PREFACE

THE substance of this paper was presented at the midwinter meeting of the Backus Historical Society, held in Boston, Dec. 8, 1879. It was published (Boston, 1880), by vote of the Society, under the general title “Early Baptists Defended, a Review of Dr. Henry M. Dexter's Account of the Visit to William Witter in As to Roger Williams." It has been quoted frequently as an authority in reference to the historical incident which it discusses. Dr. Dexter found a copy of it in the Library of the British Museum. For several years it has been out of print, and the demand for it, on the part of the increasing number of students of colonial history, could not be met.

The history of the visit has been carefully re-examined, and the paper has been considerably lengthened by the addition of new

matter, and made to include a consideration of the incident as symptomatic of the Puritan spirit, and as shedding light upon the cause of the banishment of Roger Williams- a question which a few writers and speakers are not willing to allow to remain settled. The recent discovery of incontrovertible documentary evidence will confirm the belief that has been generally held as to the religious nature of Williams' offence, and ought to be able to remove all doubts from all minds.

This paper was read, in its enlarged form, before the Rhode Island Historical Society at its meeting, March 5, 1895, and before the Veteran Citizens Historical Association of Providence, April 11, 1895.

A SUMMER VISIT

OF THREE RHODE ISLANDERS TO THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY IN 1651.

THE memorable visit of Dr. John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes and John Crandall, members of the Baptist church in Newport, to William Witter, one of the early settlers in the Massachusetts Bay, took place in July, 1651. It is proposed in this paper to review the history of that visit, that we may ascertain, if pos sible, the object of it, the alleged criminal conduct of which these troublesome visitors were guilty, and the severity of the punishment which they received at the hands of the Puritan magistrates.

This service has been undertaken solely in the interests of historic truth, and not in the spirit of a partizan or a controver sialist. A difference of opinion having been manifested of late in high quarters, and views put forward in opposition to those which had been universally held, it seems desirable that there should be thorough and candid re-examination of the facts in the case which are accessible. When such historians as Dr. J. G. Palfrey ("History of New England") and Dr. H. M. Dexter ("As to Roger Williams") who follows Dr. Palfrey closely and even outstrips him in the positiveness of his convictions, call in question accepted opinions in matters of colonial history, it is due that those opinions be reviewed in the light of all the evidence, old and new, that can be presented.

A high regard for the many sterling