Baptists'
way " as applicable to the beginning as
well as to the end of that period of the
history of the church. This statement
seems to fui'uish conclusive proof that
Eoger Williams was immersed. The
evidence thus far adduced from contem-
porary sources, which is abundantly
sufficient to establish the nature of Wil-
liams' baptism, has been overlooked or
has been left unnoticed by Dr. Whit-
sitt.

Tliei'e is still another contemporary
witness whose testimony is of the
strongest and 'most positive kind. This

THE BArilSM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 99

has been sufficient, talveii by itself, to
carry couv-ictioii tc) some minds which
liave carefully examined the matter, and
has settled the (question beyond a doul)t.
Mr. William Coddington was one of the
compauy, of Avhich Dr. eJohn Clarke ^vas
another, which emisfrated from Boston
on account of the Antinomian disturb-
ances, and settled on the island of
Acjuidneck, no^v Khode Island. The
civil compact was signed by eighteen
persons, March 7, 1038. Mr. Codding-
ton's name stood Urst on the list, and
Mr. Clarke's, second. Mr. Coddington
^vas a man of importance. He had been
a wealthy merchant in Boston, owning
the only brick house there, and a deputy
to the Court. He was a man of ac-
knowledo^ed intellio'ence and ability, and
withal, an ambitious man. For a long-
time he opposed the union of Newport,

100 THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS

Providence and Warwick, very likely
for selfish ends. In the late summer or
autumn of 1651, he returned from a
protracted visit to England, where he
had been successful in securing a char-
ter for the sepai'ate existence of Rhode
Island, as it was called, by which he
was appointed Governor for life. It
was for the I'e vocation of this charter
that Roger Williams went to England
on his second visit, in connection with
Dr. John Clarke, both of them being
deputed to this service by their respec-
tive communities. It seemed necessary
to give this brief description of Mr.
Coddiugton, in order to show his prom-
inent character and position among the
early settlers in the colony, and the
opportunity he had for being acquainted
with its leading men and the events of
their lives. He had known Roger Wil-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 101

liams from the first, and bad sometimes
l)eeii associated with him in the govern-
ment of the colony. He must have been
perfectly familiar with the religious be-
liefs and practice of his great contem-
porary, and \vith the principal events of
his experience. The settlements of this
colony, excluded froin the confederation
.of the other colonies, w^ere bound to-
gether by common interests, and lixed
in constant communication and touch
with each other. Nothing of importance
at Providence could have escaped the
knowledge of Coddington at Newport,
especially if it related to that most con-
spicuous subject of the time, the chang-
ino; relictions faith of the people.
■ William Coddington, like Richard
Scott, became a Quaker. He may have
never (piite forgiven Williams for se-
curinir the revocation of his charter,

8

102 THE BAPTISM OF llOGER WILLIAMS

which he had been at such pains to
get, and which gave him a life-term in
the governorship. However that may
have been, Roofer AVilliams' vehement
opposition to George Fox, and his opin-
ions and foHowers, called forth from
Coddington sharp language against him.
Writing in 1677, he said : " I have
known him about fifty years : a mere
weather- cock, constant only in incon-
stancy One time for water bap-
tism, men and women must be plunged
into the water, and then thre^v it all
down again." It would seem as if
there could be no possibility of misun-
derstanding this language or of w^eak-
ening its obvious meaning. It must
refer to AVilliams' brief connection with
the Baptist church and his withdrawal
from it because he came to think that
the true baptism had been lost by rea-

THE BAPTISM OF lUJGEli WILLIAMS 108

son of the break in the line of sacces-
sion. The language can have no appli-
cation to any other period -or act in his
life. It must refer to his actual immer-
sion, to his act of obedience to Christ's
command, and his subserpient question-
ing of the validity of the rite, because
the authority to administer it had been
lost, and not to his simple belief in the
scripturalness of immersion, for that, as
we have seen, he never "threw down."
The folhnving paragraph is quoted
from "The Mother Church," in which
we briefly discussed this 'question be-
fore the appearance of Dr. ^yhitsitt's
book. It shows the weisfht of Cod-
dington's testimony upon minds which
at first, after the publication of the
alleo-ed late introduction of immersion
among the English Baptists, were dis-
posed to take Dr. Whitsitt's view.

104 THE BAPTIHM OF EOGER WILLIAMS

Professor Albert H. Newman in a re.
view of Dr. Heniy M. Dexter^s ''John
Smyth, the 8e- Baptist," published in
The Examiner in March, 1882, was in-
clined to accept the inference that AVil-
liams' baptism was sprinkling. This he
did, as he subsequently confessed {Tlie
Examiner^ May, 1896), ''somewhat rash-
ly," and "without having specially in-
vestigated the (piestion." A thorough
study of the evidence, pro and con the
immersion theory, compelled him to re-
tract his hastily accepted view, and to
acknowleds^e the convincini>: force of
Coddin2:toii's testimonv. He also said :
" I attach little importance to the argu-
ment drawn from the fact that the Eng-
lish Baptists had not as yet reached the
conviction that immersion alone is true
baptism. Williams ^vas (piite as likely
as any member of the South wark (Lon-

THE BAPTISM OF KOGEll WILLIAMS 105

don) congregation to come to an inde-
])endent conclusion on a sul)ject of this
kind, and was quite as likely to act
promptly on Lis conviction. Restrain-
ing influences, wliicli may liave delayed
action for a numljer of years in London,
were whollv wantino; in Providence.
That primitive baptism was immersion
had Leen freely admitted l)y leading
reformers, and immersion was the form
prescril^ed in tlie English Prayer-Book.
A highly educated man like Williams
did not need the example of English
Baptists in a matter of this kind.'' Dr.
Newman a(hled that, when he had
reached this conclusion after a thor-
ough investigation, he sulmiitted it to
Dr. IT. M. Dextei', and found, to his
great surprise, that he, too, had been
led to adopt the same view. " His an-
swer was entirely in accord witli my

10(3 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

own conclusion. He expressed the opin-
ion that, in the absence of contemporary
evidence against immersion, Codding-
ton's statement must be accepted as
probably correct."

Foi' a man whose pi-edispositions were
in the opposite direction to ackno^^ ledge
tliat a view is " probably correct " is,
perhaps, all that sliould ])e expected.
It speaks well for the convincing char-
acter of the evidence which has been
presented to his mind. Moreover, it is
an honorable confession for a man to
make.

But what reply does Dr. Whitsitt
make to Mr. Coddington, and what is
his method of disposing of his testi-
mony ? He seeks to weaken Mr. Cod-
dington's testimony by weakening his
memory. He says : " One's memory is
capalde of becoming confused in thirty-

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEll WILLIAMS 1U7

eigbt years, and Mr. Coddington's iiieiu-
ory may liave become confused. He
may liave supposed that the immersion
of believers was practiced in Rhode Is-
land in 1639 because it had been prac-
ticed since 1644; but that was a violent
supposition." Hardly so violent, it may
l)e replied, as this supposition by T)r.
AVhitsitt, for it is nothino; but a oTatu-
itous guess offered to meet the force of
an unequivocal statement, which sw^eeps
away his unsubstantial inference. Cod-
dington, indeed, Avrote in 1677, thirty-
eight years after the event, but he was
still in possession of all his faculties.
He was chosen Governor of Ehode Is-
land in 1674, 1676, and 1678. The
nature of the act to which he bore
witness, was such that there was little
likelihood that the memory would be
confused about it, especially in a man

108 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER ^^TLLIAMS

who had become a Quaker. Siich a
supposition only shows the utter ab-
sence of any plausible argument with
which to meet the positive affirmation
of Mr. Coddington. Such an affirmation
has historical value. Such a supposition
has none.

The assertion of Dr. Whitsitt that
Mr. Coddington's statement may have
referred to Roger Williams' faith rather
than his conduct, or to some other period
of his life, has already been anticipated,
and shown to be utterly groundless.
His attempt also to diminish the force
of Coddington's testimony, by contrast-
ing it with that of Winthrop and Peters
in point of time, has been exploded, for
they have no testimony that bears on
the question in discussion, and Codding-
ton was contemporary with what he de-
scril)ed.

THE BAPTISM OF liOGEK WILLIAMS 109

Dr. Whitsitt declares that " Coddino:-
ton was not an eye witness any more
than were Winthrop and Peters." IIow
does he know that ^ In the lack of
positive knowledge it is just as reason-
able to say that he was an eye witness.
Indeed, there are some things that
make it altogether prol)a])le, if pi'ol)-
abilities are to be accepted, that Cod-
dington was present on the occasion
when Roger Williams and his compan-
ions were immersed. Clarke and Cod-
dinij^ton and tlie mio-ratino: colon\' visited
Providence on tlieir way south, and
were persuaded by AMI Hams to pur-
chase of the Indians the island of Aquid-
neck for the new settlement, instead of
going farther, and were aided hy him in
the purchase. The visit must have been
of some days, possibly of some weeks
duration. The time harmonizes per-

110 THE BAPTISM OF KOGEli WILLIAMS

fectly witli the time of the great immer-
sion. It was ill the spring of 1638.
(The civil compact at Aquidneck was
signed March 7, 1638.) That is exactly
the time when it is now generally
believed that the Providence cbnrch was
organized. What more natnral than
that Roger Williams slionld have taken
advantage of the presence of tliese guests,
who like himself were Separatists, and
allowed liis separatism to reach its
logical outcome ? What more natnral
than tliat tliis visit of men not wholly
nnsympathetic shonld have furnished
the longed-for opportunity for his ripened
faith to make its public profession ?
The public had now come, in the provi-
dence of God, and Williams and his
companions may have hailed the hour,
when they could openly declare their
full sul)mission to Christ and the in-

THE BAPT18M UF liOGEU ^ViLLlAMS 111

stitutions of primitive Christianity, and
re-establish in the wilderness of the new
^\ orld the church of the New Testament.
AMiat more natural than that they should
have felt that they were not only acting
for themselves, but setting an example
which sh(Mdd soon be followed in the
new settlement do^vn the Xarragansett
Bay ! It is by no means improljable that
Jolin Clarke, and William Coddinirton
and their associates may have been eye-
witnesses of this first Providence baptism,
and that Coddington in liis testimony,
ii'iven later in life, mav liave been de-
daring simply that \\hich he had seen
with his own eyes and looked upon, of
the manifestation of tliat new, free,
spiritual life which, in America as in
England, was bursting through human
eml)ankments and seeking divinely ap-
pointed channels. The Aquidneck

112 THE BAPTISM OF KOGEE AYILLIAMS

settlers could not have foro^otten the
impress! v^e lesson photographed upon
their minds. Through them the news
could have l)een carried to John Win-
throp and the Boston churcli, for they
I'emained for a time in communication
with it, a thing which was not true of
the Providence church ; and in due time
the lesson learned by the migrating col-
onists, (who went out in faith, not know-
ing Avhither tliey Avent,) as they jour-
neyed tlirough the wilderness, brouglit
forth its legitimate fruit in th.eir new
settlement, and the second Baptist church
in Amei'ica came into being in NcAvport.
If probabilities are to be indulged in,
they should certainly be such as are not
unreasonable, do not make exorl^itant
demands npon the imagination, and fit
in with all the knoAvn facts of the his-
tory, so that there may be presented a

THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS 113

consistent and harmonious picture of the
beginnings of Baptist cliurcli life in
New Eno-hand. But wliatever nia\' l)e
the probabilities, the testimony of ^\'il-
liam Coddington is impregnable, and
taken with all the other confirmatory
evidence proves beyond a question tliat
lioger Williams was immersed.

Dr. A. H. Newman, in harmony with
what has just been said, speaks of Cod-
dington as one " ^vho seems to have wit-
nessed the ceremony, and described it
sometime afterward as iramersi(Mi.''

It seems unnecessary to adduce any
other evidence in proof of a fact already
so ^vell established. But there is a third
line of evidence wjiich has its peculiar
Aveight and signiiicance, and without
Avhich our discussion wcndd seem in-
complete. This is found in the unvary-
ing and univei'sal belief in the immersion

114 THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIAMS

of Koger Williams. Rev. John Calleii-
der of Newport was at one time led to
donbt, not the immersion of Williams
l)nt his active agency in the formation
of '^ a chnrch of the Anabaptists " and
his identification with it. But this " sns.
picion ^' of his, for it was never anything
more, he subsequently abandoned, as is
believed on what is declared to be his
own authorization.

Until aljout the year 1880, at which
time the question of the late introduc-
tion of immersion among the English
Baptists w^as raised, the uniform tradi-
tional belief was that the First church
in Providence was a genuine Baptist
church from the beginning, and that
Roger Williams was a constituent mem-
ber of it, and its first pastor. When
Di\ AVliitsitt says ^'The most reliable
tradition on this subject has followed the

THE BAPTISM OF KOGEH WILLIAMS 115

lead of Wintlirop and Peters, rather tliaii
that of Coddinofton '' we are not certain
that ^\'e understand what lie means, for
if what he seems to say is ^vhat he means
to say, it is far outside the bounds of
of correct statement. There has been
no other tradition than that under the
lead of Coddington. Winthrop and
Peters have never Ijeen regarded as lead-
ing anywhere, that is, as speaking au-
thoritatively, as to the mode of Williams'
baptism. If Dr. AVhitsitt intended to
say that the traditional belief is not, in
his judgment, reliable, he should have
used other words. But when he seems
to speak of a tradition as to the sprink-
ling of Williams based upon the lan-
guage of \A inthrop and Peters, and calls
it the most reliable tradition, he is speak-
iucr of a tradition which has never had
any existence outside of the limits of his

116 THE BAPTISM OF llOGER WILLIAMS

own study or lecture room. And when
he proceeds to say that Backus, Stanford,
Benedict, Hague, Cramp, Vedder and
Burrage " are all in accord with this
[imaginary] tradition since each uses the
word baptize, and avoids the woixl dip
or immerse," such a claim takes one's
breath away in astonishment. Not one
of them would plead guilty to the cliarge
here made. These historians have liad
no more doubt of Roger Williams' im-
mersion than they have had of their own,
and have reo-arded it as no more neces-
sary to define what they meant when
speaking of the baptism of Williams
than when speaking of the baptism of
Chi-ist. They never expected to be mis-
understood ^vhen so using the word
^^ baptism," and they never have been
misunderstood before.

The truth is, tliat all Baptist writers

THE BAPTISM OF llOGEK AVILLIAMS 117

have looked upon the baptism of Wil-
liams, in the Baptist acceptation of the
word, as a settled fact. It has never
been discussed before, because it has
never been questioned before. To doubt
the immersion of the first settlers in
Providence, including Roger Williams,
at \Adiat was called their "re-baptism,"
and of the Anabaptists at Newport,
wlien thev entered into church relation-
ship, as Dr. Whitsitt does, is to antago-
nize the positive belief of the whole
denomination in this country from its
earliest expression until now. If a re-
sprinkling had preceded the rite of im-
mersion in the practice of either church,
it is incredil^le that John Clarke, or John
Comer, or John Callender, or some of
the earliest Providence writers, should
not have mentioned it. The utter
absence in colonial literature of any

118 THE BAPTI8M OF liOGElt ^YILLIAMS

intimation oL such a fact is certainly
significant. But there is positive testi-
mony that covers the whole period of
Baptist history in New England.

Pardon Tillinghast, who came to Prov-
idence in 1(344, and must have been
acquainted with the character of the
church from the beginning, in a deed to
the church in 1711, of the meetinghouse
which he had built, described its mem-
bers as those who "are baptized in water
and have hands laid on them," and in
no way intimates that they had not
been such from the origin of the
church. The preamble to the charter of
" The Charitable Baptist Society " con-
nected with this church, which ^vas
granted in 1774, contains the following
words, "being the oldest Christian
church in the State or colony, and pro-
fessing to believe that water baptism

THE BAPTISM OF EOGER WILLIA:MS 119

oiiglit to be administered by immersion
only," language wliich implies that this
was a characteristic of the church from
the beginning, and a l)elief on which it
was founded. Stephen Hopkins, Gov-
ernor of the State and sio:ner of the
Declaration of Independence, writing in »
1765, expressed the conviction that the
Providence settlers iirst organized a
church after the Congregational model,
and then added, "But it did not con-
tinue long in this form, for most of its
members very soon embraced the prin-
ciples and practices of the Baptists [that
is, of course, the principles and prac-
tices of the Baptists as now understood]
and some time earlier than 1689, gath-
ered and formed a church at Providence
of that society.''

As evidence that in this country, at
least, the avo^ved Anabaptists were all

120 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

immersionists, we quote the following
statement of belief from the able
" Memorial and Remonstrance '' asrainst
oppi'essive religious legislation, presented
by the Baptists to the Assembly in
Boston, in May 1754 — ''always hereto-
fore .... the people commonly
called Anabaptists, in all places where
thev reside, as well in this Province as
everywhere else, were looked upon as
such by professing themselves to be of
that persuasion, .... as also by
their distinguishing characteristic of im-
mersing or dipping the person bajDtized
in water." The men who prej^ared this
Kemonstrance, only seventy-one yeai's
after the death of Williams, bore wit-
ness to the universal belief that always
and everywhei'e, at least in New Eng-
land, from the time of their founder to
their time, a distinguishing characteristic

THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS 121

of the x\iial)aptists had been their
method of haptisin. They were called
Anabaptists in this country down to the
last half of the eighteenth century. It
is not reasonable to suppose that these
men, who stood but one remove from the
Baptist pioneers, were mistaken. That
belief has not chano-ed from their time
to ours. There is to-day the same con-
sensus of opinion that the eai'liest
avowed Anabaptists in America occu-
pied, in the matter of essential faith and
practice, full Baptist positions. And
Roger Williams cannot be separated
from their fellowship.

But there have been unnumbered
Baptist writers who, Avhenever it has
seemed necessary to express themselves
with special precision in the mattei',
have given utterance to the unvarying
belief in Williams^ inunersion. Knowles

122 THE BAPTISM OF EOGEIl AYILLIAMS

ill his '^Life of Roger AVilliams," and
Ganimell in bis, Caldwell in Lis " His-
torical Discourse " delivered at the two
hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the
Providence church, Arniitage and New-
man in their Histories of the Baptists
pul)lished since this (piestion ^\'as opened,
Guild in his '^ Early History of Brown
University, including Life, Times and
Correspondence of President Manning,"
and many other authors have expressed
themselves in a way to leave even Dr.
Whitsitt no chance to misunderstand
them, and their lano^uao-e has excited no
comment, for it has been in harmony
^N-itli the universal con\'iction. They
certainly cannot be charged with hav-
ing ''avoided the ^vords dip or inunerse."
The conviction outside of the denom-
ination has ne\er differed from that
within, and its utterance Avill be found

THE BAPTISM 0¥ liOGEK WILLIAMS 123

to be sufficiently definite to satisfy the
most critical and exacting. Rev. Dr.
Ezra Stiles, pastor of the Congregational
Church in Newport from 1755 to 1778,
and sul)se(|uently President of Yale Col-
leo-e luitil his death in 1705, in an un-
published manuscript now in the posses-
sion of the church which he sei'ved, says
of Rocker Williams: "In 1G3V) he and
his church renounced their l)aptism and
were baptized by plunging. Brother
Ilolliman first plunging ]\Lr. AVilliams,
and then Mr. Williams in turn [)lunging
the rest or must of tJiein.'' "lie goes on

*Tlie Baptist movement in Providence is sometimes
spoken of as if it embraced the entire popnlation of
the place, meeting with no opposition and reqniring
no courageous conviction. There was indeed religious
lil)erty, but not religious unanimity. In civil and also
in religious matters there were great differences of
opinion. Says Henry C. Dorr (R. I. Hist. So., Coll.
IX, 10 )"The majority manifested little sympathy with
Williams, except in his negative opinion as to what the

124 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

to say: "The iirst cliiireh in Newport
was gathered there in 1640, and was
Congregational and Pedobaptist under
Dr. Clarke, its elder, and continued for
about fonr years, when it became Bap-
tist also," that is, in the same way, by
adopting "plnnging."

Joseph B. Felt (Ecclesiastical History
of New England, Vol. I., p. 402) says :
"Having become an Anabaptist, through
the influence of a sister to Mrs. Hutchin-
son and wife to Richard Scott, who went
to live at Providence the preceding year,
Williams, as stated by Winthrop, Avas

State should not do. No religious society was organ-
ized until the autumn [?] of 1638. Out of nearly sixty
householders only twelve united with Williams in its
formation. During the whole of the seventeenth
century, its members were a small minorit}' of the
townsmen, and numbered so few adherents that they
met in the small dwellings in those days, and a
meeting-house was not required until A. D. 1700."

THE BAPTISM OF ROGEll WILLIAMS , 125

lately iiiiinersed. The [)ers()n ^^'llo per-
formed tins rite for him was Ezekiel
Ilolman, who had gone to reside there
from Salem. Williams then did the
same for him and ten otliers, and thus
thev formed a ehnreh/' This lano:aa£]:e
is interesting, not only as showing the
general belief of students of colonial
liistory in the immersion of AVilliams,
but also the interpretation ^^hich, in
their judgment, should be put upon
the langnage of AA inthrop and Peters,
tlie "rel)aptism;' of which Dr. Whitsitt
endeavors to make so mucli.

Rev. Dr. Pliilip Schaff, than ^vh(^m
no modern historian is more worthy of
confidence, says (Creeds of Christendom,
I., 851) : "In 1(338 he became a Baptist;
he ^vas immersed by Ezekiel H(^lliman,
and in turn immersed Holliman and ten
others."

12G THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

Professor George P. Fislier, the al)le
instructor in the chair of Ecclesiastical
History in Yale College says, (The
Colonial Era, p. 143) "In 1638 AVilliams
was immersed l)y an Anabaptist named
Holyman, and then he himself immersed
Holy man and ten others. There was
thus constituted tlie first Baptist church
in America."

But wliy multiply quotations ? The
evidence is all one waj. The testimony
is unanimous. There lias been but one
traditional belief among Baptists and
Pedobaptists. Whether they have called
the rite to which AVilliams and his com-
panions submitted in Providence in 1638,
a rebaptism, a new baptism, another bap-
tism, an immersion, a dipping or a plung-
ing, they have all meant the same thing.
And until diiferent and indisputal^le evi-
dence to the conti'ary is discovered, until

THE BAJ'TISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS 1*27

new liglit comes from some unexpected
quarter, the belief of the past ^^'hich has
remained unshaken for two hundred and
fifty years, will be likely to be the belief
of the futnre.

Professor Henry C. Vedder, in " The
Examiner'^ of May 21, 1896, says, "In
fine, anybody \\ho asserts that anything
but immersion has been practiced fi'om
the beginning among American Baptists
assumes the burden of proof; and in-
genious gnesses about Mark Lucar and
things of that sort are not proofs. They
may satisfy the guesser, l)ut he cannot
fairly ask that anybody else should l)e
satisfied with them."

AVe have, then, an accumuhition of
testimou}^ in support of tlie fact of the
immersion of Roger AVilliams, which is
trustworthy and convincing; first, the
fact of a rebaptism being established,

128 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

the evidence from liis own nnequivocal
language as to the nature of baptism,
giv^en shortly after he submitted to the
rite, and repeated down to the end of his
life ; secondly, the testimony of his con-
temporaries which is remarkably clear
and positive, and has peculiar ^veight as
coming from those who ^vere associated
with him in the act, or were eye witnesses
of it, and which can only be met by the
charges of weakened memory or wilful
falsification, to make either of ^vhich
^vould seem to be to resort to a desperate
method of escaping un\velcome evidence;
and thirdly, the uniform, unvarying be-
lief among all denominations of Christ-
ians and all historical writers, for t^vo
centuries and a half. It may be said
that no fact of colonial history is better
supported than this.

It should be added, moreover, that if

THE BAPTISM OF KOGER WILLIAMS 129

Roger Williams and Lis companions
were not immersed when tliey ^vere
" rebaptized/' we have not tlie slightest
intimation as to the time Avhen s[)rink-
ling or pouring gave place to immersion
in the Baptist church in Providence.
This mother church will rightly decline,
after having traced for two hundred and
fifty-nine years its unbroken existence
to Roo'er Williams as its founder and to
liis act of obedience to Christ^s com-
mand, to surrender its cherished belief,
established by all discoverable testi-
mony, at the demand of an inference
weakened by a sea voyage of three
thousand miles, and unsustained by any
fair interpretation of local evidence. It
is no wonder that the author of this
inference finds himself standing alone,
and conspicuous by reason of his solitari-
ness. The whole Baptist denomination

130 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS

in this country will not readily blind its
eyes to tlie abundant proof that the
great exponent of religions liberty in
America, acknowledged to be such by
all statesmen and historians, was in-
timately and instrumentally connected
with the beginnings of its history here.
It is not sentiment that influences us, but
historic proof, when we write after the
name of Roger Williams, "the founder
of religious liberty and pioneer Baptist
in this new world."

The question of the nature of the
baptism of Roger Williams is more than
a historic question. It has no l^earing
at all upon the integrity of the Baptist
denomination in America, or the validity
of their rites. American Baptists have
an existence, and the fundamental
question is, not how or when they came
into being, but do their views and

THE BAPTISM OF KOGEK WILLIAMS 131

practices confoi-m to the will of Christ
as made known in his Word? Onr
solicitude should be, not to find the con-
necting link between the new world's
religious systems and forms and rites,
and those of the old world, Ijut to main-
tain a vital nnion with Christ, the great
Head of the Chnrch, by the possession
of his Spirit and unswerving loyalty to
his commandments.

But the cpiestion of AMlliams' bap-
tism involves other and vastly important
questions. To what convictions, and to
what conduct, will the Word of God
lead, when placed in the hands of intel-
ligent and conscientious men like AVil-
liams and Clarke, in a free atmosphere,
removed from ecclesiastical boudao;e and
oppression, and even from Puritan intim-
idation and its stern purpose to preserve
by force uniformit}' of faith aiid prac-

132 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER AVILLIAMS

tice ? And also, have enlightened souls
which have been led by God's Spirit to
a truer and more spiritual interpretation
of Christian truth, the power and. the
right to break away Avholly from hoary
errors and human customs, which have
usurped the place of divine institutions,
and, of themselves and by themselves,
to organize under their new faitlis, and
re-establish in the wilderness the insti-
tutions of primitive Christianity?

These questions Koger Williams an-
swered. God's Word and God's Spirit
w^ere his teachers, and he in the enjoy-
ment of freedom from human authority
and traditional interpretations, came to
hold new, and spiritual, and consistent
views of Christian truth, and the Christ-
ian church. God's Word had free
course in him, and the outcome was sig-
nificant. • It revealed the results of un-

THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS 133

hindered triitJi, working in untrammeled
souls. iVnd then lie assumed the ricrht,
regardless of human precedent or eccle-
siastical sanction, to let his new life and
faith clothe themselves in divine forms
which had been lost, and flow in divine
channels Avhich liad been closed. His
separation from the past was completed
in his baptism. The Jordan of his bap-
tism ^vas wider than the ocean which he
had crossed, and it could not be re-
crossed. It is true that, after a little,
reflecting upon the great and solemn
res2)onsibility which he had taken upon
himself, he doubted and shrank back.
But the deed had been done. The step
had been taken, and could not be re-
traced. He had inaugurated the move-
ment, which was to move on under its
own divine impulse. He had planted
the seed, and he could not stay the har-

10

134 THE BAPTISM OF ROGER \YILLIAMS

vest, if he would. In spiritual tilings,
as in civil, Roger Williams was God's
chosen instrument.

It has not been pleasant to give to
this discussion the personal character
which seemed unavoidable, inasmuch as
Dr. Whitsitt stands alone in the advo-
cacy of his theory, and cannot be dis-
sociated from the inference which he
has originated, and the defence which
he has attempted. For Dr. Whitsitt's
personal character and scholarly attain-
ments we have only the highest regard.
But we think he has entirely misinter-
preted the facts of history, and has
shown a sad lack of appreciation of
the conspicuous character and service
of Roger Williams, who, whatever may
have been his imperfections, was cer-
tainly one of the immortiil builders of
this nation, and whose name, it has

THE BAPTISM OF liOGEli W[LLL\MS 135

been said, is ^\'o^thy to stand side by
side with that of Washington himself.
As the courageous expounder of civil
and religious liberty, of the right of pri-
vate judgment and absolute freedom in
matters of religious faith, and of the
spiritual conception of a New Testa-
ment cluirch, he is worthy of the grat-
itude of this He public and of the
reverence of Christendom.

JAMES S. SLATER
SLATERSVILLE, '
RHODE ISLAND. '

INDEX.

Adult Immersion, believed iu by early set-
tlers, 14, 46, 48, 68 ; by Cliauncy 18, 49-51.

Anabaptism, its meaning" 53 ; early existence
and wide diffusion in America 51-53, 56 ;

Anabaptists, immersionists in Europe 11 ;
persecuted 32 ; immersionists in this
country 51-53, 56, 120, 124; persecuted
55.

Armitage, Dr. Thomas, testimony to Wil-
liams' immersion, 122.

Aquidneck, settled, 99.

Backus, Isaac, 116.

Baillie, 14.

Baptism of Boger Williams, more than a
question of history, 130-134.

Barber, Edward, 27, 36.

Benedict, Dr. David, 60, 116.

Blake, an English clergyman, on infant im-
mersion, 12.

138 INDEX

Blount, Eicliard, 36.

Boston, First Baptist cliurcli organized in,

63, 64.
Bradford, Governor, '42.
Burrage, Dr. Henry S., 3, 50, 116.
Busher, Leonard, 25.

Caldwell, Dr. S. L., quoted, 17, 18, 122.

Oallender, Eev. John, 114, 117.

Cliauncy, Pres. Charles, iDracticed infant im-
mersion, 17, 18 ; believed in adult im-
mersion, 17, 18; his position discussed,
38-50 ; invited to Providence, 93.

" Christenings make not Christians," 73, 76.

Clarke, Dr. John, 61, 68, 84, 85, 99, 100, 109,
111, 117, 124, 131.

Cobbett, Thomas, 53.

Coddington, William, 71 ; testifies to Wil-
liams' immersion, 99-113, 115.

Comer, Bev. John, 117.

Confession of the Seven Churches, 13.

Cotton, John, 53, 56.

Cramp, Dr. J. M., 116.

Crosby, 15.

INDEX 139

Dexter, Dr. Heury M., 3, 9, 33, 81, 104, 105.

Doit, Heiiiy C, on the Baptist movement in
Providence, 123 ; foot note.

Dunster, Pres. Henry, rejected infant bap-
tism, 17 ; pastor at Scituate, 47.

Epwortb and Crowle Records, 20.

Featley, treatment of b}^ Dr. Whitsitt, 18, 19 ;
testimony in favor of immersion of Eng-
lish Baptists, 19 ; quoted, 22, 23.

Felt, Joseph B., testimony to the immersion
of Williams and his companions, 124 ;
to the meaning of Anabaptism and of
AViuthrop's " rebaptism," 125.

Fisher, Prof. George P., testimony to the
immersion of Williams and his com-
panions, and the origin of the First
Baptist church in America, 126.

Fox, George, 92, 102.

Fuller, Dr. Thomas, 26.

Gammell, Prof. William, testimony to Wil-
liams' immersion, 122.

140 INDEX

General Court of Massachusetts, complaint
against Plymouth, 69.

Grantham, Thomas, 25.

Guild, R.euben, L. L. D., testimony to Wil-
liams' immersion and the Baptist char-
acter of the Providence church from the
first, 122.

Hague, William, D. D., 116.

Holliman, Ezekiel, immersed Williams and
was immersed by him, 123, 125, 126.

Hooker, Thomas, 53, 56, 93.

Hopkins, Gov. Stephen, testimony as to the
origin and character of the First Bap-
tist church in Providence, 119.

Howe, Bev. Samuel, 57, 58.

Hutchinson, Mrs. Anne, 95, 124.

Infant Immersion, practice in England, 11,
12 ; and in America, 14, 17, 38, 48, 49, 68.

Jessey Church Becords, 18, 19, 20, 21.
Johnson's New Universal CycloxD^edia, articles
in, 4, 5.

INDEX 141

Eaffen Manuscript, 20, and foot note, 20, 21.
King, Dr. AV. H., 28.

Knowles, Prof. James D., testimony to Wil-
liams' immersion, 121.

Lentliall, Robert, 60.

Lothrop, Rev. John, -17, 48, 52.

Lucar, Mark, 36, 61, 62, 68, 84, 89, 93, 127.

Mather, Cotton, 52.

Memorial and Remonstrance, presented by
the Baptists to the Assend)ly in Boston,
declaring their unchanged attitude, 120.

Miles, John, 63.

Morton, Nathaniel, 67.

Neal, 14, 15.

Newman, Dr. Albert H., 104-106, 113, 122.

Newport, date of origin of First Baptist

church, 61 ; the second in America, 112 ;

how it originated, 124.

Partridge, Rev. Mr., 45.

Peters, Rev. Hugh, 66, 71, 92, 108, 115, 125.

Philips, George, 53.

142 INDEX

Piimock, Dr. W. H., 24.

Plymouth, cliurcli in, not opposed to infant
immersion, 44.

Prayer Book, referred to, 11, 105.

Providence, First Baptist cliurcli in, organ-
ized under Williams' leadership, 59, 65 ;
the beginning of a general movement,
60-65 ; no difference between it and the
Newport church, 84-86 ; character well
known in 1640, 94; a genuine Baptist
church from the beginning, 65, 114, 117-
130.

Rebaptism, meaning, 70, 125, 126.
Rogers, Daniel, 27.

Scliaff, Dr. Philip, testimony to the immer-
sion of Williams and his companions,
125.

Scott, Richard, contemporary testimony to
Williams' immersion, 95-98, 124.

Seekonk, immersion there in 1649, 62, 68 ; ac-
count of by Williams 84.

Shepard, Thomas, 52, 56, 93.

Smyth, John, 59,

INDEX 14;-)

Spilsbnry, JoIid, 47.

Stanford, Rev. Joliu, 116.

Stanley, A. P., foot note, 11.

Stiles, Dr. Ezra, testimony to tlie immersion

of Williams and -bis companions, 123 ;

and to the oriofin of tlie Baptist chnrcli

in Newport, 124.
Swansea, Ba^^tist church in, 63.

The Charitable Baptist Society, belief in the
practice of the Providence church from
the beginning, 118.

" The Examiner," articles in, 4, 127.

" The Independent," articles in, 3, 4.

" The Mother Church," quoted, 103-106.

" The Sum of the Holy Scriptures," 24.

"The Western Recorder," article in quoted,
13, foot note.

Thomas, Dr. Jesse B., quoted, 13.

Tillinghast, Pardon, testimony to the earl}^
character of the First church in Provi-
dence, 118.

" Treatise of the two Sacraments," 27-32.

Vedder, Prof. Henry C, 116 ; belief in the

144 INDEX

practice of immersion from the begin-
ning among American Baptists, 127.

Westminster Assembly, action of on bap-
tism, 12.

Whitsitt, Dr. W. H., view of Williams' bap-
tism, 5, 7 ; denies that Anaba^^tists prac-
ticed immersion, 11 ; follows Dr. Dexter,
10, 15, 33, 81 ; picture of sixteenth cen-
tury inaccurate, 10-14 ; unjustifiable use
of authorities, 15-21 ; omission of docu-
ments, 21-32 : position indefensible, 15,
32 ; inference as to Roger Williams un-
warranted, 33 sq. ; his view of rebaptism,
60 ; inference disproved by Williams'
known views, 72-92 ; by the testimony of
his contemporaries, 92-113 ; by the un-
varying belief, 113-127.

Williams, Roger, character of, 34-37 ; a child
of his age, 35, 57 ; development, 57-60 ;
records of bai^tism of, 66, 67 ; his im-
mersion proved by his expressed convic-
tions, 72-92 ; by the testimony of con-
temporaries, 92-113 ; by the uniform
tradition, 113-127 ; founder of First

INDEX 145

Baptist cliurcli iu Providence, 65, 114,
125, 126 ; and its first pastor, 114 ; sum-
mary of evidence for Lis immersion, 127-
130 ; founder of religious liberty, 130 ;
God's chosen instrument, 132-131.

Wilson, John, 56,

Winslow, Governor, 52.

Winthrop, Governor, 38, 41, 47, 60, 6(i, 71, 92,
94, 95, 108, 115, 124, 125.

MARY DYER

OF RHODE ISLAND,

The Quakek Martyr that was Hanged ox Boston
Common, June 1, 16G0.

By HORATIO ROGERS.
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

The author has feathered from many sources the
scattered facts relating to the career of Mary Dyer
and woven them into a detailed narrative, so that
the tragic story of her life is now for the first time
adequately told. By addiniz: a brief but compre-
hensive sketch of the manner and sentiments of
her times he has furnished a background or frame-
work for his subject which adds much to the in
terest of the volume by enabling the reader the
better to understand the surroundings of the char-
acters he portra3^s. The important documents re-
lating to her trial are i^rinted in fhe appendix.

Cloth, 12mo., 115 pages. Price fl.OO n«t.

Sent postpaid upon receipt of price by the pub-
lishers.

lo

A Summer Visit of Three Rhode Islanders
to the Massachusetts Bay in I65L

By henry MELVILLE KING,
Pastor of the First Uaplist C Lurch, Providence, R. I.

Cloth, 12mo., 115 pages. Price $1.00 Det.

Uniform with "Maky Dyek."

An account of the visit of De, John Clakke,
Obadiah Holmes and John Ckandall, membeiis
of the Baptist Chukch in Neavpoet, R. I., to
William Wittek of Swampscott, Mass., in July,
1651 : its innocent pukpose and its painful con-
sequences.

" Dr. King's iningent and coLckisive essay is a
time]}' contribution. Ee adduces comi>etent evi-
dence refuting the gratuitous insinuations of I'alfrey
and Dexter, who charged the Ehode Islanders in
question with sinister political motives and excused
their alleged maltreatment on that ground. Cita-
tions from original documents, with a bibliograpli}^
put the reader in position to verify the allegations of
the author." — Tlic Watclunan.

Bent postpaid upon receipt of the price by the
publishers.

II

i%'-xk

:Ji

'-^M

Ui^fS^

k'.f&:

Date Due ^

k'.;

,-•#*

a»mjir<afc^>».^.»Av.;«y-aiig«a r.

' .'""tv -

•*•.

E*::'%*c

!i ;

■1

•/ *-

.,..x.

'll. ,

■yv/^

^i^'

:.^;

■•WV-t''^^-

*w ■■■■■*■

^:•^i]^.f,■■.■

>^^

If

; -t

.^*

*■ 1- ^* . V^ ■ • Ik ■ ^**rl^■ :^