Note: Images of the original pages are available through
Internet Archive. See
https://archive.org/details/bloudytenentofpe00will_1
THE BLOUDY TENENT OF PERSECUTION.
* * * * * *
THE HANSERD KNOLLYS SOCIETY,
FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE WORKS OF EARLY ENGLISH AND OTHER BAPTIST
WRITERS.
Treasurer.
CHARLES JONES, ESQ.
Honorary Secretaries.
EDWARD B. UNDERHILL, ESQ.
REV. WILLIAM JONES.
Secretary.
MR. GEORGE OFFOR, JUN.
Council.
REV. J. ACWORTH, LL.D.
— JOSEPH ANGUS, M.A.
— C. M. BIRRELL.
— CALEB EVANS BIRT, M.A.
— WILLIAM HENRY BLACK.
— WILLIAM BROCK.
— THOMAS BURDITT.
— JABEZ BURNS, D.D.
— F. A. COX, D.D., LL.D.
— T. S. CRISP.
— B. DAVIES, PH. D.
— B. EVANS.
— B. GODWIN, D.D.
— F. W. GOTCH, M.A.
— W. GROSER.
— J. H. HINTON, M.A.
— J. HOBY, D.D.
CHARLES THEODORE JONES, ESQ.
G. F. KEMP, ESQ.
GEORGE LOWE, ESQ. F.R.S.
REV. W. H. MURCH, D.D.
— J. P. MURSELL.
— THOMAS FOX NEWMAN.
GEORGE OFFOR, ESQ.
REV. G. H. ORCHARD.
— J. J. OWEN.
— T. POTTENGER.
— THOMAS PRICE, D.D.
J. READ, ESQ.
REV. ROBERT ROFF
— JOSHUA RUSSELL.
— J. SPRIGG, M.A.
— EDWARD STEANE, D.D.
— CHARLES STOVEL.
— THOMAS THOMAS.
— FREDERICK TRESTRAIL.
It has been a matter of regret with many, that the writings of the early
members and ministers of the Baptist churches of this country should be
comparatively so little known. The present appears to be a favourable
time to reprint such of them as may be deemed worthy of perpetuation,
from their historical or theological importance.
These writings are confined to no peculiarity of sentiment, but embrace
every topic of divine truth, which the word of God presents for the
salvation of the believer, as well as for the regulation of the church of
Christ.
To the Baptists, belongs the honour of first asserting in this land, and
of establishing on the immutable basis of just argument and scripture
rule, the right of every man to worship God as conscience dictates, in
submission only to divine command.
Rejecting the authority of men in matters of faith, they wrote with
great simplicity and directness of purpose. Scripture alone was their
authority, and excepting some of their polemical works, their productions
are remarkably free from that parade of learning which was the fault of
their age.
They were not, however, destitute of learning. Most of the early Baptists
had had an university education: and if this privilege was not enjoyed by
their successors, it was because the national seats of learning denied it
to them. The names of Bampfield, Canne, Cornwell, Danvers, Delaune, Du
Veil, Denne, Grantham, Jessey, Knollys, Smyth, and Tombes, are sufficient
to prove that the Baptist churches were not destitute of able and learned
expounders of their sentiments, eminent for their attainments in both
classical and divine knowledge.
The historical value of the works which it is proposed to reproduce,
is very great. Their authors exercised no mean influence on the course
of national affairs during the period of Cromwell’s protectorate, and
they became in subsequent reigns, as they had been in times preceding
the Commonwealth, the especial objects of ecclesiastical and political
persecution. Some of the works which it is desired to publish will also
embrace the period of the Reformation, and illustrate the sufferings
endured, by the baptists of that eventful period, for conscience sake.
As theological writers they are characterized by fervour of spirit; deep
study of the word of God; great facility of application of divine truths
to passing events; a holy attachment to “the truth as it is in Jesus;”
clear and pungent exhibitions of the word of life; an uncompromising
adherence to the scriptures as the rule of doctrine, practice, and
ecclesiastical organization and discipline; and finally, a fearless
following of their convictions, derived from the divine oracles.
Works of this kind are also wanting for our congregational and family
libraries. It is to be feared that too many of us are ignorant of our own
history, and of the great and good men who lost all in the maintenance of
our principles.
The series of proposed volumes will include the works of both General
and Particular Baptists; Records and Manuscripts relating to the rise
and progress of Baptist churches; Translations of such works as may
illustrate the sufferings of the Baptists and the extension of their
principles, together with such Documents as are to be found only in large
historical collections, or may not yet have appeared in an accessible
form. On the Baptismal controversy only those treatises will be given,
which are of acknowledged worth or historic value. The whole will be
accompanied with biographical notices of the authors, and with such notes
and illustrations as may be essential to their completeness.
The publications will consist of works produced before the close of
the seventeenth century. The following list comprises the names of
some of the authors whose works are intended to form part of the
series;—Bampfield, Blackwood, Bunyan, Canne, Collier, Collins, Cornwall,
Danvers, Delaune, Denne, Du Veil, Drapes, Grantham, Griffith, Helwys,
How, Jeffrey, Jessey, Keach, Kiffin, King, Knollys, Lawrence, Palmer,
Powell, Pendarves, Smyth, Stennett, Tombes, Roger Williams, &c.
Terms of Subscription.
1. Every subscriber of ten shillings and sixpence annually will
be entitled to one copy of every work issued during the year of
his subscription. Two volumes at least will be published for
the 10s. 6d.
2. Subscriptions will be considered due, in advance on the
first of January of every year.
3. Ministers and Sunday Schools obtaining each _ten_
subscribers annually, will be entitled to one copy of every
work published in the year for which such subscriptions are
paid.
4. Books will be delivered, free of expense, in London,
Edinburgh, and Dublin, from which places they will be sent at
the cost of the subscriber by any channel he may appoint.
Subscriptions will be received by the Treasurer, at Vassall Road,
Kennington; by the Honorary Secretaries, Mr. UNDERHILL, of Newmarket
House, Nailsworth; Rev. W. Jones, at Stepney College; or by any member
of the Council; also by Mr. G. OFFOR, jun., Secretary, Baptist Mission
House, Moorgate Street, London, to whom all communications for the
Society should be addressed, or at the Depository, B. L. GREEN’S, 68,
Paternoster Row.
* * * * * *
THE
BLOUDY TENENT
OF
PERSECUTION
FOR
CAUSE OF CONSCIENCE DISCUSSED:
AND
MR. COTTON’S LETTER
EXAMINED AND ANSWERED.
BY ROGER WILLIAMS.
EDITED FOR
The Hanserd Knollys Society,
BY
EDWARD BEAN UNDERHILL.
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR THE SOCIETY,
BY J. HADDON, CASTLE STREET, FINSBURY.
1848.
A BIOGRAPHICAL INTRODUCTION.
It was on the 1st day of December, in the year 1630, that Mr. Roger
Williams, with his wife, embarked at Bristol for America, in the ship
Lyon, Captain William Pierce.
Two years and a half before, a number of eminent and enthusiastic men
had gone forth, animated by religious principles and purposes, to seek
a home and a refuge from persecution on the wild and untenanted shores
of Massachusetts Bay. Charles I. had announced his design of ruling
the English people by arbitrary power, only a few days before a patent
for the Company of Massachusetts Bay passed the seals.[1] No provision
was made in this document for the exercise of religious liberty. The
emigrants were puritans, and although they had suffered long for
conscience’ sake, on this subject their views were as contracted as
those of their brethren who in Elizabeth’s reign sought the overthrow of
England’s hierarchy.[2] The patent secured to them, however, to a great
extent, a legislative independence of the mother country; but they soon
employed that power to persecute differing consciences.
The emigrants landed at Salem at the end of June, 1629. A few mud
hovels alone marked the place of their future abode. On their passage
they arranged the order of their government, and bound themselves by
solemn covenant to each other and the Lord. As religion was the cause
of their abandonment of their native land, so was its establishment
their first care. At their request a few of the settlers at Plymouth,
where in 1620 a colony had been established by the members of Mr. John
Robinson’s church, came over to assist and advise on the arrangement of
their church polity. After several conferences, the order determined
on was the congregational, and measures were immediately taken for the
choice of elders and deacons. A day of fasting and prayer was appointed,
and thirty persons covenanted together to walk in the ways of God. Mr.
Skelton was chosen pastor, Mr. Higginson teacher, both puritan clergymen
of celebrity, and Mr. Houghton ruling elder. They agreed with the church
at Plymouth, “That the children of the faithful are church members with
their parents, and that their baptism is a seal of their being so.”[3]
The church was thus self-constituted. It owned no allegiance to bishop,
priest, or king. It recognized but one authority—the King of saints: but
one rule—the word of God. The new system did not, however, meet with
the approbation of all this little company. Some still fondly clung to
the episcopacy of their native land, and to the more imposing rites of
their mother church. The main body of the emigrants did not altogether
refuse to have communion with the church which had so unnaturally driven
them away; but, as they said, they separated from her corruptions, and
rejected the human inventions in worship which they discovered in her
fold. Not so all. Liberty of worship they desired indeed, but not a
new form of polity. Two brothers, John and Samuel Browne, the one a
lawyer, the other a merchant, were the leaders of this little band. They
wished the continuance of the Common Prayer, of the ceremonies usually
observed in the administration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and a
wider door for the entrance of members into a church state. Dissatisfied
with the new order of things, they set up a separate assembly. This was
a mutiny against the state, as well as against the church; and proving
incorrigible, the brothers were sent home in “the Lyon’s Whelp.”[4]
In the year 1630, a large addition was made to the pilgrim band, on the
arrival of Governor Winthrop. Not less than 1500 persons accompanied
him, to escape the bigotry and persecuting spirit of Laud. Several new
settlements were formed, and the seat of the colonial government was
fixed at Boston. Though sincere in their attachment to true religion, and
desirous of practising its duties unmolested by episcopal tyranny, they
thought not of toleration for others. No such idea had dawned upon them.
They were prepared to practise over other consciences the like tyranny to
that from which they had fled.
With nobler views than these did Mr. Williams disembark at Boston, after
a very tempestuous voyage, on the 5th of February in the year 1631. The
infant colony had suffered very much during the winter from the severity
of the weather, and the scarcity of provisions. The arrival of the Lyon
was welcomed with gratitude, as the friendly interposition of the hand of
God.[5]
Roger Williams was at this time little more than thirty years of age—“a
young minister, godly and zealous, having precious gifts.”[6] Tradition
tells us, that he was born in Wales: that he was in some way related to
Cromwell: that his parents were in humble life: and that he owed his
education to Sir Edward Coke, who, accidentally observing his attention
at public worship, and ascertaining the accuracy of the notes he took of
the sermon, sent him to the University of Oxford. All this may or may not
be true; but it is evident that his education was liberal, and that he
had a good acquaintance with the classics and the original languages of
the scriptures.
He himself informs us, that in his early years his heart was imbued with
spiritual life. “From my childhood, the Father of lights and mercies
touched my soul with a love to himself, to his only begotten, the true
Lord Jesus, to his holy scriptures.”[7] At this time he must have been
about twelve years old. His first studies were directed to the law,
probably at the suggestion of his patron. He became early attached to
those democratic principles which are so ably stated in the “Bloudy
Tenent,” and to those rights of liberty which found so able a defender
in the aged Coke. Subsequently, however, he turned his attention to
theology, and assumed the charge of a parish. It was during this period
that he became acquainted with the leading emigrants to America; and he
appears to have been the most decided amongst them in their opposition to
the liturgy, ceremonies, and hierarchy of the English church.[8] It is
probable that it was upon the subject of the grievances they endured, he
had the interview with King James of which he speaks in a letter written
late in life.[9]
It was a notable year, both in Old and in New England, in which Williams
sought a refuge for conscience amid the wilds of America. Autocratic
rule was decided upon by the infatuated Charles, and the utterance of
the most arbitrary principles from the pulpits of the court clergy was
encouraged. Doctrines subversive of popular rights were taught, and the
sermons containing them published at the king’s special command. Laud
assumed a similar authority in ecclesiastical affairs. With unscrupulous
zeal and severity he sought to extirpate puritanism from the church. The
Calvinistic interpretation of the articles was condemned, and Bishop
Davenant was rebuked for a sermon which he preached upon the 17th. The
puritans were to a man Calvinists, the Laudean party were Arminians. And
as if to give the former practical proof of the lengths to which Laud was
prepared to go, and to shut them up either to silence or to voluntary
banishment, Leighton, for his “Plea against Prelacy,” was this year
committed to prison for life, fined £10,000, degraded from his ministry,
whipped, pilloried, his ears cut off, his nose slit, and his face branded
with a hot iron. From this tyranny over thought and conscience Williams
fled, only to bear his testimony against similar outrages upon conscience
and human rights in the New World—to find the same principles in active
operation among the very men who like him had suffered, and who like him
sought relief on that distant shore.
No sooner had Mr. Williams landed at Boston, than we find him declaring
his opinion, that “the magistrate might not punish a breach of the
sabbath, nor any other offence, as it was a breach of the first
table.”[10] Moreover, so impure did he deem the communion of the
church of England, that he hesitated to hold communion with any church
that continued in any manner favourable to it. This was, however, the
case with the church at Boston. It refused to regard the hierarchy
and parishional assemblies of the English church as portions of the
abominations of anti-christ. It permitted its members, when in England,
to commune with it, in hearing the word and in the private administration
of the sacraments.[11] Thus while separating from its corruptions, the
emigrants clave to it with a fond pertinacity. This was displeasing to
the free soul of Williams. He refused to join the congregation at Boston.
It would have been a weak and sinful compliance with evil. He could not
regard the cruelties and severities, and oppression, exercised by the
church of England, with any feelings but those of indignation. That could
not be the true church of Christ on whose skirts was found sprinkled the
blood of saints and martyrs. He therefore gladly accepted the invitation
of the church at Salem, and a few weeks after his arrival he left Boston
to enter upon the pastorate there.
But on the very same day on which he commenced his ministry at Salem
(April 12), the General Court of the Colony expressed its disapprobation
of the step, and required the church to forbear any further proceeding.
This was an arbitrary and unjust interference with the rights of the
Salem church. As a congregational and independent community, it had a
perfect right to select Mr. Williams for its pastor. The choice of its
ministry is one of the church’s most sacred privileges, to be exercised
only in subordination to the laws and to the will of its great Head.
This right the General Court most flagrantly violated, and thus laid the
foundation for that course of resistance which eventually led to the
banishment of Mr. Williams.[12]
To the civil government of the colony Mr. Williams was prepared to give
all due submission. Very soon after his arrival, he entered his name
upon the list of those who desired to be made freemen, and on the 12th
of May took the customary oaths. Yet as if to bring into conflict at
the earliest moment, and to excite the expression of those generous
sentiments on religious and civil liberty which animated the soul of
Mr. Williams, on that very day the court “ordered and agreed, that for
the time to come, no man shall be admitted to the freedom of this body
politic, but such as are members of some of the churches within the
limits of the same.” Thus a theocracy was established. The government
belonged to the saints. They alone could rule in the commonwealth, or
be capable of the exercise of civil rights. “Not only was the door of
calling to magistracy shut against natural and unregenerate men, though
excellently fitted for civil offices, but also against the best and
ablest servants of God, except they be entered into church estate.”[13]
This was to follow, according to Williams’ idea, “Moses’ church
constitution,” “to pluck up the roots and foundations of all common
society in the world, to turn the garden and paradise of the church and
saints into the field of the civil state of the world, and to reduce the
world to the first chaos or confusion.” Our readers will find his reasons
at large, against this perilous course, in the subsequent pages of this
volume.[14]
As peace could not be enjoyed at Salem, before the end of the summer
Mr. Williams withdrew to Plymouth; “where,” says Governor Bradford, “he
was freely entertained, according to our poor ability, and exercised
his gifts among us; and after some time was admitted a member of the
church, and his teaching well approved.”[15] Two years he laboured in
the ministry of the word among the pilgrim fathers; but it would seem
not without proclaiming those principles of freedom which had already
made him an object of jealousy. For on requesting his dismissal thence to
Salem, in the autumn of 1635, we find the elder, Mr. Brewster, persuading
the church at Plymouth to relinquish communion with him, lest he should
“run the same course of rigid separation and anabaptistry which Mr. John
Smith, the se-baptist, at Amsterdam, had done.”[16] It was during his
residence at Plymouth that he acquired that knowledge of the Indian
language, and that acquaintance with the chiefs of the Narragansetts,
which became so serviceable to him in his banishment.
His acceptance of their invitation afforded sincere and great pleasure
to the church at Salem. His former ministry amongst them had resulted
in a warm attachment, and not a few left Plymouth to place themselves
under his spiritual care. Two or three weeks only could have passed after
his return, when, on the 3rd of September, Mr. Cotton, his destined
antagonist in the strife on liberty of conscience, landed at Boston, in
company with Mr. Hooker and Mr. Stone; which “glorious triumvirate coming
together, made the poor people in the wilderness to say, That the God
of heaven had supplied them with what would in some sort answer their
three great necessities: _Cotton_ for their clothing, _Hooker_ for their
fishing, and _Stone_ for their building.”[17]
John Cotton was the son of a puritan lawyer. Educated at Cambridge,
he had acquired a large amount of learning; and by his study of the
schoolmen sharpened the natural acuteness and subtilty of his mind. In
theology he was a thorough Calvinist, and adopted in all their extent
the theocratic principles of the great Genevan reformer. On his arrival
in New England, he was immediately called upon to advise and arrange the
civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the colony. By his personal influence
the churches were settled in a regular and permanent form, and their
laws of discipline were finally determined by the platform adopted at
Cambridge in 1648. The civil laws were adjusted to the polity of the
church, and while nominally distinct, they supported and assisted each
other.[18]
Matter for complaint was soon discovered against Mr. Williams. At
Plymouth he had already urged objections relative to the royal patent,
under which the colonists held their lands. A manuscript treatise
concerning it now became the subject of consideration by the General
Court. In this work, Mr. Williams appears to have questioned the King’s
right to grant the possession of lands which did not belong to him, but
to the natives who hunted over them. Equity required that they should be
fairly purchased of the Indian possessors. Mr. Williams was “convented”
before the Court. Subsequently, he gave satisfaction to his judges of his
“intentions and loyalty,” and the matter was passed by. It will be seen,
however, that this accusation was revived, and declared to be one of the
causes of his banishment.[19]
For a few months, during the sickness of Mr. Skelton, Mr. Williams
continued his ministry without interruption, and with great acceptance.
On the 2nd of August, 1634, Mr. Skelton died, and the Salem church
shortly thereafter chose him to be their settled teacher. To this the
magistrates and ministers objected. His principles were obnoxious to
them. They sent a request to the church, that they would not ordain him.
But in the exercise of their undoubted right the church persisted, and
Mr. Williams was regularly inducted to the office of teacher.[20]
Occasion was soon found to punish the church and its refractory minister.
On November the 17th, he was summoned to appear before the Court, for
again teaching publicly “against the king’s patent, and our great sin
in claiming right thereby to this country: and for terming the churches
of England anti-christian.” A new accusation was made on the 30th of
the following April, 1635. He had taught publicly, it was said, “that a
magistrate ought not to tender an oath to an unregenerate man, for that
we thereby have communion with a wicked man in the worship of God, and
cause him to take the name of God in vain. He was heard before all the
ministers, and very clearly confuted.”[21] In the month of July he was
again summoned to Boston, and some other dangerous opinions were now laid
to his charge. He was accused of maintaining:—That the magistrate ought
not to punish the breach of the first table, otherwise than in such cases
as did disturb the civil peace:—That a man ought not to pray with the
unregenerate, though wife or child—That a man ought not to give thanks
after the sacrament, nor after meat. But the aggravation of his offences
was that, notwithstanding these crimes were charged upon him, the church
at Salem, in spite of the magisterial admonitions, and the exhortations
of the pastors, had called him to the office of teacher. To mark their
sense of this recusancy, the Salem people were refused, three days after,
the possession of a piece of land for which they had applied, and to
which they had a just claim.[22]
This flagrant wrong induced Mr. Williams and his church to write
admonitory letters to the churches of which these magistrates were
members, requesting them to admonish the magistrates of the criminality
of their conduct, it being a “breach of the rule of justice.” The letters
were thus addressed because the members of the churches were the only
freemen, and the only parties interested in the civil government of the
colony. They were without effect. His own people began to waver under
the pressure of ministerial power and influence. Mr. Williams’s health
too gave way, “by his excessive labours, preaching thrice a week, by
labours night and day in the field; and by travels night and day to go
and come from the Court.” Even his wife added to his affliction by her
reproaches, “till at length he drew her to partake with him in the error
of his way.”[23] He now declared his intention to withdraw communion
from all the churches in the Bay, and from Salem also if they would not
separate with him. His friend Endicot was imprisoned for justifying the
letter of admonition, and Mr. Sharpe was summoned to appear to answer for
the same. In October he was called before the Court for the last time.
All the ministers were present. They had already decided “that any one
was worthy of banishment who should obstinately assert, that the civil
magistrate might not intermeddle even to stop a church from apostacy and
heresy.”[24] His letters were read, which he justified; he maintained all
his opinions. After a disputation with Mr. Hooker, who could not “reduce
him from any of his errors,” he was sentenced to banishment in six weeks,
all the ministers, save one, approving of the deed.[25]
Before proceeding to detail the subsequent events of his history, it will
be necessary to make a few remarks on the topics of accusation brought
against Mr. Williams, and especially since they are often referred to in
the pages of the works now in the reader’s hands.
The causes of his banishment are given by Mr. Williams in p. 375 of this
volume, with which agrees Governor Winthrop’s testimony cited above. Mr.
Cotton, however, does not concur in this statement: the two last causes
he denies, giving as his reason, “that many are known to hold both those
opinions, and are yet tolerated not only to live in the commonwealth,
but also in the fellowship of the churches.” The other two points, he
likewise asserts, were held by some, who yet were permitted to enjoy
both civil and church liberties.[26] What then were the grounds of this
harsh proceeding according to Mr. Cotton? They were as follows:—“Two
things there were, which to my best observation, and remembrance, caused
the sentence of his banishment: and two other fell in, that hastened it.
1. His violent and tumultuous carriage against the patent.... 2. The
magistrates, and other members of the general Court upon intelligence of
some episcopal and malignant practices against the country, they made
an order of Court to take trial of the fidelity of the people, not by
imposing upon them, but by offering to them, an oath of fidelity. This
oath when it came abroad, he vehemently withstood it, and dissuaded
sundry from it, partly because it was, as he said, Christ’s prerogative
to have his office established by oath: partly because an oath was a
part of God’s worship, and God’s worship was not to be put upon carnal
persons, as he conceived many of the people to be.” The two concurring
causes were:—1. That notwithstanding his “heady and turbulent spirit,”
which induced the magistrates to advise the church at Salem not to call
him to the office of teacher, yet the major part of the church made
choice of him. And when for this the Court refused Salem the parcel of
land, Mr. Williams stirred up the church to unite with him in letters of
admonition to the churches “whereof those magistrates were members, to
admonish them of their open transgression of the rule of justice.” 2.
That when by letters from the ministers the Salem church was inclined to
abandon their teacher, Mr. Williams renounced communion with Salem and
all the churches in the Bay, refused to resort to public worship, and
preached to “sundry who began to resort to his family,” on the Lord’s
day.[27]
On examination, it is evident that the two statements do not
materially differ. Mr. Williams held the patents to be sinful “wherein
Christian kings, so called, are invested with right by virtue of
their Christianity, to take and give away the lands and countries of
other men.”[28] It were easy to represent opposition to the patent
of New England as overthrowing the foundation on which colonial laws
were framed, and as a denial of the power claimed by the ministers
and the General Court “to erect such a government of the church as is
most agreeable to the word.” Such was Mr. Cotton’s view, and which he
succeeded in impressing on the minds of the magistrates. Mr. Williams may
perhaps have acquired somewhat of his jealousy concerning these patents
from the instructions of Sir Edward Coke, who so nobly withstood the
indiscriminate granting of monopolies in the parliament of his native
land.[29] There can be no question that Williams was substantially right.
His own practice, when subsequently laying the basis for the state of
Rhode Island, evinces the equity, uprightness, and generosity of his
motives. Perhaps too his views upon the origin of all governmental power
may have had some influence in producing his opposition. He held that the
sovereignty lay in the hands of the people. No patent or royal rights
could therefore be alleged as against the popular will. That must make
rulers, confirm the laws, and control the acts of the executive. Before
it patents, privileges, and monopolies, the exclusive rights of a few,
must sink away.
Moreover, it is clear, from Cotton’s own statement, that this question
of the patent involved that of religious liberty. The colony claimed
under it the right of erecting a church, of framing an ecclesiastical
polity: and it exercised it. Ecclesiastical laws were made every whit
as stringent as the canons of the establishment of the mother country.
Already we have seen that church members alone could be freemen. Every
adult person was compelled to be present at public congregational
worship, and to support both ministry and church with payment of dues
enforced by magisterial power.[30] “Three months was, by the law, the
time of patience to the excommunicate, before the secular power was to
deal with him:” then the obstinate person might be fined, imprisoned, or
banished. Several persons were banished for noncompliance with the state
religion.[31] In 1644, a law was promulgated against the baptists, by
which “it is ordered and agreed, that if any person or persons, within
this jurisdiction, shall either openly condemn or oppose the baptizing
of infants,” or seduce others, or leave the congregation during the
administration of the rite, they “shall be sentenced to banishment.” The
same year we accordingly find that a poor man was tied up and whipped
for refusing to have his child sprinkled.[32] Heresy, blasphemy, and
some other the like crimes, exposed the culprit to expatriation. It
was against this course that Mr. Williams afterwards wrote his “Bloudy
Tenent;” and through the “sad evil” “of the civil magistrates dealing in
matters of conscience and religion, as also of persecuting and hunting
any for any matter merely spiritual and religious,” which he opposed, was
he banished.[33]
The question of the patent could not therefore be discussed in the
General Court without involving a discussion upon religious liberty. Mr.
Cotton has chosen to make most prominent, in his articles of accusation,
the question of the origin of the patent; the magistrate, whose
statement is adduced by Mr. Williams, places in the forefront that of
the magistrate’s power over conscience. As the matter stood, these two
subjects were allied. To doubt the one was to doubt the other. But Mr.
Williams was decided as to the iniquity of both.
On the subject of the denial of the oath of fidelity, it is evident, from
Mr. Cotton’s statement, that the oath owed its origin to intolerance.
Episcopacy should have no place under congregational rule, no more than
independency could be suffered to exist under the domination of the
English hierarchy. But Mr. Williams appears to have objected to the oath
chiefly on other grounds: it was allowed by all parties that oath-taking
was a religious act. If so, it was concluded by Mr. Williams, in entire
consistency with his other views, that, 1, It ought not to be forced
on any, so far as it was religious; nor, 2, could an unregenerate man
take part in what was thought to be an act of religious worship. Whether
an oath be a religious act, we shall not discuss; but on the admitted
principles of the parties engaged in this strife, Mr. Williams’s argument
seems to us irrefragable.
On the concurring causes referred to by Mr. Cotton, it will be
unnecessary to make extended comment. The first of these is treated
of at length in the second piece of this volume. Mr. Cotton and Mr.
Williams were representatives of the two great bodies of dissentients
from the law-established church of England. One party deemed it to
be an anti-christian church, its rites to be avoided, its ministry
forsaken, its communion abjured: these were the Separatists, or true
Nonconformists, to whom Mr. Williams belonged.[34] The other party,
although declaiming against the supposed corruptions of the church, loved
its stately service, its governmental patronage, its common prayer, and
its parishional assemblies:[35] these were the puritans who, in New
England, became Independents, or Congregationalists[36]—in Old England,
during the Commonwealth, chiefly Presbyterians, and some Independents: to
these Mr. Cotton belonged.
Mr. Williams thought it his duty to renounce all connection with
the oppressor of the Lord’s people, and also with those who still
held communion with her.[37] Let us not deem him too rigid in these
principles of separation. There can be no fellowship between Christ and
Belial. And if, as was indeed the case, the Anglican church too largely
exhibited those principles which were subversive of man’s inalienable
rights, exercised a tyrannous and intolerable sway over the bodies and
consciences of the people, and drove from her fold, as outcasts, many of
her best and holiest children,—it is no wonder that they should in return
regard her touch as polluting, her ecclesiastical frame as the work of
anti-christ. The Congregationalists introduced her spirit and practice
into the legislation of the New World, and it behoved every lover of true
liberty to stand aloof and separate from the evil. This did Mr. Williams.
He was right in regarding the relation of the Congregational polity to
the civil state in New England as _implicitly_ a national church state,
although that relation was denied to be _explicitly_ national by Mr.
Cotton and his brethren. “I affirm,” said Williams, “that that church
estate, that religion and worship which is commanded, or permitted to
be _but one_ in a country, nation, or province, _that_ church is not in
the nature of the particular churches of Christ, but in the nature of a
national or state church.”[38]
It is, however, to this controversy that we are indebted for the
second of the pieces reprinted in this volume. While wandering among
the uncivilized tribes of Indians, Mr. Cotton’s letter came into Mr.
Williams’s hands.[39] It seems to have been a part of a somewhat
extended correspondence between them, and to have originated in Mr.
Cotton’s twofold desire to correct the aberrations, as he deemed them,
of his old friend, and to shield himself from the charge of being not
only an accessory, but to some degree the instigator of the sentence
of banishment decreed against him. His defence of himself is unworthy
of his candour, and betrays, by its subtle distinctions and passionate
language, by his cruel insinuations and ready seizure of the most
trifling inaccuracies, a mind ill at ease and painfully conscious that
he had dealt both unjustly and unkindly with his former companion in
tribulation. By some means, but without his knowledge, Mr. Cotton’s
letter got into print, to him most “unwelcome;” and while in England, in
1644, Mr. Williams printed his reply. It will be seen that Mr. Williams
has given the whole of it: and with scrupulous fidelity, adding thereto
his remarks and reasonings. Mr. Cotton, however, did not hesitate to
aver the righteousness of the persecution and banishment which Williams
endured.[40]
In the Colonial Records, the date of Mr. Williams’s sentence is November
3, (1635). He immediately withdrew from all church communion with the
authors of his sufferings. A few attached friends assembled around him,
and preparations were made for departure.[41] It would seem that he
had, for some time, contemplated the formation of a settlement where
liberty, both civil and religious, should be enjoyed. This reached the
ears of his adversaries. His Lord’s day addresses were attractive to
many, and withdrew them from the congregations of the dominant sect.
Provoked at “the increase of concourse of people to him on the Lord’s
days in private,” and fearing the further extension of principles so
subversive of their state-church proceedings, they resolved on Mr.
Williams’s immediate deportation. Two or three months had to elapse, of
the additional time granted for his departure, before their sentence
could take effect. Delay was dangerous: therefore the Court met at Boston
on the 11th of January, 1636, and resolved that he should immediately
be shipped for England, in a vessel then riding at anchor in the bay. A
warrant was despatched summoning him to Boston. He returned answer that
his life was in hazard; and came not. A pinnace was sent to fetch him;
“but when they came at his house, they found he had been gone three days
before; but whither they could not learn.”[42]
His wife and two children, the youngest less than three months old, were
left behind. By a mortgage on his property at Salem he had raised money
to supply his wants. He then plunged into the untrodden wilds; being
“denied the common air to breathe in, and a civil cohabitation upon the
same common earth; yea, and also without mercy and human compassion,
exposed to winter miseries in a howling wilderness.”[43]
After fourteen weeks’ exposure to frost and snow, “not knowing what
bread or bed did mean,” he arrived at Seekonk,[44] on the east bank of
Pawtucket river. Here he began to build and plant. In the following
expressive lines he seems to refer to the kind support afforded him by
the Indians:—
“God’s providence is rich to his,
Let none distrustful be;
In wilderness, in great distress,
These ravens have fed me.”[45]
Their hospitality he requited throughout his long life by acts of
benevolence, and by unceasing efforts to benefit and befriend them. He
taught them Christianity; and was the first of the American pilgrims to
convey to these savage tribes the message of salvation.
Before his crops were ripe for harvest, he received intimation from
the governor of Plymouth, that he had “fallen into the edge of their
bounds,” and as they were loath to offend the people of the Bay, he was
requested to remove beyond their jurisdiction. With five companions he
embarked in his canoe, descending the river, till arriving at a little
cove on the opposite side, they were hailed by the Indians with the
cry of “_What cheer?_”[46] Cheered with this friendly salutation they
went ashore. Again embarking, and descending the stream, they reached
a spot at the mouth of the Mohassuck river, where they landed, near to
a spring—remaining to this day as an emblem of those vital blessings
which flow to society from true liberty. That spot is “holy ground,”
where sprung up the first civil polity in the world permitting freedom
to the human soul in things of God. There Roger Williams founded the
town of Providence. It was, and has ever been, the “refuge of distressed
consciences.” Persecution has never sullied its annals. Freedom to
worship God was the desire of its founder—for himself and for all, and he
nobly endured till it was accomplished.
It has been generally held that the fourteen weeks above referred to were
spent by Mr. Williams in traversing the wilderness, and in penetrating
the vast forests which separated Salem from Seekonk by land. Some doubts
have of late, however, been thrown upon this view.
It can scarcely be supposed that so long a time could have been
occupied in the land journey from Salem to Seekonk. The distance is
about fifty miles. Even if we allow a considerable addition to this,
occasioned by the detour rendered necessary to avoid the settlements
on the Bay, the time consumed cannot be accounted for. He himself has
given us no details of this eventful journey. Only passing references
to it occur in his various works. Yet these are of such a kind as to
render it more probable that his journey was made by sea, coasting
from place to place, holding intercourse with the native tribes, whose
language he had previously acquired.[47] His route by sea would be
not less than 200 miles, to accomplish which by his own unaided arm,
together with the interviews he undoubtedly held with the aborigines,
and the time necessarily allotted for repose, or spent in waiting for
favourable weather, might well fill the fourteen weeks he tells us his
journey lasted. His language supports this view, “Mr. Winthrop, he
says, privately wrote me _to steer my course_ to the Narraganset Bay.
I took his prudent motion, and waiving all other thoughts and emotions
_I steered my course_ from Salem, though in winter snow, into these
parts.” Again, “It pleased the Most High to direct my steps _into this
bay_;” which words would seem only applicable to a voyage by water. “I
was sorely _tossed_ for one fourteen weeks.” This language is evidently
such as would be most natural in referring to a passage by sea.[48] But
there is one paragraph in the present volume which would seem to decide
the question. It is found at page 386. “Had his soul [Cotton’s] been in
my soul’s case, exposed to the miseries, poverties, necessities, wants,
debts, _hardships of sea and land, in a banished condition_, he would,
I presume, reach forth a more merciful cordial to the afflicted.” Here
distinct reference is made to the sea as the scene of some of those
hardships he endured. It is moreover known that travelling at that time
was chiefly by water, that Williams was a skilful boatman, and that he
possessed a boat of his own soon after his settlement at Providence. In
the view of these particulars, we are constrained to the conclusion that
Mr. Williams journeyed by sea, often landing to seek for food, and to
hold intercourse with the natives as to his final settlement.[49]
On reaching Providence, the first object of Mr. Williams would be to
obtain possession of some land. This he acquired from the Narragansett
Indians, the owners of the soil surrounding the bay into which he had
steered his course. By a deed dated the 24th March, 1638, certain
lands and meadows were made over to him by the Indian chiefs which he
had purchased of them two years before, that is, at the time of his
settlement amongst them. He shortly after reconveyed these lands, to
his companions. In a deed dated 1661, he says, “I desired it might be
for a shelter for persons distressed for conscience. I then considering
the condition of divers of my distressed countrymen, I communicated my
said purchase unto my loving friends [whom he names], who then desired
to take shelter here with me.”[50] This worthy conception of his noble
mind was realized, and he lived to see a settled community formed wherein
liberty of conscience was a primary and fundamental law. Thirty-five
years afterward he could say, “Here, all over this colony, a great number
of weak and distressed souls, scattered, are flying hither from Old and
New England, the Most High and Only Wise hath, in his infinite wisdom,
provided this country and this corner as a shelter for the poor and
persecuted, according to their several persuasions.”[51]
The year 1638 witnessed the settlement of Rhode Island, from which
the state subsequently took its name, by some other parties, driven
from Massachusetts by the persecution of the ruling clerical power.
So great was the hatred or the envy felt towards the new colony, that
Massachusetts framed a law prohibiting the inhabitants of Providence from
coming within its bounds.[52] This was a cruel law, for thus trading
was hindered with the English vessels frequenting Boston, from whence
came the chief supplies of foreign goods. So great was the scarcity of
paper from this cause among the Rhode Islanders, that “the first of their
writings that are to be found, appear on small scraps of paper, wrote as
thick, and crowded as close as possible.” “God knows,” says Williams,
“that many thousand pounds cannot repay the very temporary losses I have
sustained,” by being debarred from Boston.[53]
In March 1639, Mr. Williams became a baptist, together with several more
of his companions in exile. As none in the colony had been baptized, a
Mr. Holliman was selected to baptize Mr. Williams, who then baptized
Mr. Holliman and ten others. Thus was founded the first baptist church
in America.[54] On the 1st of the following July, Mr. Williams and his
wife, with eight others, were excommunicated by the church at Salem, then
under the pastoral care of the celebrated Hugh Peters. Thus was destroyed
the last link which bound these exiles to the congregational churches
of New England, where infant baptism and persecution abode, as in other
churches, in sisterly embrace together.[55]
Mr. Williams appears to have remained pastor of the newly formed church
but a few months. For, while retaining all his original sentiments
upon the doctrines of God’s word, and the ordinances of the church, he
conceived a true ministry must derive its authority from direct apostolic
succession or endowment: that, therefore, without such a commission
he had no authority to assume the office of pastor, or be a teacher
in the house of God, or proclaim to the impenitent the saving mercies
of redemption. It is, however, by no means clear that he regarded the
latter as wrong, for we find him in after days desiring to print several
discourses which he had delivered amongst the Indians.[56] He seems
rather to have conceived that the church of Christ had so fallen into
apostacy, as to have lost both its right form and the due administration
of the ordinances, which could only be restored by some new apostolic,
or specially commissioned messenger from above. Various passages in the
present volume will be met with which favour this view:[57] the following
is from his “Hireling Ministry:” “In the poor small span of my life, I
desired to have been a diligent and constant observer, and have been
myself many ways engaged, in city, in country, in court, in schools, in
universities, in churches, in Old and New England, and yet cannot, in
the holy presence of God, bring in the result of a satisfying discovery,
that either the begetting ministry of the apostles or messengers to the
nations, or the feeding and nourishing ministry of pastors and teachers,
according to the first institution of the Lord Jesus, are yet restored
and extant.”[58] From this passage it would seem that his objections
were rather owing to the imperfection of the church in its revived
condition, than to the want of a right succession in the ministry. These
imperfections could be removed by a new apostolic ministry alone. He
therefore was opposed to “the office of any ministry, but such as the
Lord Jesus appointeth.” Perhaps in the following assertion of Mr. Cotton
we have the true expression of Mr. Williams’s views. He conceived “that
the apostacy of anti-christ hath so far corrupted all, that there can
be no recovery out of that apostacy till Christ shall send forth new
apostles to plant churches anew.”[59]