Robert PAINE, Jr., son of Robert PAINE b. Suffolk County, England in 1601 and his wife Ann WHITING of Hadleigh, Suffolk, who emigrated to America in 1638. Robert, Jr. was born at Ipswich, Massachusetts; graduated Harvard University in 1656, and studied for the ministry. Whether or not he actually practiced his profession does not certainly appear, but Felt speaks of him as "a preacher." On July 10, 1666, he married Elizabeth REINER. By her he had four children, viz: Elizabeth, born June 15, 1677, married Daniel SMITH, and died 1717; John, born Oct. 24, 1684; Robert, who died Dec. 24, 1693, and Dorcas, who married Matthew WHIPPLE, son of Lt. Col. John WHIPPLE. Mr. Robert PAINE was distinguished as the foreman of the Grand Jury that found all the indictments for witchcraft at Salem, though we have reason to believe that he was not an active prosecutor of the accused, or if at any time he was so, he changed his mind before his death and took measures to allay the delusion. With the recent posts regarding the witch trials, I have a query of my own regarding a document, bearing the initials "R. P." which had a powerful influence in dispelling the witchcraft delusion at Salem in 1692; I am extracting the following from "PAINE Genealogy- Ipswich Branch," A.W. PAINE, Bangor, ME. 1881, which on p. 139, allusion is made to Rev. John HALE'S effort effecting the same result. I would appreciate any comments or thoughts on the subject of this letter. This argument for its authorship is quite dated (1881), and to my knowledge, it is still an open question of importance. At least to my family anyway. For anyone interested in the trials, it may prove to be of interest to you as well. "UPHAM, in his "History of Witchcraft," relates that in 1692, chief among the causes or influences which finally led to the breaking up of the witchcraft excitement, was a favorable letter written to Jonathan CORWIN, a man and judge who had much to do with the administration of justice at that time. The letter had great weight in opening the eyes of those who read it, to the enormous wrongs suffered by the community from this cause. The argument is certainly most able and ingenious, showing a mind of great strength and culture worthy of an age and time centuries later. The original document is still preserved by the "Essex Institute," at Salem, and a copy of it is published by Mr. UPHAM in his history now referred to. It bears the initials of "R. P." as its author, and underneath this signature is written the name of "Robert PAINE." Just when this name was written is not known, but it has long been there, probably ever since the letter has had a public observation. The authorship of Mr. PAINE, however, is denied by the friends of Robert PIKE who lived in the neighboring town of Salisbury, where it bears date. Mr. UPHAM enters at great length into a discussion of the matter, and sides with Mr. PIKE, though admitting that it bears internal evidence "of a theological education, and a familiarity with matters that belong to the studies of a minister," which Mr. PAINE was and Mr. PIKE was not. "Whoever was its author," says Mr. UPHAM," he did his duty nobly, and stands alone above all the scholars and educated men of his time in bearing testimony openly, bravely, in the very ears of the Court, against the digraceful and shocking course they were pursuing." He adds, "if composed by him it is truly a marvelous production, an intellectual phenomenon not easly to be paralleled." The fact of Mr. PAINE'S having been foreman of the jury as above related, is taken as evidence conclusive of Mr. UPHAM of his not being the author. But to this view, there is certainly another side leading to an opposite conclusion. Such a mind as his, educated for the gospel ministry, and so constantly brought in closest intimacy with the accused and accusers, could not, it would seem, fail to be convinced of the truth, and at the same time of his duty to work out a correction. Mr. PIKE was a military man, wearing the title of "Major," a fact which very properly comes into consideration in such a case, especially when the contestant for the prize is an educated man, as there is no evidence that Mr. PIKE was, and admitted to be of a theological turn, such as the composition indicates. The internal evidence, afforded by the writing, is very strongly in favor of him, whose name is annexed to it, and the conclusion is supported by all the facts, that the interpretation given to "R. P." was by one who knew, and knowing made his knowledge practical in the way he did. It certainly detracts much from the weight of Mr. UPHAM'S conclusion, that his reasoning is wholly against Robert PAINE, Sen., the father and not the son, he not being aware, as was the fact, that the father had been dead several years before the letter was written. This change of person, introducing the son instead of the father as a competitor with Mr. PIKE, thus a younger man, educated for the ministry, as the document evidences its author to be, the conclusion can hardly be resisted that Robert PAINE and not Robert PIKE was the writter of the article in question, as the paper itself witnesses." p. 170 continues "The following additional facts and reasons, bearing on the same subject, are regarded as important and altogether appropriate to be related here, in connection with the family history now traced. The character and effect of the letter have been already described, leaving for decision simply the question of its authorship. At the time the letter was written, there seems to have been no abatement of the spirit with which the illusion was prosecuted by the public. Subsequent events, however, show most convincingly that such was not the case with individual minds in the community. There evidently existed to some extent a feeling of distrust on the subject, especially among the more intelligent and thoughtful men of the day, but the practice of "crying out" against some member of the family of any one who ventured to doubt the guilt of the accused, had the effect to smother every expression of opposition. How far this practice may explain the reason for accusing Mrs. HALE, cannot now be determined. An inference, however, may be very properly drawn from the fact, that at about the same time with the writing of the letter in question, Judge CORWIN'S mother-in-law was accused in the same manner. Mr. PAINE, a foreman of the Grand Jury, more than any one else had the opportunity to become acquainted with the "true inwardness" of the accusations, and being of an intelligent and educated mind, would very naturally be led to abhor the whole business. Of the same class of mind and education, Rev. Mr. HALE, who, as pastor of the church where the delusion existed, was brought constantly into contact with it, would naturally be similarly affected. by men such as these, we should expect to find the first steps taken for reform, and the succession of events goes to prove or confirm that such was the case. The letter was written August 9, 1692, and was, as Mr. UPHAM writes, "the first undisguised and unequivocal opposition to the proceedings." On the 9th and 17th days of the next month, fifteen persons were tried, and all found guilty and condemned, and eight actually executed on the 22nd of the same month for the crime of being "possessed." Immediately following these events, in October, Mrs. Sarah NOYES, the wife of Rev. John HALE, was suddenly accused of the same crime. "Her genuine and distinguishing virtues," says Mr. UPHAM, "had won for her a reputation, and secured in the hearts of the people a confidence which superstition itself could not sully nor shake." "this broke the spell by which they had held the minds of the whole colony in bondage." Thus in about two months after the letter was made public, the fallacy was exposed and the whole order of things reversed. "A sudden collapse took place," as the history records, "after the executions on September 22 and the court met no more. The executive authority intervened, and their functions ceased. The curtain fell unexpectedly and the tragedy ended." "The special court being no longer suffered to meet," another court was established for the trial of the witches, and held a term in Salem shortly after, when twenty persons were tried, all but three of whom were acquitted. Public opinion, at that time, had become so strong in condemnation of the whole affair, that Sir Wm. PHIPPS, by proclamation, discharged all those in prison, about 150 in number, and thus ended the whole delusion. Why the "special court" was thus treated does not appear, but an explanation may be fairly drawn, it would seem, from the fact that its Judge was the person to whom was written the letter in question, which he took such care to preserve. Though undoubtedly many causes combined to produce the grand result now described, yet the two just now treated of, are the only specific ones especially dwelt upon upon by the author of the history quoted in the foregoing remarks. The character and tendency of this letter have been already explained, and what effect the open opposition of Mr. HALE produced, every one knows who has the least knowledge of the subject in question. It is not however to be supposed, that it was solely the accusation made against his wife that led him to denounce the whole infamy, much less that it was the original cause of his disaffection. Much more likely was it, as already suggested, that the accusation was the result of his previous coldness or known doubts on the subject. Though he knew of his wife's innocence, it be no means followed that he disbelieved in the existence of the crime. Her innocence did not disprove the guilt of others, any more than the charge of theft against an innocent party, disproves the crime of larceny. Be that however as it may, that accusation was the culminating point, the last feather which broke the back of the infamy and placed the patron openly on the side of the opposition. But he must have had doubts before, however "active he may have been in all previous proceedings." The writer of the letter and the parson must have had the sympathy of each other, and would very naturally be fellow workers, perhaps secretly, to undo the great evil then overshadowing the community. And just here comes in the important fact, that Robert PAINE and John HALE were both ministers, of the same faith, residing in the same neighborhood, both graduates of Harvard University, in college together for three years, the former graduating in 1656, and the latter in 1657, both probably having pursued their theological studies together, and been, of course, ever after on most intimate terms of friendship. It can hardly be otherwise than that they sympathized in their efforts to put down the great evil which existed, and took mutual counsel to accomplish their object. the writing of the letter and the open opposition of Mr. HALE were only about two months apart. The removal of Judge CORWIN immediately followed and a new Court instituted, and Sir William PHIPPS' proclamation soon closed the scene. The almost exact contemporaneousness of all these events show how much they had to do with each other in effecting the result, while the acknowledged character of the letter itself, in the language of Mr. UPHAM, as already quoted, "indicates a theological education adn familiarity with matters that belong to the studies of a minister." It would seem that a more certain demonstration of the authorship of the letter could hardly be asked and that the other fact related by the same author, "that Jonathan CORWIN preserved the document and placed it in the permanent filesof his family papers," is certainly very suggestive of the conclusion that he, himself, added the name of the writer, whose initials alone were written by its author."- R.P. The following is a letter in response to a gentleman who had invited me to present my "argument" for Robert PAINE being the author of the letter in question. I feel that A.W. PAINE'S presentation of 1881, given above, speaks for itself. But I hope I have been able to contribute some to the argument with the long winded letter attached below (Mr. Hanson's questions to me are denoted with "$"): At 07:04 AM 03/04/2000 -0500, Mr. Hanson wrote: $Robert Pike was not a military man he was a Judge and a lawyer and given the title of major from the General court to organize a militia for the defense against the attacks by the Indians. Perhaps the fact that he organized a militia for which he was given the title of Major would qualify him as being a military man? I can at least understand how the distinction was made by A.W. Paine. $He (PIKE) was a Justice of the Peace for several years and an associate judge of the Norfolk Co. Court which at that time was Salisbury and the towns north in what is now NH. In 1682 he became an assistant to The General Court, $along with such names as Saltonstall, Dudley & Sewell even though he never had a gentlemans title such as Mr. or Esq. I was unaware that he had any involvement in the trials other than his defense of Mary BRADBURY? Was Mr. PIKE an assistant of the General Court at the time of the trials? Moreover, was he an assistant of court for Salisbury or for Salem, where the trials occurred? There has to be a strong argument that the man who wrote this letter was in some way involved in the trial's- other than as a witness. In this regard, what was Mr. PIKE'S association to the man to whom the letter was addressed, Jonathan CORWIN? PAINE was the foreman of the Grand Jury, and therefore, his connection to the proceedings was explicit, rather than implicit. In other words, by what precedence would Mr. PIKE have written to CORWIN and not some other judge? Or, for that matter, why not address his letter to the court itself during the course of the BRADBURY defense? The CORWIN family was related to the WINSLOW'S and other's whom the PAINE family had also intermarried with. Capt. George CORWIN "of Salem" m1. Elizabeth HERBERT (yet another PAINE associated surname), and m2. Elizabeth WINSLOW, daughter of Gov. Edward WINSLOW and the niece of John WINSLOW, whose 1st cousin, Sarah, m2. Tobias PAYNE "of Boston." In fact, PAINE had connections through marriage and/or personal contact to ALL of the judges. They, like himself, were graduates of theology from Harvard; CORWIN and SEWALL were closely connected; STOUGHTON earned his degree from Oxford (after attending Harvard) in the same year that Robert PAINE graduated- 1652. He returned to Dorchester, Ma. about 1660- and the PAYNE family were among the members of the Dorchester Company. STOUGHTON acted as agent for the Massachusetts Colony for the court of Charles II, whose family the PAYN'S had staunchly defended throughout the families reign. The family provided shelter to Charles I at their home in Jersey during his exile and had assisted in the escape of Charles II after the battle of Worcester (Col. John PAYNE). Their devotion to the defense of the Stuart Crown prompted their emigration from England to the colonies. It just seems that history has primarily concluded the author of the letter was PIKE *almost* solely on the fact that the letter was dated in Salisbury and also due to a "style of closing" which could have been as easily attributed to any Anglican- Denying the compelling evidence, and the name of Robert PAINE that is written beneath the initials "R.P." on the original letter itself! All sources that I have knowledge of imply that they reached their conclusion founded on the issue of Salisbury- at a time when the relations between Robert PAINE and families of Salisbury (and throughout New England) was unknown! Had they had that knowledge, perhaps they would have drawn an entirely different conclusion. [Diarmaid McCulloch's, "Thomas CRANMER" is a good source for much of this information]. As I mentioned in my previous mail, I confess that I have not researched the PIKE family to any large degree and have depended on the research of others- none of whom mention the information above, by the way. For this, I am grateful to you for providing it to me. Robert PAINE was related through marriage to the SALTONSTALL, DUDLEY, and SEWALL families. From as early as 1535, Hugh PAYNE "of Hadleigh, Suffolk, was a close follower of Lord L'Isle (DUDLEY) (as well as the HOWARD family who had provided for him a "benefice"- Hugh was imprisoned at the urging of CRANMER, I might add) ; about 1645, Rosamond SALTONSTALL, daughter of Sir Richard SALTONSTALL married Col. Richard PAYNE "of Gunley Hall, Montgomeryshire." (near the home of Tobias PAYNE "of Kings Caple, Herefordshire) Sir Richard's 3rd wife, Martha CAMMOCK, was the aunt of Warwick CAMMOCK, who is named in the 1675 will of Robert PAYNE (alias DAVIES), clerk of the Rappahannock County Vestry from 1662-1666 (who married Elizabeth LAWSON). ["Complete Peerage"; Records in the Tappahannock Court House; Library of Virginia] Warwick CAMMOCK'S wife, Margaret (believed to have been POWELL), m1. Silvester THATCHER, whom appears to have been kin to Henry THATCHER that married before 1690, Elizabeth, daughter of John PAYNE and Anne, daughter of Col. John WALKER, mariner, who had conducted trade with the New England Colonies (as did Capt. John MARTIN and several COOPERS- other closely associated names to the family). John PAYNE was the son of Mr. John PAYNE, mariner/planter, of Rappahannock County, one of the "Protestant Associators" who was murdered during the Protestant Uprising in Maryland, by "Papist" rebels, including ex-Deputy of Maryland SEWALL, in 1689/90 in the performance of his duties as the King's Customs Collector for Plantations in Maryland. Another involved in this murder, was John WOODCOCK- who is first found in New England. He or his son then later removed to Maryland. John WOODCOCK was hung for his part in John PAYNE'S murder. The SALTONSTALL'S also intermarried with the DEANE, COTTON, COOPER, ROSEWELL, WINTHROP, WARD, WAINWRIGHT, COOKE, GURDON, RAMSDEN, and GARDINER families- all names closely associated with the PAYNE/PAINE'S. While the SEWALL'S are associated through the LEE [see Master Richard LEE- "Planters of the Commonwealth" and other sources], LOWE, KEY, BRENT, CHANDLER, DAINGERFIELD, LECOMPTE, and CALVERT families. Again, all names closely associated with the family. $In 1665 he was invited to serve Amesbury as its minister. I think this act speaks for itself as his knowledge of theology. This is even more critical knowledge. However, the same can be said for a number of "ministers" who had received no formal education. A great example of this, is also relevant to my last e-mail regarding the MAVERICK family, that I failed to mention. In 1642, James PARKER was invited to become the minister at Weymouth, who had "for many years been a deputy for the public court." Mr. PARKER did not attend university, nor did he receive formal training to be a minister. Additionally, Anderson in "Great Migration" states that James was the brother of John and Joseph PARKER. Joseph PARKER m. Anne JOLLIFFE, daughter of Elizabeth MAINWARRING, whose brother Randell MAINWARRING was the brother-in-law of Capt. George PAYNE and also the cousin of Matthew CRADDOCK- partner to George PAYNE. Richard PARKER's daughter, Sarah, m. John PAYNE, son of William PAYNE, who were the proprietors of the Saugus Iron Works, initiated by WINTHROP, Jr. Richard PARKER'S brother, William PARKER had married Alice Elizabeth ? "of Taunton," who, upon PARKER'S death, married Stephen PAYNE "of Rehoboth." [see "Great Migration" for the PARKER/MAVERICK connection.] The connections (and evidence) simply abound. $And there is no way you can compare land transactions and family associations with the real friendship that Thomas Bradbury had with Robert Pike; they were father in-laws and it is supposed that Robert Pike helped Thomas Bradbury with the content of the letter of July 28 in support of his wife since he knew how to write legal documents. I do not question the "real friendship that Thomas BRADBURY had with Robert PIKE." My position is with judge CORWIN, and the other judges, and their connection to Robert PAINE. Also, I was attempting to point out how PAINE'S family was closely connected to the men in the land transactions. I do not doubt that Mr. PIKE voiced his opposition to the trial of Mary BRADBURY. But I believe there is a much stronger argument for Robert PAINE in regard to the letter written to judge CORWIN against the proceedings in general. PAINE had the family connections to the men presiding over the trials; had the education in theology to SUPPORT and DEFEND his argument in a hostile environment (as anyone voicing such an opinion was at great risk to see the end of a rope); as Foreman of the grand jury, he was well placed to initiate such an argument to begin with; and, perhaps most compelling- is that his name is written on the original letter- which must have been placed there for SOME reason. As for the closing of the letter itself, I don't find this to be in any way indicative of the conclusion that it was Robert PIKE who wrote it. Unfortunately, the historians that did drew this conclusion were apparently not Anglicans :-} It seems that it is more of a standard closing that any clergyman of the day typically made. Oliver CROMWELL closed his letters in a similar fashion (and he wasn't all that religious, particularly in his early years- and his grandmother was Catherine, daughter of Thomas PAYNE, Esq. "of Castle Acre, Norfolk" by the way) From your last e-mail: $Also in a Loyal Dissenter he states that " The letter ends with words that reflect Pike's style of closing, as we have seen before " Now, that the only wise God may so direct you in all, that he may have glory... " " The nature of the letter was theologic and therefore demanded such a closing- regardless of who was making the argument. Unless, of course, your saying that Mr. PIKE left letters behind with an IDENTICAL closing? That would be a strong case. But for history to conclude the letter was his solely because he ended the letter with a theological bent is, at best, weak. The "Style of closing" mentioned above in no way suggests to me that it was Identical to other known letters by Mr. Pike, only that the "Style" was similar. That "Style" could as easily be attributed to countless others of the day. To illustrate my point: "O' God, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels and all just works do proceed, give unto us the same peace which the world cannot give, that our hearts being obedient to thy commandments (and the fear of our enemies taken away) our time may be peaceable through thy protection. By Christ our Lord"- Robert REDMAN, 1535 and then: "O' God, from whom all holy desires, all good counsels and all just works do proceed: give unto thy servants that peace which the world cannot give, that both our hearts may be set to obey thy commandments, and also that by thee, we being defended from the fear of our enemies, may pass our time in rest and quietness, through the merits of Jesus Christ our saviour."- Thomas CRANMER, also written over 150 years before the letter. These two "closings" are English translations (by REDMAN) of one of the "Collects" which would become most familiar to Anglicans: what is now the prayer for peace at evensong. The latter is an adaption of it by Thomas CRANMER, the Arch-Bishop in Henry VIII's day. The letter's closing seems to be simply a twist on this well known Anglican passage- no doubt adjusted slightly for the author's purpose. This prayer would have been well-known to theologians. In 1692, a prayer for peace would have been an appropriate thing and the letter in question seems to close with an adaption of REDMAN'S passage. $Do you have letters written by Robert Paine? If I had letters written by Robert PAINE (or PIKE) in my possession now, I wouldn't be needing assistance in obtaining them :-} I do not currently have letters from either man and my purpose for my current effort is to obtain examples of them- preferably with signatures (in fact, that's all I need- a signature) Again, I feel it is the only true way of knowing, with certainty, who the author of the letter was. There is obviously strong argument for both men authoring the letter and by necessity, historians have made their conclusion based on the best evidence they had available at the time. But this information regarding Robert PAINE'S relations and kinship's is NEW and the result of my research which has brought me to this question at hand. His relationship's to the families involved in the proceedings suggests that his argument would be taken seriously and that he would not immediately be seized by them as a result. Though Mr. PIKE may have been called on to be a minister, he had no formal education in the occupation. To make a stand against the proceedings, as the author of this letter did, suggests that it's author had a strong conviction that his letter would be well received and considered, without fear of reprisal. Reason alone compels me to believe that its author must have had a firm position in which to defend himself should the need arise, and that possibility HAD to be in the front of the author's mind. I should also point out, as I failed to do so earlier, that PAINE'S family was also closely associated with another clergyman who had made a similar argument against witchcraft years before in England. I regret that I haven't been able to locate the name of the author of this "treatise against the plausibility of witchcraft". But I recall that the foundation of the letter dated Salisbury contained many of the same arguments. $I think you should get in touch with the three major Pike Historians: Roland Leslie Warren - Brandeis University b. 1915 alive in 1992 Allen R. Pike- Author of The Pike Family Marshall Pike of Red Bluff, CA - Pike Family Assoc. Thank you very much. I'm going to attempt to stick with the signature comparison's I mentioned. Even with all the evidence I can mount, It would be impossible to persuade anyone to change their belief that PIKE was the author. If I can show without question that the writing was in the hand of PAINE, and support it with this evidence, then I might stand a chance :-) $You have caught my interest and I could easily get to the Peabody -Essex institute in Salem. It is just that I don't have a great deal of time. I need to finish my book on the Moody family. I appreciate your time and allowing me to present this to you. I am also writing a book to show the inter-colony relationships between the PAYNE'S who had arrived prior to 1650. It's a daunting task as the opposition to any suggestion of these relationships is great! Even among the New England PAYNE'S, folks have been very vocal in denying any kinship between them. Good luck with your work! I'm including some comments I have received from others in pursuit of resolving the question of the letter: $Finally, I see that Robert Paine was the son of Ann Whiting Paine, which makes me ask if he was in any way related to the Quaker John Whiting, whose Truth and Innocency Defended Against Falsehood and Envy (1702) includes a stinging attack on the 1692 witchcraft trials. $Although many historians shrink from genealogical research (or, have to use a more sanitized name like "family reconstitution,") let's face it, in seventeenth-century New England, family ties were of overwhelming importance. Tracking down these connections often can help us with mysteries (such as the identity of R.P) as well as shed important clues to broader interpretations of the past. $Emerson W. Baker Assistant Professor of History Salem State College $Sir Henry Williams-Cromwell (1537-1604), the son of Sir Richard Williams-Cromwell & Frances Murfyn, studied common law at Queens' College, Cambridge, and Lincoln's Inn. He showed his devotion by endowing an annual sermon against witchcraft to be preached in Huntingdon by one of the fellows of Queens' College. I briefly mentioned the PAYNE-CROMWELL connection above. I believe this ties into the earlier work to expose the implausibility of witchcraft I also mentioned. Huntingdon was the home of CROMWELL, PEPYS, MONTAGU, and Sir Robert PAYNE "friend and protege of the CROMWELL and MONTAGU'S", who replaced Oliver CROMWELL as MP for Hunts. in 1625. $John Alden Jr. -- Accused of Witchcraft John ALDEN III married Susanna, daughter of Edward WINSLOW and Elizabeth HUTCHINSON. Edward was the brother of Sarah, who m2. Tobias PAYNE. Another sister, Susanna WINSLOW, married Robert LATHAM. On 31 Jan. 1654/5, they both were tried for the death of "a servant boy" by the name of John WALKER. Regards, Patrick Payne