Likely more than one man has been confused in the profile of James Browne, Browne-499. By this I mean that the man who married twice (first to Judith ____; then, Sarah Cutting) and only later for a short time resided Newbury, Massachusetts, is unlikely also the early settler of Newbury, said by some to have been Sarah (Brown) Noyes' brother. The more likely scenario is that these were two different men, both James Brown/e.
Although often confused in print, the earliest historical accounts of the two men indicate they settled in different towns (one at Charlestown, the other Newbury), had different social standing and conflicting associations during the Antinomian Controversy. It does not seem likely that the Newbury settler, often referred to as Mr. James Noyes, said to have walked 40 miles in May 1637 to help defeat the antinomians, would so support the agitators six months later as to be ordered disarmed, as was the case for the Charlestown settler.
Sarah (Brown) Noyes’ husband, Rev. James Noyes, well identified himself during the controversy as a supporter of and aid to Revs. Cotton and Wilson. Here again it seems unlikely that the James Brown ordered disarmed during the political conflict had close Noyes family connections during the Antinomian Controversy. On this point, it is notable that among the many sons born to the Charlestown settler, none were given the names Joseph, Thomas or Moses, all thought to have been associated with the birth family of Sarah (Brown) Noyes.
In today's light, Sarah Cutting's husband, whose origins and parentage are unknown, can be considered the James Brown/e made free 1633/4, of Charlestown, who was ordered disarmed in 1637.