Returns to Salem—Ministers Meetings—Court again interferes—the rights
of the Indians—his book against the patent—wearing of
veils—controversy about the cross in the colors.
Mr. Williams left Plymouth probably about the end of August, 1633.[62]
He resumed his labors at Salem, as an assistant to Mr. Skelton, though,
for some cause, he was not elected to any office till after Mr.
Skelton’s death. Perhaps the expectation of this event induced the
church to delay the election of Mr. Williams.
Soon after his return to Salem, his watchful love of liberty seems to
have excited him, together with the venerable Mr. Skelton, to express
some apprehension of the tendencies of a meeting, which several
ministers had established, for the ostensible and probably real purpose
of mutual improvement, and consultation respecting their duties, and the
interests of religion. Winthrop thus states, under the date of November,
1633:
“The ministers in the Bay and Saugus did meet once a fortnight, at one
of their houses, by course, where some question of moment was debated.
Mr. Skelton, the pastor of Salem, and Mr. Williams, who was removed from
Plymouth thither, (but not in any office, though he exercised by way of
prophecy) took some exception against it, as fearing it might grow in
time to a presbytery or superintendency, to the prejudice of the
churches’ liberties. But this fear was without cause; for they were all
clear in that point, that no church or person can have power over
another church; neither did they, in their meetings, exercise any such
jurisdiction.” Vol. i. p. 116.
It may be true, that the fears of Mr. Skelton and Mr. Williams were
without cause, and, in our own times, such meetings of ministers are
held, with much advantage to themselves and to the churches, and without
exciting alarm. But before we decide, that Mr. Williams was
unnecessarily apprehensive, and especially before we accuse him of a
turbulent and factious temper, it deserves inquiry, whether his
experience of ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance in England might
not justify the fear, that the frequent consultations of the ministers
were not ominous of good to the independence of the churches and to
liberty of conscience. Mr. Skelton, however, seems to have been the
principal in this opposition.[63] It may have been a good service to the
cause of liberty and of religion. A watchful dread of encroachments on
civil or religious freedom is not useless, in any age. It was a
prominent trait in the character of the colonists, before the
revolution, and it will always be cherished by a free people. It is a
salutary provision, like the sense of fear in the human bosom. It may
sometimes cause an unnecessary alarm, as the watchman may arouse the
city with an unfounded report of danger. But these evils are preferable
to the incautious negligence, which fears not peril, and thus invites
it.
But more important causes of offence to the magistrates and the clergy
were soon found, in the sentiments and conduct of Mr. Williams. So early
as December 27, 1633, we find the General Court again convened to
consult respecting him:
“December 27. The Governor and Assistants met at Boston, and took into
consideration a treatise, which Mr. Williams (then of Salem) had sent to
them, and which he had formerly written to the Governor and Council of
Plymouth, wherein, among other things, he disputed their right to the
lands they possessed here, and concluded that, claiming by the King’s
grant, they could have no title, nor otherwise, except they compounded
with the natives. For this, taking advice with some of the most
judicious ministers, (who much condemned Mr. Williams’ error and
presumption) they gave order, that he should be convented at the next
Court, to be censured, &c. There were three passages chiefly whereat
they were much offended: 1. for that he chargeth King James to have told
a solemn public lie, because, in his patent, he blessed God that he was
the first Christian prince that had discovered this land: 2. for that he
chargeth him and others with blasphemy, for calling Europe Christendom,
or the Christian world: 3. for that he did personally apply to our
present King, Charles, these three places in the Revelations, viz:
[blank.][64]
“Mr. Endicott being absent, the Governor wrote to him to let him know
what was done, and withal added divers arguments to confute the said
errors, wishing him to deal with Mr. Williams to retract the same, &c.
Whereto he returned a very modest and discreet answer. Mr. Williams also
wrote to the Governor, and also to him and the rest of the Council very
submissively, professing his intent to have been only to have written
for the private satisfaction of the Governor, &c. of Plymouth, without
any purpose to have stirred any further in it, if the Governor here had
not required a copy of him; withal offering his book, or any part of it,
to be burnt.
“At the next Court he appeared _penitently_, and gave satisfaction of
his intention and loyalty. So it was left, and nothing done in it.” Vol.
i. p. 122.
The book, which occasioned these transactions, has not been
preserved.[65] We know not in what terms Mr. Williams uttered his
offensive opinions. The doctrine which he maintained, that the charter
from the King of England could not convey to the colonists the right to
occupy the lands of the Indians, without their consent, is, in the
highest degree, honorable to his head and his heart. He clearly saw the
utter absurdity and injustice of the pretension, whether made by the
Pope or by a Protestant monarch, of sovereignty over other countries,
merely on the ground of prior discovery, or of the barbarous and
wandering character of the inhabitants. It may be a useful regulation
among nations, that the first discoverers of a country shall possess a
superior right to intercourse with the inhabitants for trade or other
purposes. But no people, whether Pagans or Christians, can rightfully be
subjected to a sway, to which they have not voluntarily submitted. This
fundamental principle of human rights applies to the Indians. They were
independent tribes, and could, in no sense, be considered as the
subjects of the King of England. The fact, that some of his vessels had
sailed along their coasts, no more gave him a title to be their
sovereign, than the passage of one of their canoes up the Thames would
have transferred to Canonicus or Powhatan a claim to the crown of
England. If the King possessed no jurisdiction over the Indians, he
could not, of course, convey a title to their lands. It was this point
on which Mr. Williams insisted with special earnestness. “His own
account of this matter,” says Mr. Backus, (vol. i. p. 58,) “informs us,
that the sin of the patents which lay so heavy on his mind was, that
therein ‘Christian Kings (so called) are invested with a right, by
virtue of their _Christianity_, to take and give away the lands and
countries of other men.’[66] And he tells us, that this evil so deeply
afflicted his soul, that ‘before his troubles and banishment, he drew up
a letter, not without the approbation of some of the chiefs of
New-England, then tender also upon this point before God, directed unto
the King himself, humbly acknowledging the evil of THAT PART of the
patent, which respects the donation of lands,’” &c.[67] And the
colonists themselves acted, generally, on the very principle which Mr.
Williams advocated. They purchased the lands of the natives, for a
trifling recompense, as it may seem to us, but such as satisfied the
Indians. Cotton Mather states, though he reckons it as a proof of
_civility_, that “notwithstanding the patent which they had for the
country, they fairly purchased of the natives the several tracts of land
which they afterwards possessed.”[68] Dr. Dwight asserts, that
“exclusively of the country of the Pequods, the inhabitants of
Connecticut bought, unless I am deceived, every inch of ground contained
within that colony, of its native proprietors. The people of
Rhode-Island, Plymouth, Massachusetts and New-Hampshire, proceeded
wholly in the same equitable manner. Until Philip’s war, in 1675, not a
single foot of ground was claimed or occupied by the colonists on any
other score but that of fair purchase.”[69] These facts are honorable to
the pilgrims, and assuredly Roger Williams is entitled to some praise
for steadily advocating this policy from the beginning. He, perhaps,
construed the patent with too much rigor. The King did not, it may be,
mean all that his lofty royal style implied. In his patent to the
Plymouth Company, he alludes to the “wonderful plague” which had raged
among the natives, and left the “large and goodly territories deserted
as it were by the natural inhabitants.” He nevertheless calls himself
the “sovereign lord” of the whole continent, and therefore by his
“special grace, mere motion, and certain knowledge,” gives and grants to
the Company a large part of the continent, from sea to sea, without
intimating that any rights belonged to the natives. A warm friend to the
Indians might easily construe such an instrument as a designed and
flagrant usurpation of their rights. We have seen how the colonists of
New-England practised under the patent, and Mr. Cotton, in his reply to
Roger Williams, affirms: “It was neither the King’s intendment, nor the
English planters’, to take possession of the country by murder or by
robbery, but either to take possession of the void places of the
country, by the law of nature, (for _vacuum domicilium cedit occupanti_)
or if we took any lands from the natives, it was by way of purchase and
free consent. We have not our land merely by right of patent from the
King, but that the natives are true owners of all that they possess or
improve. Neither do I know any amongst us, that either then were, or now
are, of another mind.” Bloody Tenet Washed, p. 26.
But this subject deserves a more full consideration than we can here
give it. The suggestions now offered may suffice to exhibit the upright
integrity and sound judgment which drew from Mr. Williams his
declarations in favor of the natives. It seems, that his book discussed
the abstract question, and probably it was called forth by some
expression of the opposite doctrine. It was not intended for the public
eye, but was a private communication to the Governor and other gentlemen
of Plymouth. He could not be charged with a public attack in this book
on the charter. Nor is it certain, that he questioned the authority of
the charter, so far as it could operate without an infringement of the
rights of the Indians. He was, indeed, charged by Mr. Cotton (Hubbard,
210) with insisting that the charter ought to be returned to the King.
This would certainly have been very unwise, but we can hardly suppose
that Mr. Williams would carry his opposition to this unreasonable
length. Winthrop does not intimate that any such opinion was expressed,
and Mr. Cotton may have misunderstood Mr. Williams’ real meaning.
In regard to the passages which were construed as disrespectful to the
King, it may be sufficient to say, that his own words are not reported;
and at a meeting of the Court, in January, the magistrates and the
clergy acknowledged that they had taken unnecessary offence. It is
probable that they misunderstood him. Winthrop says, under date of
January 24, 1633–4: “The Governor and Council met again at Boston, to
consider of Mr. Williams’ letter, &c. when, with the advice of Mr.
Cotton and Mr. Wilson, and weighing his letter, and further considering
of the aforesaid offensive passages in his book, (which being written in
very obscure and implicative phrases, might well admit of doubtful
interpretation,) they found the matters not to be so evil as at first
they seemed. Whereupon they agreed, that, upon his retraction, &c. or
taking an oath of allegiance to the King, &c. it should be passed over.”
Vol. i. p. 123.
The conduct of Mr. Williams on this occasion was, it must be
acknowledged, mild and conciliatory. He offered to burn the offensive
book, though he did not retract his opinions. He wrote to the Court, we
are told, “submissively,” and afterwards appeared before them
“penitently,” and furnished satisfactory evidence of his “loyalty.” We
cannot determine, how far these expressions may be construed to imply an
acknowledgment of error on the part of Mr. Williams; but they are
valuable, as a proof that he was not so obstinate and contumacious as
the world have been taught to regard him.
He was now permitted, for a while, to continue his ministry at Salem,
without interruption from the magistrates. He was popular as a preacher,
and the people at Salem became strongly attached to him. Mr. Skelton
died in August, 1634, and Mr. Williams was soon after invited to become
the teacher of the church. The magistrates sent to the church a request,
that they would not ordain him; but the church persisted, and Mr.
Williams was regularly introduced to the office of teacher.
This “great contempt of authority,” as it was afterwards pronounced to
be by the magistrates and ministers, was not forgotten. We shall soon
see how it was punished.
We may here take notice of two charges against Mr. Williams, which,
trivial as they are, have been often alleged to his disadvantage. It has
been said, that he preached on the use of veils by females, and insisted
that they should wear them in religious assemblies. We have no record of
his real sentiments on this frivolous subject. Dr. Bentley asserts, that
Mr. Endicott had introduced it before Mr. Williams arrived, and that the
latter adopted the notion, rather to gratify Mr. Endicott and Mr.
Skelton, than because he felt any interest in it himself.[70] And if it
were true, that he was the author of the custom, and wasted his time in
establishing it, we should regard it as a venial weakness, springing
from a reverence for the Scriptures, and a desire for the decorum of
public worship. Before we condemn him, we should call to mind, that
other divines of great name in New-England, such as President Chauncy
and John Elliot, preached vehemently against wigs, and that, in 1649,
the magistrates signed a grave protest against the custom among men of
wearing long hair, and requested the clergy to preach against it, “as a
thing uncivil and unmanly, whereby men do deform themselves, and offend
sober and modest men, and do corrupt good manners.”[71]
The other charge is of more importance. It is said, that in consequence
of Mr. Williams’ preaching, Mr. Endicott cut the cross out of the
military colors, as a relic of antichristian superstition. This act was
doubtless unjustifiable, because the colors were established by the
authority of the King, and ought to have been viewed as a merely civil
regulation. But there is no evidence that Mr. Williams advised the
measure. It seems rather to have been a practical application, by Mr.
Endicott, of the doctrine maintained by Mr. Williams on the unlawfulness
of the ceremonies and symbols which had been used in the service of
idolatry and of Popery. The great controversy between the Puritans and
the Prelates in England mainly turned on the use of the surplice, and
the sign of the cross, and other Popish ceremonies, which the English
Church retained. The Puritans would not conform to the church, on
account of these ceremonies, which they regarded as abominable relics of
Popery. It was a principle among them, on which they acted, that “such
rites and ceremonies as had been abused to idolatry, and manifestly
tended to lead men back to Popery and superstition, were no longer
indifferent, but to be rejected as unlawful.”[72]
Mr. Williams probably preached this doctrine at Salem, and Mr. Endicott
deemed it his duty, as a magistrate, to remove from the colors the
cross, which was the favorite symbol of Popery.[73] Dr. Bentley asserts,
that Mr. Williams was the “_innocent_, though the _real_ cause of
it.”[74] Mr. Endicott was summoned before the Court, admonished, and
declared incapable, for one year, of holding any public office, as a
punishment for the act; but neither he, nor the Court, appear to have
attributed any blame to Mr. Williams, which we may, without a want of
charity, suppose they would have done, if there had been any reasonable
pretence.